WholeTree Substrates Derived from Three Species of Pine in Production of Annual Vinca

Fain, Glenn B.; Gilliam, Charles H.; Sibley, Jeff L.; Boyer, Cheryl R.

doi:10.21273/horttech.18.1.13

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research by Wehtje et al (2009) evaluated efficacy of prodiamine, flumioxazin, and isoxaben applications on crabgrass, eclipta, and spotted spurge, respectively, in standard pine bark and alternative wood-based substrates. Alternative substrates evaluated included clean chip residual and WholeTree, both wood-based forestry byproducts developed from different portions of pine trees Fain et al, 2008). Results showed that weed control was similar between the pine bark substrate and two alternatives when label rates of the herbicides were applied.…”

Section: Effect Of Production Practices On Weedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Container Nursery Production Practices on Weed Growth and Herbicide Performance

Stewart¹,

Marble²,

Pearson³

2017

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Effect Of Production Practices On Weedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Container Nursery Production Practices on Weed Growth and Herbicide Performance

Stewart¹,

Marble²,

Pearson³

2017

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Wright et al (2006) and Jackson (2008) also evaluated the growth of numerous woody nursery species in a PTS produced from ground pine logs (including the bark; %90% wood and 10% bark) compared with 100% PB. Fain et al (2008aFain et al ( , 2008b) manufactured a PTS by chipping and grinding freshly harvested 8-to 10-year-old pine trees, including the wood, bark, limbs, and needles. They reported that herbaceous plants grown in PTS were smaller than plants grown in 100% PB, but that growth index and visual quality of the plants were similar for both substrates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Chemical and Physical Properties of Pine Tree Substrate and Pine Bark During Long-term Nursery Crop Production

Jackson¹,

Wright²,

Seiler³

2009

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to evaluate a pine tree substrate (PTS) for decomposition, changes in physical and chemical properties, and substrate carbon dioxide (CO2) efflux (microbial activity) during a long-term production cycle under outdoor nursery conditions. Substrates used in this study were PTS constructed using a 4.76-mm hammer mill screen and aged pine bark (PB). Plastic nursery containers were filled with each substrate and amended with either 4.2 or 8.4 kg·m−3 Osmocote Plus fertilizer and planted with Cotoneaster horizontalis or left fallow. Substrate solution chemical properties and nutrient concentrations were determined each month during the summers of 2006 and 2007 in addition to measuring substrate CO2 efflux (μmol CO2/m−2·s−1) as an assessment of microbial activity. Substrate breakdown (decomposition) was determined with particle size analysis and physical property determination on substrates at the conclusion of the study (70 weeks). Substrate solution pH was higher in PTS than in PB at both fertilizer rates in 2006, but pH levels decreased over time and were lower in PTS at both fertilizer rates in 2007. Substrate solution electrical conductivity levels, nitrate, phosphorus, and potassium concentrations were all generally higher in PB than in PTS at both fertilizer rates through both years. Pine tree substrate decomposition was higher when plants were present in the containers [evident by an increase in fine substrate particles (less than 0.5 mm) after 70 weeks], but breakdown was equal at both fertilizer rates. Shrinkage of PTS in the presence of plants was equal to the shrinkage observed in PB with plants, but shrinkage was higher in fallow PTS containers than PTS with plants. Substrate air apace (AS) was highest in PTS and container capacity (CC) was equal in PB and PTS at potting. Substrate AS decreased and CC increased in both substrates after 70 weeks but remained in acceptable ranges for container substrates. Substrate CO2 efflux rates were higher in PTS compared with PB at both fertilizer rates indicating higher microbial activity, thereby increasing the potential for nutrient immobilization and substrate breakdown. This work provides evidence that PTS decomposition is unaffected by fertilizer rate and that substrate shrinkage in containers with plants is similar to PB after two growing seasons (70 weeks), which addresses two major concerns about the use and performance of PTS for long-term nursery crop production. This work also shows that the higher microbial activity in PTS increases the potential of microbial nutrient immobilization, which is likely the reason for the lower substrate nutrient levels reported for PTS compared with PB over 70 weeks.

show abstract

“…Growth differences in these studies were attributed to lower nutrient levels in the PTS resulting from either leaching or microbial immobilization of applied nutrients. Fain et al (2008) manufactured a PTS (referred to as WholeTree) by chipping and grinding freshly harvested 8-to 10-year-old pine trees including the wood, bark, limbs, and needles. They reported that vinca (Catharanthus roseus L.) grown in PTS were smaller than plants grown in 100% PB, but that growth index and visual quality of the plants were similar for both substrates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Fertilizer Rate on Growth of Azalea and Holly in Pine Bark and Pine Tree Substrates

Jackson¹,

Wright²,

Browder³

et al. 2008

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent interest in the use of wood substrates in horticulture crop production has justified the need for determining fertilizer requirements in these substrates compared with traditional pine bark (PB) and peatmoss substrates. The objective was to determine the response of japanese holly (Ilex crenata Thunb. ‘Compacta’) and azalea (Rhododendron obtusum Planck. ‘Delaware Valley’) grown in a pine tree substrate (PTS) (trade name WoodGro™) or milled PB to fertilizer rate. Pine tree substrate is produced from freshly harvested loblolly pine trees (Pinus taeda L.) that are delimbed, chipped, and ground in a hammer mill to a desired particle size. Japanese holly plants were grown in 2.8-L containers in the fall of 2005 and again in the spring of 2007 with the addition of azalea. Plants grown in PTS or PB were fertilized by incorporating Osmocote Plus fertilizer (15N–3.9P–10K) at rates of 3.5, 5.9, 8.3 or 10.6 kg·m−3 for japanese holly and 1.2, 3.5, 5.9, or 8.3 kg·m−3 for azalea. After 3 months, shoot dry weights were determined for japanese holly and azalea. Japanese holly root dry weights were determined for both experiments, and substrate CO2 efflux (μmol CO2 m−2·s−1) was measured on the treatments at the end of the experiment using a LI-6400 soil CO2 flux chamber. In 2005, japanese holly shoot dry weights of PTS-grown plants were comparable to plants grown in PB at the 8.3 kg·m−3 fertility rate, and shoot dry weights of PTS-grown plants were higher than PB at the 10.6 kg·m−3 rate. In 2007, japanese holly and azalea shoot dry weights of PTS-grown plants were comparable to PB plants at the 5.9 kg·m−3 fertilizer rate. Both japanese holly and azalea achieved shoot growth in PTS comparable to shoot growth in PB with ≈2.4 kg·m−3 additional fertilizer for PTS. Substrate CO2 efflux rates were higher in PTS compared with PB indicating higher microbial activity, thereby increasing the potential for nutrient immobilization in PTS.

show abstract

WholeTree Substrates Derived from Three Species of Pine in Production of Annual Vinca

Cited by 43 publications

References 11 publications

Impact of Container Nursery Production Practices on Weed Growth and Herbicide Performance

Impact of Container Nursery Production Practices on Weed Growth and Herbicide Performance

Changes in Chemical and Physical Properties of Pine Tree Substrate and Pine Bark During Long-term Nursery Crop Production

Effect of Fertilizer Rate on Growth of Azalea and Holly in Pine Bark and Pine Tree Substrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About