Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36(3): March 2010 Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2010. 36(2): 93–99 93 Effect of Container Size at Time of Planting on Tree Growth Rates for Baldcypress [Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich], Red Maple (Acer rubrum L.), and Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) Belinda B. Lambert, Steven J. Harper, and Stephen D. Robinson Abstract. The ecosystem restoration and wetland mitigation industries are challenged with recreating vegetative communities at an ac- celerated rate, while at the same time remaining cost effective. These created systems are typically bound by permit conditions to meet certain tree growth criteria in a specified time frame, commonly five years. Stock sizes of container grown trees are gener- ally #1, #3, or #7 (gallons). The purpose of this study was to determine the relative cost effectiveness of these planting sizes for three com- monly used species and to assess whether they achieve common success criteria for height, percent survival, and percent cover. These three species are baldcypress [Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich], red maple (Acer rubrum L.), and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). Based on the standard planting density of 174 trees/hectare, the most cost-effective size was #3 in all cases. All three siz- es of baldcypress and red maple met the 3.7 m height criterion; no size of longleaf pine met the criterion. All sizes of all spe- cies failed to meet both the 85% survival standard and a theoretical minimum 50% cover calculated from canopy diameter mea- surements. If planting densities are increased to meet cover requirements and to offset mortality, container size #1 may be more favorable for baldcypress and red maple, but not for longleaf pine. The study was conducted in Pinellas County, Florida, U.S. Key Words. Habitat Restoration; Permit Requirements; Success Criteria; Tree Growth; Wetland Mitigation. Current and more focused research to support ecological res- toration is needed and has become increasingly important (Dwyer et al. 2002). It is not obvious whether tree planting size #1, #3, or #7 (gallons) is most effective for ecological res- toration or for meeting the success criteria for wetland miti- gation projects required by environmental regulations. While much research has been completed to evaluate the factors affecting tree growth and establishment, it has largely been done for larger tree sizes and site conditions commonly asso- ciated with the landscape industry, rather than those associ- ated with ecological restoration. Small trees have a perceived advantage of recovering from transplant shock and establish- ing more quickly (Watson 1985; Struve 2009), while larger trees are regarded as having a competitive advantage (Denton 1990; Richardson and Kluson 2000), offering immediate ben- efit (Watson 1985), and have a tendency to be more resilient when exposed to mechanical or other collateral damage (pers. observation). Container grown material has become favored over bare root seedlings in many cases for restoration projects because it tolerates transport and storage during staging bet- ter, and can be successfully planted during a greater portion of the year (Clewell and Lea 1990; Harris and Bassuk 1993). Previous studies have found no difference in the survival rate between various planting sizes (Denton 1990; Morgan and Roberts 1999), but offered no statistical support for these con- clusions. Comparisons are conspicuously lacking regarding growth rates for transplanted #1, #3, and #7 container grown trees, or of similar sizes performed in situ in a restoration setting. Frequently, restoration projects do not provide soils fa- vorable for root growth development because the soils have been highly altered (e.g., by grading to achieve design hy- drology, by previous mining efforts, or by associated road or other development construction). Nitrogen is impacted by construction activities (Scharenbroch and Lloyd 2004) and is frequently not available in usable form in wet soils (Ko- zlowski 1985). The saturated soils found in wetland restora- tion sites are prone to many growth-inhibiting characteris- tics, most notably deficiencies in phosphorus and oxygen in combination with toxic levels of soluble iron, manga- nese, and hydrogen sulfide (Kozlowski 1985; Ewel 1990). Efforts to counteract soil deficiencies do not seem to be a suitable option in many cases. It has been shown that recently planted trees do not generally respond to fertilizer applica- tion during the first year (Gilman et al. 2000; Day and Har- ris 2007) or up to three years after planting (Ferrini and Bai- etto 2006). Soil amendments do not appear to benefit growth (Gilman 2004). Mulch may actually contribute to drought stress during the tree establishment phase if sufficient ir- rigation to penetrate the mulch layer is not also applied, and there is conflicting information in the literature as to whether or not mulch provides benefit with time (Schnelle et al. 1989; Gilman and Grabosky 2004; Ferrini et al. 2008; Gilman et ©2010 International Society of Arboriculture
|
Item Number:
|
|
|
Product Description:
|
|
|
|
|
Price:
|
|
|
Item Count:
|
|
March 2010
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
AI Assistant
Ask anything about this document
AI is thinking…
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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
Enter a description for this bookmark
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
