Effect of container type on bending stress required to tilt trunks to four and five degreesz for ‘Florida Flame’ maple planted into the landscape from #45 containersy 26 months earlier.
| Container typex | Bending stress four degrees (MN/m2) | Bending stress five degrees (MN/m2) |
|---|---|---|
| AP | 20.2 abcw | 22.1 abc |
| CR | 20.0 abc | 21.7 abc |
| FN | 20.6 ab | 22.7 ab |
| JP | 18.4 c | 20.1 c |
| RB | 21.4 a | 23.4 a |
| RT | 19.0 bc | 20.8 bc |
| SP | 20.3 abc | 22.2 abc |
| SS | 21.1 a | 23.1 a |
↵z Container type was not significant when trees were winched to 1, 2, or 3 degrees.
↵y Bending stress for trees from #3 and #15 containers was not impacted by container type.
↵x See Gilman et al. 2015 (companion paper, in review) for description of containers.
↵w Numbers followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P = 0.04 (left) and 0.03 (right); n = 6, averaged across root pruning due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.32).