Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42(5): September 2016 Research Question 2: Self-Reported Watering Behavior and Soil Moisture Watering scores were computed for 37 trees (45.7%), based on the number of final survey respondents who answered the question about wa- tering behavior (n = 37, N = 44). The majority of trees (35.0%, n = 13) were scored as never watered, 10.8% (n = 4) were watered biweekly, 18.9% (n = 7) were watered a few times during the summer, and 35.1% (n = 13) were never watered. Trees that were watered weekly had the highest soil mois- ture in four out of 15 weeks (weeks 2, 7, 13, and 16), while trees that were watered biweekly had the highest soil moisture in 5 out of 15 weeks (9, 11, 12, 15, and 17) (Figure 3). However, ANOVAs revealed that there were only significant differ- ences in soil moisture between the four groups of trees in week 11 [F (3, 33) = 4.075, P = 0.01] and week 13 [F (3, 33) = 2.827, P = 0.05]. In week 11, trees that had been watered weekly (0.3 m3 biweekly (0.33 m3 m-3 m-3 ) and er soil moisture than trees that had been watered only a few times over the summer (0.21 m3 m-3 ) both had significantly high- m-3 ; P ≤ 0.05). Trees that had been watered only a few times over the summer had significantly higher soil moisture that trees that had never been wa- tered (0.30 m3 had been watered weekly (0.26 m3 m-3 ; P = 0.04). In week 13, trees that m-3 ) had signifi- cant higher soil moisture than trees that had been watered only a few times over the summer (0.14 m3 ; P = 0.04). These differences did not cor- respond to the period of trees’ greatest watering need as evidenced by the pan-evaporation data. There was a positive significant correlation between watering score and soil moisture in week two (r = 0.36, P = 0.03). However, there was no sta- tistically significant correlation between watering score and soil moisture in all other weeks. Watering score was not correlated with soil moisture in the first half of the summer (r = 0.25, P = 0.12) or in the second half or the summer (r = 0.06, P = 0.7). Research Question 3: Evaluation of the Outreach Intervention There were 45 respondents to the final survey (N = 114, 39.5% response rate). Among the 20 respondents who remembered receiving post- cards over the summer, the majority (75%, n = 15) believed the postcards were helpful to them in 311 learning about how to water the new trees. A ma- jority (64.7%, n =11) also believed the postcards were helpful reminders for watering. Respondents who had watered and not watered significantly differed in their memory of receiving postcards (Fisher’s Exact Test = 5.87, P = 0.03). The majority of respondents who watered their tree (76.2%, n = 16) did remember receiving a postcard, while the majority of respondents who never watered their tree (66.7%, n = 8) reported never receiving a postcard. Of respondents who had watered and remembered receiving a postcard, the majority (80%, n = 15) believed the postcards were help- ful in learning how to water their tree, and 76.9% (n = 10) believed the postcards were helpful wa- tering reminders. There were also some respon- dents who didn’t remember seeing the postcards (23.8%, n = 5), but who still watered their tree. Thirty respondents (24.6%) wrote a com- ment on the back of the survey, and nine of these respondents (30%) addressed watering, the post- cards, or the project in general. Four comments addressed watering, with all but one coming from residents in the treatment group. The first person reported that she was unable to water because she did not have a large bucket with which to carry water to the tree. They thought that this project should have provided a large bucket to residents. A second person reported that she and her hus- band watered their tree when they watered their flowerbeds because even though they are elderly, they “still try to keep [their] home looking nice for the neighborhood.” The third person who commented on watering reported that they had often forgotten to water the tree, but that they had always intended to water it. The only per- son to comment about watering in the control group reported that they had seen their tree being watered by the city, but started watering the tree themselves when their friend informed the commenter that they were involved in this study. It was assumed that their friend was in the treatment group, but it’s important to note that the treatment group was never informed that they were part of a research study. Study limita- tions associated with this respondent’s comment are acknowledged in the Discussion section. One respondent in the treatment group reported that there were way too many postcards ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2016
| 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
