Effect of container type on container imprint ratingz of ‘Florida Flame’ maple planted into the landscape from #3 and #15 containersy 49 and 40 months earlier, respectively.
Container typex | Imprint rating on trees planted from #3 containers (1–5) | Imprint rating on trees planted from #15 containers (1–5) |
---|---|---|
AP | 2.2 abw | 2.1 cd |
CR | 1.5 bc | 1.5 e |
FN | 1.5 bc | 2.7 ab |
JP | 1.3 c | 2.2 bc |
RB | 2.0 ab | 3.1 a |
RT | 2.5 a | 2.6 abc |
SP | 2.0 ab | 2.8 ab |
SS | 1.7 bc | 1.7 de |
↵z Container imprint rating ranged from 1 (no imprint) to 5 (high imprint), visually estimated by two observers independently.
↵y There was no difference (mean = 2.8, P = 0.20) among container types for trees planted as #45 containers.
x See Gilman et al. 2015 for description of containers.
↵w Numbers followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.01; n = 3 (#3) or 6 (#15), averaged across root pruning due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.06).