Table 2.

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 typexImprint rating on trees planted from #3 containers (1–5)Imprint rating on trees planted from #15 containers (1–5)
AP2.2 abw2.1 cd
CR1.5 bc1.5 e
FN1.5 bc2.7 ab
JP1.3 c2.2 bc
RB2.0 ab3.1 a
RT2.5 a2.6 abc
SP2.0 ab2.8 ab
SS1.7 bc1.7 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).