1982
DOI: 10.13031/2013.33525
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Loblolly Pine Growth in Compacted Greenhouse Soils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to these estimates, the bulk densities in the subsurface horizons of almost all the sites were likely to be limiting growth, while only two sites (2201 and 4201) had limiting bulk densities in the surface soils. Mitchell et al (1982) showed that root and shoot growth of P. taeda seedlings growing on compacted sandy loam soil in a greenhouse study were inhibited when bulk densities were greater than 1.4 g cm À3 , and that growth essentially stopped at bulk densities of 1.8 g cm À3 . According to these data, all of the sites had growth limiting bulk densities as most of the samples had bulk densities between 1.4 and 1.8 g cm À3 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to these estimates, the bulk densities in the subsurface horizons of almost all the sites were likely to be limiting growth, while only two sites (2201 and 4201) had limiting bulk densities in the surface soils. Mitchell et al (1982) showed that root and shoot growth of P. taeda seedlings growing on compacted sandy loam soil in a greenhouse study were inhibited when bulk densities were greater than 1.4 g cm À3 , and that growth essentially stopped at bulk densities of 1.8 g cm À3 . According to these data, all of the sites had growth limiting bulk densities as most of the samples had bulk densities between 1.4 and 1.8 g cm À3 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The soil at this site lacks an A-horizon and was heavily compacted from prior harvests and farming. Because soil recovery from compaction in the southeastern United States is a slow process (Mitchell et al, 1982), even minimal tillage such as the C treatment on this site can be enough to substantially decrease soil penetration resistance and increase growth. In contrast, soil penetration resistance of the NT treatment at the sandy site was intermediate.…”
Section: Volumetric Water Content and Soil Penetration Resistancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Today most industry lands are planted by hand using contract planters. On soils where compaction in the ''pan'' exceeds critical levels, pine growth may be reduced (Mitchell et al, 1982). Such sites may be ameliorated by disking and/or sub-soiling (Lowery and Gjerstad, 1991;Miller et al, 2004).…”
Section: Sustaining Site Productivitymentioning
confidence: 99%