Species | Transplanting method | Shoot length (cm) | Shoot number | Dieback (cm) | Chlorophyll contentz | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | ||||||
Eldarica pine | BR | 6.9 by | 5.8 b | 3.4 a | 7.5 a | |
B&B | 10.6 a | 7.6 a | 3.1 a | 8.9 a | ||
White mulberry | BR | 19.8 a | 8.6 a | 5.4 a | 16.4 a | |
B&B | 19.2 a | 9.1 a | 6.3 a | 16.8 a | ||
Smoothleaf elm | BR | 7.0 a | 5.0 a | 3.7 a | 13.0 a | |
B&B | 6.8 a | 5.0 a | 2.3 b | 12.6 a | ||
2011 | ||||||
Eldarica pine | BR | 5.3 a | 5.7 a | - | 10.8 a | |
B&B | 4.8 a | 7.3 a | - | 12.4 a | ||
White mulberry | BR | 5.7a | 8.9 a | - | 12.6 a | |
B&B | 7.7 a | 7.8 a | - | 13.2 a | ||
Smoothleaf elm | BR | 4.3 a | 7.1 a | - | 16.2 a | |
B&B | 2.9 a | 5.2 a | - | 17.0 a |
↵zFor white mulberry and smoothleaf elm trees, mean leaf chlorophyll content was measured by SPAD meter readings, while for eldarica pine trees it was determined spectroscopically and presented as mg g−1 of fresh weight.
↵yTreatment means within column in each year followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Duncan’s multiple-range test) at 5% level.