Cold Tolerance of Container-grown Green Ash Trees Is Influenced by Nitrogen Fertilizer Type and Rate

Abstract

<jats:p>A study was conducted to determine whether nitrogen (N) application rate and fertilizer form are related to cold tolerance of buds and stems using container-grown ‘Summit’ green ash (<jats:italic>Fraxinus pennsylvanica</jats:italic>) trees. Trees were grown with different rates of N from either urea formaldehyde (UF) or a controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) containing ammonium nitrate during the 2006 growing season; and growth, N and carbon (C) composition, and cold tolerance were evaluated in Oct. 2006, Dec. 2006, and Feb. 2007 by assessing the lowest survival temperature (LST) of stem and bud tissues on current season (2006) stems. Both fertilizer type and rate influenced the bud and stem LSTs. The influence of fertilizer rate was most evident on midwinter (December) stem LSTs and the influence of fertilizer type was observed in bud and stem LSTs during the deacclimation period in February. Higher LSTs were associated with higher N concentrations and lower C/N ratios; however, stems and buds of trees fertilized with UF were more cold-tolerant (had lower LSTs) than stems and buds on trees fertilized with CRF. Fertilizer type resulted in several differences in N and C translocation and metabolism during the fall and winter. Our results indicate trees with a similar N status are able to withstand different levels of cold depending on the rate of N and the type or form of fertilizer used during production. This may have to do with differences in how trees metabolize the different fertilizer forms, where and when the N is stored, and how it is remobilized in the spring, especially in relation to C metabolism.</jats:p>

Irrigation Frequency during Container Production Alters Rhododendron Growth, Nutrient Uptake, and Flowering after Transplanting into a Landscape

“…Low levels of water stress in containers can promote early nutrient mobilization in the fall and spring (Sanz-Pérez et al, 2009). Delayed nutrient mobilization could also reduce cold-hardiness and result in tissue damage and loss of biomass over the winter (Colombo et al, 2003;Scagel et al, 2010).…”

Influence of nutrient loading on reactions upon frost and drought stress of Rosa majalis

“…Although the damage is on low level, REL-data for the loaded plants are higher than for the non-loaded ones being significant for the exponentially loaded plants at -8°C. This might be due to the higher N-concentration in this year's shoots of these plants ( the results concerning the influence of high fertilization on frost hardiness are not consistent; both an increase (Rikala and Repo, 1997) and a decrease (Scagel et al, 2010) are reported. Concerning nutrient loading, Miller et al (1995) in Timmer and Aidelbaum (1996) found for white spruce no difference between conventionally and exponentially loaded plants.…”

Chemical products for crop protection against freezing stress: A review

“…Chemical protection for crops or trees includes the use of different products that can be classified as conventional agrochemicals (e.g. nutrients or fertilizers, such as nitrogen (Scagel et al., 2010; Toca et al., 2018), potassium (Centinari et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2019), and calcium (Marosz & Nogowska, 2018; Vega et al., 1996)), biostimulants or growth regulators (Dwyer et al., 1995; Tsipouridis et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2019), pesticides (Robinson et al., 2015; Tsipouridis et al., 2006), and products whose main objective is to protect the crop or plant against freezing (Anderson, 2012; Francko et al., 2008, 2011; Hernández et al., 2016; Starkutė et al., 2017).…”

“…nitrogen, potassium, and calcium) to protect crops against low‐temperature stress have been evaluated; however, the effectiveness of nutrients has been variable and depends on the kind of nutrient (Table 2). Among evaluated nutrients, nitrogen exhibited a negative or marginal crop protective effect (Scagel et al., 2010; Toca et al., 2018), which is probably ascribable to plants receiving nitrogen at greater doses than required, which increases their growth (biomass and stems) and, consequently, their susceptibility to stress, which decreases their low‐temperature tolerance. This is possible because under nitrogen excess, plants employ non‐structural carbohydrates for their growth, especially under conditions of stress, hence protection gave by those carbohydrate is reduced (Huber & Watson, 1974; Palacio et al., 2007).…”

“…and depends on the kind of nutrient (Table 2). Among evaluated nutrients, nitrogen exhibited a negative or marginal crop protective effect (Scagel et al, 2010;Toca et al, 2018) gave by those carbohydrate is reduced (Huber & Watson, 1974;Palacio et al, 2007).…”