Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(2): March 2014 Percival, G.C., and S. Barnes. 2008. Calcium-induced freezing and salinity tolerance in evergreen oak and apple cv. ‘Golden Crown’. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):191–199. Percival, G.C., E. Gklavakis, and K. Noviss. 2009. Influence of pure mulches on survival, growth, and vitality of containerized and field planted trees. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 27(4):200–206. Raese, J.T. 1996. Winter hardiness increased with calcium treat- ments, Part B. Good Fruit Grower 47(4):41–48. Richardson, A.D., M. Aikens, G.P. Berlyn, and P. Marshall. 2004. Drought stress and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) seedlings: Effects of an organic biostimulant on plant health and stress tolerance, and detection of stress effects with instrument based non-invasive methods. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):52–62. Roberts, B.R., and R.S. Linder. 2010. Humectants as post-plant soil amendments: Effects on the wilting cycle of drought-stressed, container-grown tree seedlings. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36(6):275–280. Roberts, J., N. Jackson, and M. Smith. 2006. Coping with soil con- tamination. pp. 209–241. In: Tree Roots in the Built Environ- ment. The Stationery Office. Norwich. Rosenqvist, E., and O. van Kooten. 2003. Chlorophyll fluorescence a general description and nomenclature. In: DeEll and Toivonen. Practical Applications of Chlorophyll Fluorescence in Plant Biology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 201–242. Sahain, M.F.M., E.Z.A. El Motty, M.H. El-Shiekh, and L.F. Hagagg. 2007. Effect of some biostimulant on growth and fruiting of anna apple trees in newly reclaimed areas. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science 3(5):422–429. Sammons, J.D., and D. K. Struve. 2004. Effect of Bioplex on transplant success of non-dormant red oak (Quercus rubra L.). Journal of Environmental Horticulture 22(4):197–202. Spann, T.M., and H.A. Little. 2011. Applications of a commercial extract of the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum increases drought tolerance in container-grown ‘hamlin’ sweet orange nursery trees. HortScience 46(4)577–582. Taiz, L., and E. Zeiger. 1991. Plant physiology. First Edition. Benjamin Cummings. Redwood City, California, U.S. Thalheimer, M., and N. Paoli. 2001. Effectiveness of various leaf- applied biostimulants on productivity and fruit quality of apple. International Symposium on Foliar Nutrition of Perennial Fruit Plants 594. ISHS Acta Horticulturae. Thompson, B.E. 2004. Five years of Irish trials on biostimulants: The conversion of a skeptic. pp. 72–79. In: L.E. Riley, R.K. Dum- roese, and T.D. Landis (Eds.). National proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations 2003; USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-33. Jonathan M. Banks Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory John Harborne Building, Whiteknights University of Reading, Reading Berkshire, RG6 6AS
[email protected] Glynn C. Percival (corresponding author) Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory John Harborne Building, Whiteknights University of Reading, Reading Berkshire, RG6 6AS
[email protected] ©2014 International Society of Arboriculture 83 Zusammenfassung. Urbane Umweltbedingungen präsentie- ren ein Feld von begrenzenden Lebensbedingungen für die Biolo- gie von Bäumen. Zwei Hauptprobleme schließen Auſtausalze, ein häufiger Bodenverschmutzer, und Trockenheit ein. Eine mögliche Option zum Umgang mit diesen ökologischen Problemen könnte in der Applikation kommerziell erhältlicher Biostimulantien liegen, da diese Produkte beworben werden als Verbesserung der Pflan- zenwiderstandskraſt gegenüber stressigen Umweltbedingungen. In Versuchen wurden Containerpflanzen von Immergrüner Eiche (Quercus ilex), Stechpalme (Ilex aquifolium), Vogelbeere (Sorbus aucuparia), und Buche (Fagus sylvatica) verwendet, um die Ef- fektivität von sieben kommerziell erhältlichen Biostimulantien als Komponente gegen Salz und Trockenheit zu bewerten. Die Ergeb- nisse zeigen, dass keines der getesteten Biostimulantien in dieser Studie irgendeinen signifikanten Schutz gegen Salz oder Trocken- heit im Vergleich zur Kontrolle lieferte. Resumen. Los entornos urbanos presentan una serie de facto- res ambientales perjudiciales para la biología de los árboles. Dos problemas principales son las sales para deshielo, un contaminante común del suelo, y la sequía. Una posible opción para la gestión de estos trastornos ambientales puede ser a través de la aplicación de bioestimulantes disponibles comercialmente, ya que estos pro- ductos son presentados para mejorar la resistencia de la planta al estrés ambiental. Los ensayos utilizaron contenedores con encino (Quercus ilex), acebo (Ilex aquifolium), serbal (Sorbus aucuparia) y haya (Fagus sylvatica) para evaluar la eficacia de siete bioestimu- lantes disponibles en el mercado como compuestos protectores contra la sal y la sequía. Los resultados concluyen que ninguno de los bioestimulantes evaluados en este estudio proporcionó un grado significativo de protección contra el daño por sal o la sequía, en comparación con los controles tratados con agua.
March 2014
| 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
