Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(5): September 2013 eter at first (t1 (t2 where D1 and D2 are tree trunk diam- = June 2010/2011) and second = October 2010/2011) measurement times. Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis The experimental design for method of transplanting was randomized complete block design with four blocks and six tree replicates per treatment (B&B and BR) per block. Survival data were analyzed using χ2 analysis (p < 0.05) in SPSS ver. 16.0. All other data were analyzed in SAS ver. 9.1 and mean separation was accomplished with Duncan’s multiple-range test at the 5% level of signifi- cance. Data for each tree species were analyzed separately. Due to limitation in providing equal number of trees for each date of transplanting, this factor was not included in the experiment and its impact was assessed only on tree survival using χ2 analysis. RESULTS Effect of Transplanting Date on Tree Survival Results showed that percent survival of all three species was significantly affected by transplanting date (Table 1). During the first year, early-spring-transplanted eldarica pine trees showed significantly higher survival than late-spring-transplanted trees. No plants survived when transplanted in early winter. By the second year, a slight decrease was observed in survival of early-spring-transplanted trees, while 13% of late-spring- transplanted trees, which looked to be dead, showed signs of survival (e.g., appearance of new needles from terminal buds) and continued to grow and were therefore considered as sur- vived trees but were not involved in other growth analyses. Percent survival of early-winter-transplanted white mul- berry trees was 100% in the first year and remained the same in the second year. Percent survival of early-spring- and late- spring-transplanted trees was 95% and 80%, respectively, which declined to 67% and 70% by the second year, respectively. Table 1. Effects of transplanting date on percent survival of transplanted eldarica pine (Pinus eldarica), white mul- berry (Morus alba), and smoothleaf elm (Ulmus carpinifolia) trees in the first (2010) and second (2011) years following transplanting. Percent survival was assessed in October of each year. Year/Species Early winter 2010 Eldarica pine 0 cz White mulberry 100 a Smoothleaf elm 39 a 2011 Eldarica pine 0 c Treatment means within rows in each year followed by the same letter are not significantly different (χ2 y, x White mulberry 100 a Smoothleaf elm 33 a z ) at 5% level. During the second year following transplanting (2011), a number of eldarica pine and smoothleaf elm trees were recovered and involved in survival analysis. See text for more details. Smoothleaf elm trees were transplanted only in early winter and early spring. ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture 70 a 67 b 20 bx 38 by 70 b - 76 a 95 b 0 b 25 b 80 c - Transplanting date Early spring Late spring 213 Smoothleaf elm trees showed low ability to tolerate transplant- ing. During the first year, only 39% of early-winter-transplanted trees survived, which decreased to 33% by the second year. How- ever, during the second year, 20% of early-spring-transplanted trees were recovered by producing epicormic shoots and were involved in survival analysis but not in other growth analyses. Effect of Transplanting Method on Tree Survival Transplanting method had significant impact on survival of all three species in the first year (Table 2). Percent survival of B&B eldarica pine and smoothleaf elm trees was significantly greater (30% and 64%, respectively) than BR trees. The least impact of production method was observed for white mulberry trees, which exhibited the highest percent survival, regardless of treatment. The overall survival of B&B trees was 67%, compared to 53% for BR trees. By the second year, however, no significant differ- ence could be observed between B&B and BR trees of all species. Table 2. Effects of transplanting method on percent survival of transplanted eldarica pine (Pinus eldarica), white mul- berry (Morus alba), and smoothleaf elm (Ulmus carpinifolia) trees in the first (2010) and second (2011) years following transplanting. Percent survival was assessed in October of each year. 2010 Species Eldarica pine White mulberry Smoothleaf elm Overall survival z BR 53 bz 80 b 25 b 53 b ) at 5% level. Year/Transplanting method B&B BR 69 a 90 a 41 a 67 a 67 a 67 a 25 a 53 a 2011 B&B 56 a 74 a 35 a 55 a Treatment means within rows in each year followed by the same letter are not significantly different (χ2 Effect of Transplanting Method on Tree Growth and Establishment First-year measurements on transplanted eldarica pine trees showed that current-season shoots number and length were significantly greater (32% and 53%, respectively) for B&B trees compared to BR trees, whereas leaf chlorophyll con- tent and dieback were not affected by transplanting method (Table 3). In the second year, no significant difference could be observed between growth responses of B&B and BR trees. B&B and BR white mulberry trees showed no significant difference in their growth param- eters during both first and second year (Table 3). Despite the high mortality of transplanted smoothleaf elm trees, those B&B and BR trees that survived showed similar trend in their growth responses, though only die- back on BR trees was significantly (61%) greater than B&B trees (Table 3). In the second year, no significant differ- ence between B&B and their BR counterparts was noted. For all three species, RGRD of B&B trees was signifi- and BR trees during the second year (June to October 2011). of B&B trees being two times higher than that of BR trees. No significant difference was detected in RGRD of B&B cantly greater than BR trees during the first year (June to October 2010) (Figure 1). The most pronounced impact of trans- planting method was observed for eldarica pine trees with the RGRD
September 2013
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
