English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Rooted photinia (Photinia ×fraseri) cuttings and hare-root slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) seedlings were transplanted initially into 0.9-, 2.9-, and 10.2-liter containers. A subset of these plants was transplanted from 0.9and 2.9liter containers into the next larger container size in the series (upcanning) until representative plants of each initial container size were growing in 10.2-liter containers. The photinia experiment was conducted with two fertilizer regimes [soluble vs. controlled-release (CR) fertilizer] superimposed. When CR fertilizer was used, upcanning from 2.9to 10.2liter containers produced the largest photinia. However, for pine, there was no advantage due to upcanning. When soluble fertilizer was used, photinia initially transplanted into 0.9-liter containers and upcanned to 2.9and then to 10.2-liter containers had superior growth compared to those of other fertilizer × container combinations. Upcanning generally maintained or increased plant growth rate, while growth rates of plants kept in the same container generally declined the second season. Improved efficiency of the root system in nutrient absorption of upcanned plants is proposed as the mechanism for this response. Two schools of thought exist in commercial nursery container production: liners should be transplanted directly into market-size containers or transplanted into small containers and later transferred into market-size containers (upcanning). While upcanning is more labor-intensive, it requires less space, provides more rapid shading of the container, which results in a cooler growth medium, and there is less capital loss with early plant failure (Beeson, 1991). Nursery operators using upcanning assert that canopy growth is accelerated compared to direct transplanting into market-sized containers, thus reducing production time and overhead cost. Indirect evidence supports this contention. ‘Elberta’ Peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch) seedlings grown in liquid culture in 15-ml vials then transferred to 500-ml flask had larger shoot : root ratios and more roots than those grown directly in a 500-ml flask (Richards and Rowe, 1977). Alder (Alnus glutinosa Gaertna.) seedlings grown in liquid culture in 16-ml vials grew more rapidly than similar seedlings in 500-ml containers for the first 65 days (Tschaplinski and Blake, 1985). Generally, increased container size results in increased canopy growth, as shown for ‘Bradford’ pear (Pyrus calleryana Dcne.) (Gilliam et al., 1984), ‘Elliott’ pecan [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K Koch] (Keever et al., 1986), ‘Microphylla’ Japanese euonymus (Euonymus juponica Thunb.) (Keever and Cobb, 1987), and several other ornamental species (Appleton and Whitcomb, 1983; Biran and Eliassaf, 1980). Bilderback (1985) also found that larger Leyland cypress (X cupressocyparis leylandii) were produced in 11.4-liter than 3.8or 7.6-liter containers after two growing seasons, although after the first season, container size had no effect on growth indexes. In these studies, liners were grown in containers in which they were initially transplanted. In upcanning, plants are grown in small premarket-size containers for publication 30 Oct. 1992. Accepted for publication 21 Apr. 1993. lorida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal series no. R-02744. Use ames does not imply endorsement of products nor criticism of similar ot mentioned. The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by t of page charges. Under postal regulations, this paper therefore must be rked advertisement solely to indicate this fact. professor. until the roots fill the containers, then shifted to larger containers to avoid the effects of restricted root systems (Harris et al., 1971; Richards and Rowe, 1977; Tschaplinski and Blake, 1985), as may have occurred in previous studies. The objectives of this study were to 1) compare upcanning with production in final market containers and 2) compare the effects of soluble and top-dressed controlled-release (CR) fertilizer on plant growth in various container sizes. Material and Methods Single ‘Red Tip’ Photinia ×fraseri rooted cuttings and bare-root seedlings of Pinus elliottii Engelm. (slash pine) were transplanted initially in 0.9(1-), 2.9(3-), and 10.2-liter (10-liter) black polyethylene containers using a 3 pine bark fine : 1 Florida peat : 1 coarse sand medium. The medium was amended with 0.89 kg of micronutrients per cubic meter (Micromax; Grace-Sierra Chemical Co., Milpitas, Calif.). Within 1 week after potting, each plant received ≈75 mg N from soluble fertilizer (Peter’s 20N-8.7P16.6K; Grace-Sierra Chemical Co.). All plants were grown in full sun and were irrigated daily at 0530 HR with impact sprinklers for 30 min at 20 mm·h. Irrigation was decreased to every other day from December through February. Two-thirds of the liners initially transplanted into l-liter containers (1-1) was upcanned to 3-liter containers (1-3) when the root systems filled the containers (Fig. 1). Half of the plants in 13 containers was upcanned to 10-liter containers (1-3-10) when the root systems again filled the containers. Half of the liners initially transplanted into 3-liter containers (3-3) was upcanned into lo-liter containers (3-10) when root development was sufficient. Liners initially transplanted into lo-liter containers (10-10) were grown in these containers throughout the 2-year production period. For Expts. 1 and 3, 60, 40, and 20 liners were used initially for transplanting into l-, 3-, and 10-liter containers, respectively. The number for each container size was doubled for Expt. 2. Treatments were placed randomly in the growing area, with the placement of the treatments that were upcanned rerandomized with each upcanning step. J. AMER. SOC. HORT. SCI. 118(6):752-756. 1993. Plants were top-dressed by hand with one of two CR fertilizers. One was a 4-month fertilizer (Osmocote 14N-6.2P-11.6K; GraceSierra Chemical Co.) applied every 2 months at rates of 0.42, 0.84, and 5.0 g N for 1-, 3-, and 10-liter containers, respectively. The other fertilizer was labeled as 8to 9-month release (Osmocote 18N-2.6P-9.9K; Grace-Sierra Chemical Co.) and was applied every 4 months at rates of 1.1, 2.2, and 9 g N for the 1-, 3-, and 10liter containers, respectively. The hot, humid growing season in Florida reduces the release time of these fertilizers by about one-half (Richard Johnson, personal communication, Grace-Sierra Chemical Co.). Photinia, CR fertilizer (Expt. 1). Rooted photinia cuttings were transplanted singly into each size of container on 14 Mar. 1990. One liter plants were upcanned to 1-3 on 6 Sept. 1990, with half further upcanned to 1-3-10 on 11 Mar. 1991. Half of the 3-3 plants was upcanned to 3-10 on 3 Jan. 1991. Plants were fertilized as described above with 14N-6.2P-11.6K on 16 Mar., 3 May, 10 July, and 7 Sept. 1990 and with 18N-2.6P-9.9K on 20 Mar. and 24 June 1991. Photinia, CR, and soluble fertilizer (Expt. 2). Rooted photinia cuttings were transplanted singly into each size of container on 6 June 1990. Two-thirds of the 1-1 plants was upcanned to 1-3 on 29 Oct. 1990, with half further upcanned to 1-3-10 on 8 Mar. 1991. Half of the 3-3 plants was upcanned to 3-10 on 3 Jan. 1991. Two fertilization treatments were superimposed on the upcanning treatments in this experiment. Plants were either fertilized as described above with a CR fertilizer or a soluble compound (Peter’s 20N-8.7P-16.6K) applied weekly by hand, using a siphon applicator (Hyponex, Atlanta). Soluble fertilization rates of 0.8 g N/liter of water (after dilution) per week were applied such that total N per year was similar in solution and CR treatments. CR fertilizer (18N-2.6P-9.9K) was applied on 6 July 1990 and 20 Mar. and 24 June 1991. Weekly soluble fertilization occurred from 6 July until 29 Oct. 1990. Soluble fertilization was resumed on 20 Mar. 1991 and continued until 22 Oct. 1991. Slash pine, CR fertilizer (Expt. 3). Slash pine seedlings, J. AMER. SOC. HORT. SCI. 118(6):752-756. 1993. field-grown 1 year before lifting, were obtained bare-root in late Feb. 1990, stored at 2C, and transplanted singly into each size of container on 27 Feb. 1990. Forty trees in 1-liter containers were upcanned to 1-3 on 23 Aug. 1990, of which one-half was again upcanned to 1-3-10 on 8 Mar. 1991. Half of the 3-3 trees was upcanned to 3-10-liter containers on 9 Jan. 1991. Trees were fertilized as described for Expt. 1. Growth measurements. Initial shoot heights and stem diameters were measured (at 25 mm above the medium) within 2 weeks of initial transplanting for all experiments, with measurements repeated on all plants every 2 to 3 months until the final ones were taken in November 1991. On 15 Nov. 1991, shoots of 10 plants from each experimental unit were severed at the medium surface and dried at 60C to constant dry weight. Plant dry weight, final stem diameter, and height for Expts. 1 and 3 were analyzed as a randomized design of six treatments (combination of initial and final container size), with 10 (shoot dry weight only) or 20 replications per treatment. Expt. 2 was analyzed as a split-plot, with fertilizer type as the main plot and six container treatments as subplots in a randomized design. Growth rates for height and trunk diameter were separated into two growth periods consistent with the 1990 and 1991 growing seasons for easier analysis. The first season extended from Week 5 to 32 for Expt. 1, Week 2 to 27 for Expt. 2, and Week 13 to 37 for Expt. 3. The second season consisted of the intervals Weeks 42 to 87 for Expt. 1, Weeks 36 to 73 for Expt. 2, and Weeks 48 to 89 for Expt. 3. Growth rates were analyzed by regression for each experiment and growth season. Single-degree-of-freedom contrast was used to compare slopes among the container treatments as describe by Snedecor and Cochran (1980). All analyses used the SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.) statistical package.

Benefits of Progressively Increasing Container Size during Nursery Production Depend on Fertilizer Regime and Species