1984
DOI: 10.24266/0738-2898-2.1.27
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Soil Amendments at Planting

Abstract: The growth response of 10 difficult to establish landscape shrubs and trees was evaluated in a series of 4 backfill experiments utilizing hole sizes, organic amendments, mulch, and/or drip irrigation. Growth responses varied among species, but no consistent, positive responses were derived from traditional backfill amendments.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are conflicting reports regarding the potential benefits derived from incorporating soil amendments into the backfill of transplanted trees and shrubs. Schulte and Whitcomb (1975) reported seeing no benefit from using amendments in the backfill soil of silver maple, Acer saccharinum L., and Corley (1984) found no consistent, positive growth responses when several difficult-to-establish landscape trees and shrubs were transplanted in traditional backfill amendments. In studies with 1-year-old red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and Washington hawthorne [Crataegus phaenopyrum (L.f.) Medic.]…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are conflicting reports regarding the potential benefits derived from incorporating soil amendments into the backfill of transplanted trees and shrubs. Schulte and Whitcomb (1975) reported seeing no benefit from using amendments in the backfill soil of silver maple, Acer saccharinum L., and Corley (1984) found no consistent, positive growth responses when several difficult-to-establish landscape trees and shrubs were transplanted in traditional backfill amendments. In studies with 1-year-old red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and Washington hawthorne [Crataegus phaenopyrum (L.f.) Medic.]…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Irrigation did not interact with soil amendment treatment, meaning that amendments did not affect survivability or growth of live oaks when irrigation was either minimal or plentiful after transplanting. This finding contradicts promotional literature distributed by manufacturers of many amendments but supports nearly all published studies on trees (Pellet 1971;Schulte and Whitcomb 1975;Ingram et al 1981;Corley 1984;Smalley and Wood 1995;Ferrini and Nicese 2002).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 39%
“…However, the fact that the roots did not develop into the surrounding soil, as was the case with all other treatments, may mean the trees would be more susceptible to drought. These data combined with that from other studies (Pellet 1971;Corley 1984;Kelting et al 1998;Ferrini and Nicese 2002) do not support use of soil amendments or liquid additives in backfill soil in the establishment and growth of newly planted trees, at least in good soil. Smalley and Wood (1995) also found increased root density within the backfill soil after amending it when planting balled-and-burlapped red maple (A. rubrum) into clay soil.…”
Section: Effects Of Amendments Soil Additives and Irrigation On Tree ...mentioning
confidence: 47%
“…A normal value of bulk density for clay soils is ranged between 1.0 to 1.6 Mg.m -3 and the normal values for sand is ranged between 1.2 to 1.8 Mg.m -3 , plants have a potential restriction at ≥1. 4 Mg.m -3 for clay and ≥1.6 Mg.m -3 for sand (Corley 1984). Generally, the bulk density affects the hydraulic conductivity to the extent that the soils with higher bulk density were having correspondingly lower hydraulic conductivity (Igwe 2005).…”
Section: Significance Of Some Natural Amendments To Improve Soilmentioning
confidence: 99%