Summary
Batches of 2+0, bare-root lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) seedings differing in provenance, lifting date, or nursery of origin varied greatly both in root growth capacity (RGC) as measured by a laboratory assay and in early survival and growth after field planting. Most of the variation in field performance was accounted for by the variation in RGC.
The lateral roots of lodgepole pine seedlings were pruned chemically by raising them in containers coated on the inside with cupric carbonate in latex paint. When field planted, the chemically root-pruned stock grew appreciably faster than control stock raised in unpainted containers. The difference in growth rate was associated with a difference in root form 4 years after planting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armson K A 1958 The effect of two planting methods on the survival and growth of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in eastern Ontario. For. Chron. 34, 376–379.
Armson K A 1978 Roots of the new forest. Proc. Root Form of Planted Trees Symposium Victoria, Canada May 16–19, 1978, Eds. E Van Eerden and J M Kinghorn. pp. 325–328.
Burdett A N 1978 Control of root morphogenesis for improved mechanical stability in container-grown lodgepole pine. Can. J. For. Res. 8, 483–486.
Burdett A N 1979 Juvenile instability in planted pines. Ir. For. 36, 36–47.
Burdett A N 1979 New methods for measuring root growth capacity: their value in assessing lodgepole pine stock quality. Can. J. For. Res. 9, 63–67.
Burdett A N 1981 Box-pruning the roots of container grown tree seedlings. Proc. Canadian Containerized Tree Seedling Symposium, Toronto, Ontario, Sept. 14–16., Ed. J. Scarratt. pp 203–206.
Burdett A N and Martin P A F 1982 Chemical root pruning of coniferous seedlings. Hortic. Science 17, 622–624.
Hay R L and Woods F 1974 Roots deformation correlated with sapling size for loblolly pine. J. For. 72, 143–145.
Mullin R E 1963 Planting check in spruce. For. Chron. 39, 252–259.
Ritchie G A and Dunlap J R 1980 Root growth potential: its development and expression in forest tree seedlings. N.Z. J. For Sci. 10, 218–248.
Rudolf P O 1939 Why forest plantations fail. J. For. 37, 377–383.
Stone E C 1955 Poor survival and the physiological condition of planting stock. For. Sci. 1, 89–94.
Stone E C and Jenkinson J L 1971 Physiological grading of ponderosa pine nursery stock. J. For. 69, 31–33.
Stone E C, Jenkinson J L and Krugman S L 1962 Root-regenerating potential of Douglas fir seedlings lifted at different times of year. For. Sci. 8, 288–297.
Stone E C and Schubert G H 1959 Root regeneration of ponderosa pine seedlings lifted at different times of year. For. Sci. 5, 322–332.
Sutton R F 1980 Planting stock quality, root growth capacity and field performance of three boreal conifers. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 10, 54–71.
Sutton R F 1980 Root system morphogenesis. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 10, 264–292.
Todd G 1964 Do Douglas fir seedlings have roots? J. For. 62, 561–563.
Wakeley P C 1948 Physiological grades of southern pine nursery stock. Proc. 49th Annual Meet. Soc. Am. For. pp. 311–322.
Wibeck E 1923 Om missbildning av tallens rotsystem vid spettplantering. Meddelanden fran statens Skogsforsoksanstalt 20, 261–303.
Winjum J K 1963 Effects of lifting date and storage on 2+0 Douglas fir and Noble fir. J. For. 61, 648–654.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burdett, A.N., Simpson, D.G. & Thompson, C.F. Root development and plantation establishment success. Plant Soil 71, 103–110 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02182645
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02182645