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

Relationship of Fall Watering Practice to Winter Injury of Conifers

Harold Pellett, Rita Hummel and Laurie Mainquist
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) June 1980, 6 (6) 146-149; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1980.037
Harold Pellett
Department of Horticultural Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnseota, Chaska, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Rita Hummel
Department of Horticultural Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnseota, Chaska, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurie Mainquist
Department of Horticultural Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnseota, Chaska, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

To reduce incidence of winter injury, it has been a long standing recommendation and practice of tree maintenance specialists that trees, especially evergreens, be given ample soil moisture prior to soil freezeup (8). If not stated, it is implied that the critical time for watering is just prior to freezeup and that the purpose is to provide ample soil moisture to allow the trees to replace the moisture that is lost through transpiration in mid-winter.

A few years ago we began to question the validity of this practice or at least the implications that accompany the recommendation. Our reasons for questioning the implications are two-fold: (A) In climates such as ours in Minnesota it seems highly unlikely that trees could replace water lost from the tops during mid-winter since the upper layer of soil remains constantly frozen from late November until March. Thus water would need to pass from the roots through frozen tissue to reach the top. (B) Cold hardiness research has shown that slight moisture stress accelerates cold acclimation (1, 2, 4) and lower tissue water levels frequently correspond to greater cold tolerance (3). McKenzie, et al. (5) and Parsons (6) demonstrated that plant root tissues actually become more resistant to water uptake and/or translocation during the onset of cold accimlation.

In previous research Pellett, et al. (7) found that there was no uptake and translocation of water from the roots to the tops of arborvitae in midwinter when soil was frozen. The purpose of this research was to determine the value of fall water after water stress on the winter survival of evergreens.

Materials and Methods

Listen

Experiment 1

Container grown pyramidal arborvitae, Thuja occidentalis ‘Pyramidalis’, were given water stress treatments during the fall of 1977. In order to prevent natural rainfall from interfering with the desired soil moisture levels, test plants were grown under a clear fiberglass roof. The soil moisture treatments consisted of watering each 2 gallon container as follows: (A) 400 ml/pot (control plants), (B) 100 ml/pot, and (C) 50 ml/pot at each watering. Soil moisture treatments were started August 16. Initially all plants were watered daily but as the season advanced watering frequency was decreased to every two or three days or longer depending on temperature conditions. On November 2 half of the stressed plants (50 ml and 100 ml/pot) were rewatered to field capacity and maintained at the higher level (400 ml/pot) until freezeup. All treatments were replicated with five plants. Periodic plant tissue moisture levels were determined throughout the study and plants were visually evaluated for winter injury in the spring.

Cold hardiness levels were determined in the laboratory on October 6, October 27 and November 2. To determine cold hardiness, stem pieces from 3 plants of each treatment were placed in plastic bags, a thermocouple for measuring tissue temperature was inserted into one stem per bag, and the bags sealed and placed in a deep freeze at 0° C. Freezer temperature was lowered at a rate of 15 ° C per hr. with one bag removed at each 3° interval. After thawing the samples were stored at room temperature for 7 to 10 days and then rated for visual signs of injury of the foliage and stem tissue.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 was conducted in the fall of 1978 to verify the results of experiment 1 and to determine the effect on winter injury of rewatering at different times after water stress. Experimental conditions were the same as those in experiment 1. The water stress treatments were initiated August 11, 1978. Five plants from each stress treatment were watered to field capacity on October 1, October 15, November 1, or not rewatered. These plants were maintained at the same water level as the control plants following rewatering.

Water content and water potential measurements were made on plants from all the treatments throughout this experiment. Water potential was measured with a pressure chamber apparatus (9). Water potential is measured in negative numbers and, like temperature, a larger negative number indicates the plant is under more water stress.

Plant injury was evaluated as in the previous experiment. In order to observe injury symptoms that might develop without exposure to severe mid-winter freezing temperatures, 5 plants each from the control and from the most severely stressed treatment were placed under greenhouse conditions on November 2. A field rating for visual signs of injury was also made on December 12 and again on May 15. Cold hardiness level was determined on October 2, October 16, November 13, December 14, and February 2 by laboratory procedures described previously.

Results and Discussion

Listen

The data in tables 1 and 2 indicate that plants subjected to water stress treatments had a much lower water content in late summer than the plants maintained under more optimal soil water conditions. The water content of all plants decreased as the season progressed; however, the plants that were given the highest water level decreased at a much faster rate. In Expt. 1 (Table 1) there were no apparent differences in water content between any of the treatments after early November while in Expt. 2 (Table 2), plants that were water stressed throughout the experiment (plants that were never rewatered) remained at a lower water content on all dates measured. Stressed plants that were rewatered increased in water content to the same level as that of the control plants. However, measurements (Expt. 2) of tissue water potential indicate the rewatered plants from the lowest soil water treatment (50 ml) continued to have lower water potential (greater stress) than those plants given optimum water throughout the experiment (Table 3). Plants given the 100 ml/pot (at each watering) treatment were under greater stress than those given more water but when shifted to the higher soil water treatment reached the same water potential as the plants given optimum water conditions throughout the study.

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

Water content of arborvitae tissue from plants subjected to different soil water treatments in Experiment 1 (1977-78 study).

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

Water content of arborvitae tissues from plants subjected to different soil water treatments in Experiment 2 (1978-79 study).

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

Pressure chamber readings of water potential of arborvitae plants subjected to different soil water conditions. Experiment 2 (1978-79 study)

Freezing test results (Table 4) indicate that there were no major differences in hardiness level of plants subjected to different soil moisture treatments. In all cases plants were capable of tolerating temperatures much lower than the minimum air temperatures which might occur on the dates tested. Thus, injury due to minimum temperatures would not be expected regardless of the soil water treatments tested.

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

Cold hardiness level of arborvitae subjected to different soil water conditions

Visual rating of injury showed that plants subjected to the water stress treatments suffered considerable injury, with the amount of injury proportional to the severity of the stress treatment (Table 5). Rewatering of the stressed plants did not reduce the amount of visible injury exhibited regardless of date of watering. We feel that the injury was caused as a direct result of the moisture stress, and cold temperatures contributed little if any to the injury. We base this conclusion on several pieces of evidence. Water stressed plants moved into the greenhouse in early November 1978 exhibited injury symptoms as severe as those on plants over-wintered outdoors under normal temperatures. Also in December 1978, upon close observation, signs of injury on stressed plants were apparent as exhibited by lighter foliage color. As indicated previously, determinations of cold hardiness levels indicated that there were no appreciable differences in hardiness levels and all plants were capable of withstanding temperatures considerably lower than any temperatures which might normally be encountered during the period of time in which the experiments were conducted.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Tab Average visual rating of Injury of arborvitae subjected to different soil water treatments

Results of this research would indicate that watering during dry periods in late summer or early fall is beneficial to reduce incidence of injury to conifers. However, the timing of irrigation is very critical and must be applied to prevent water stress from becoming acute. Watering in late fall prior to freezeup is not very beneficial in reducing winter injury of conifer stems and leaf tissue following fall droughts. However, because the temperature of moist soil does not drop quite as low as the temperature of dry soil, fall watering could reduce winter injury to root tissues.

Footnotes

Listen
  • ↵1 Scientific Journal Series #11,079 of the Minnesota Ag. Expt. Sta. Supported in part by grants from the International Society of Arboriculture and the Horticultural Research Institute.

  • © 1980, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    1. Chen, P.H.,
    2. P.H. Li, and
    3. M.J. Burke
    . 1977. Induction of frost hardiness in stem cortical tissues of Cornus stolonifera Michx. by water stress. 1. Plant Physiol. 59:236–239.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Chen, P.H.,
    2. P.H. Li, and
    3. C.J. Weiser
    . 1975. Induction of frost hardiness in red-osier dogwood stems by water stress. HortScience 10:372–374.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Levitt, J.
    1972. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Academic Press, New York.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Li, P.H. and
    2. C.J. Weiser
    , 1971. Increasing cold resistance of stem sections of Cornus stolonifera by artificial dehydration. Cryobiology 8:108–111.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. McKenzie, J.S.,
    2. C.J. Weiser, and
    3. P.H. Li
    , 1974. Changes in water relations of Cornus stolonifera during cold acclimation. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 99:223–228.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Parson, L.R.
    1978. Water relations, stomatal behavior, and root conductivity of red osier dogwood during acclimation to freezing temperatures. Plant Physiol. 62:64–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Pellett, H.M.,
    2. J.V. Carter,
    3. R.L. Hummel, and
    4. L.R. Parsons
    . 1978. Deuterium-enriched water used to show absence of water movement in Thuja at subfreezing temperatures. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:792–794.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Pirone, P.P.
    1972. Tree Maintenance. 4th ed. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Waring, R.H. and
    2. Cleary, B.D.
    1967. Plant moisture stress; evaluation by pressure bomb. Science 155:1248–1254.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 6, Issue 6
June 1980
  • 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.
Relationship of Fall Watering Practice to Winter Injury of Conifers
(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
Relationship of Fall Watering Practice to Winter Injury of Conifers
Harold Pellett, Rita Hummel, Laurie Mainquist
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jun 1980, 6 (6) 146-149; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1980.037

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Relationship of Fall Watering Practice to Winter Injury of Conifers
Harold Pellett, Rita Hummel, Laurie Mainquist
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jun 1980, 6 (6) 146-149; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1980.037
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • 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

  • Urban Trees and Cooling: A Review of the Recent Literature (2018 to 2024)
  • Aerial Imagery as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Tree Retention: Applications, Strengths and Challenges for Backyard Tree Planting Programs
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire