Advertisement

Proper Planting Improves Performance

  • Alan J. Long
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 36)

Abstract

Current procedures and guidelines, and justification for their use, are reviewed for the three major components of the planting process: environmental factors, equipment and system selection, and planting technique. Southern pines can be planted across a wide variety of weather conditions as long as seedling exposure to sun and wind, a primary factor in early mortality in plantations, is minimized. Simple planting machines and hand tools continue to be the equipment selected for virtually all planting, with choices governed by factors such as topography, soil conditions, site preparation, and costs. On sites that can be planted with either system, hand planting may be slightly less costly with fewer skipped planting spots, but may result in less uniform planting quality than machine planting. Shallow, loosely planted seedlings are the most likely to die in new plantations; however, survival or growth of seedlings whose roots are L or U shaped, but otherwise properly planted, seems relatively unaffected by root configuration. Training and supervision of planting crews are critical to preventing planting-quality problems. Contractors account for 80 to 90% of planting operations. Contracts can be written to improve planting quality and, ultimately, plantation performance, but continuous overseeing of all phases of the planting operation is crucial to assure success.

Keywords

Seedling Survival Site Preparation Crew Member Lateral Root Development Hand Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arkansas Forestry Commission. 1983. Guidelines for seedling care and planting. Arkansas Forestry Commission. 23 p.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, K.A., J.G. Mexal, and D.A. Idem. 1979. The effects of seedling morphology and planting date on survival and early growth of loblolly pine in the Oklahoma Region. Weyerhaeuser Co., Hot Springs, Ark., Weyerhaeuser Forest Res. Tech. Rep. 042–2008/79/35. 10 p.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balmer, W.E., and H.L. Williston. 1974. Guide for planting southern pines. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, Ga. 17 p.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dierauf, T.A. 1976. Fall planting and storage using nondormant seedlings. Pages 31–36 In Proc. 1976 Southeastern Area Nurserymen’s Conference (C.W. Lantz, ed.). Cosponsored by Alabama Forestry Commission, South Carolina State Commission of Forestry, and U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, Ga.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duryea, M.L. 1986. Root and shoot pruning at southern nurseries. Pages 114–129 In Proc Southern Forest Nursery Assoc. (R.A. Schroeder, ed.). Florida Division of Forestry, Pensacola.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feret, P.P., R.E. Kreh, and C. Mulligan. 1985. Effects of air drying on survival, height, and root growth potential of loblolly pine seedlings. South. J. Appl. Forestry 9(2):125–128.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Florida Division of Forestry. 1982. Field handling and planting standards. Tallahassee, Fla., Unpubl. rep. 6 p.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Georgia Forestry Commission. 1987. Seedling care and planting guidelines. Macon, Ga., Unpubl. rep. 22 p.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Godbee, J.F., Jr., J.L. Rakestraw, and F.S. Broerman. 1983. Pine plantation survival: a corporate look at the problem. Pages 21–26 In Proc. 1982 Southern Nurserymen’s Conferences (C. Lantz and J. Brissette, eds.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, Ga. Tech. Publ. R8-TP4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greaves, R.D. 1978. Planting and seeding. Pages 131–161 In Regenerating Oregon’s Forests (B.D. Cleary, R.D. Greaves, and R.K. Hermann, eds.). Oregon State Univ. Extension Serv., Corvallis.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guldin, R.W. 1983a. Handplanting costs are influenced by planting site characteristics. Pages 30–33 In Proc. 2nd Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference (E. P. Jones, Jr, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Forest Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guldin, R.W. 1983b. Regeneration costs for industrial landowners using hand vs. machine planting. South. J. Appl. Forestry 7(2):104–108.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrington, C.A., W.C. Carlson, and J.C. Brissette. 1987. Relationships between height growth and root system orientation in planted and seeded loblolly and shortleaf pines. Pages 53–60 In Proc. 4th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference (D.R. Phillips, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast. Forest Exp.Sta., Asheville, N.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-42.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hart, J.B., Jr., and T.F. Fitzgerald. 1977. Experience with motorized rotary auger planting of plug seedlings in stony soils. Weyerhaeuser Co., Hot Springs, Ark. Weyerhaeuser Forest Res. Tech. Rep. 042–2302/77/17. 8 p.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hay, R.L., and F.W. Woods. 1974a. Root deformation correlated with sapling size for loblolly pine. J. Forestry 72:143–145.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hay, R.L., and F.W. Woods. 1974b. Shape of root systems influences survival and growth of loblolly seedlings. Tree Planters’ Notes 25(3): 1–2.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunter, S.C., and T.E. Maki. 1980. The effects of root curling on loblolly pine. South. J. Appl. Forestry 4:45–48.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kluender, R.A., J.A. Burger, B.L. Izlar, W.B. Stuart, and T.A. Walbridge. 1985. Southwide pine regeneration survey. American Pulpwood Assoc., Washington, D.C. Publ. 85-A-12. 37 p.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larson, J., and E. Milodragovich. 1982. Catalog for hand planting tools. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Equipment Development Center, Missoula, Mont., Rep., Project 9123. 33 p.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Little, S. 1973. Survival, growth of loblolly, pitch, shortleaf pines established by different methods in New Jersey. Tree Planters’ Notes 24(4): 1–5.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Little, S., and H.A. Somes. 1964. Root systems of directseeded and variously planted loblolly, shortleaf and pitch pines. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Northeast. Forest Exp. Sta., Broomall, Pa. Res. Pap. NE-26. 13 p.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marx, S.H., and G.E. Hatchell. 1986. Root stripping of ectomycorrhizae decreases field performance of loblolly and longleaf pine seedlings. South. J. Appl. Forestry 10:173–179.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGee, C.E., and J.B. Hatcher. 1963. Deep planting small slash pine on old field sites in the Carolina sandhills. J. Forestry 61:382–383.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McNab, W.H., and R.H. Brendemuehl. 1983. Choctawhatchee sand pine survival, height, and biomass in South Carolina: third-year results. Pages 96–100 In Proc. 2nd Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference (E.P. Jones, Jr, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast. Forest Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mexal, J.G., and J.R. Dunlap. 1982. First-year survival and shoot growth of loblolly pine Pinus taeda): influence of lift date, time in storage and seed source. Weyerhaeuser Co., Hot Springs, Ark. Weyerhaeuser Forest Res. Rep.050–1422/5. 20 p.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mexal, J.G., and W.G. Morris. 1977. A review of factors influencing the dormancy and survival potential of bare root seedlings in the South. Weyerhaeuser Co., Hot Springs, Ark. Weyerhaeuser Forest Res. Tech. Rep. 042–2008/77/44. 20 p.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mexal, J.G., R.L. Moser, J.R. Bryant, and T.L. Lane. 1978. Root quality in plantations affects growth of loblolly pine. Weyerhaeuser Co., Hot Springs, Ark. Weyerhaeuser Forest Res. Tech. Rep. 042–2008/78/53. 16 p.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Muller, C.A. 1983. Loblolly pine seedling survival study, 1979–80 and 1980–81 planting seasons. Pages 27–39 In Proc. 1982 Southern Nurserymen’s Conferences (C. Lantz and J. Brissette, eds.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, Ga. Tech. Publ. R8-TP4.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    North Carolina Division of Natural Resources. 1982. Field handling and planting standards. Raleigh, N.C. Unpubl. rep. 6 p.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schultz, R.P. 1973. Site treatment and planting method alter root development of slash pine. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast. Forest Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. Res. Pap. SE-109. 11 p.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Slocum, G.K., and T.E. Maki. 1956. Some effects of depth of planting upon loblolly pine in the North Carolina Piedmont. J. Forestry 54:21–25.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Slusher, J.P. 1986. Mechanical tree planters. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Extension Division. Agrie. Guide 5009. 4 p.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    South, D.B., and J.G. Mexal. 1984. Growing the “best” seedling for reforestation success. Alabama Agrie. Exp. Sta., Auburn. Forestry Departmental Series No. 12. 11 p.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sternberg, E.I. 1985. Tree planting machines: a review of the intermittent-furrow and spot planting types. Forest Engineering Res. Institute of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia. Special Rep. No. SR-31. 118 p.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Switzer, G.L. 1960. Exposure and planting depth effects on loblolly pine planting stock on poorly drained sites. J. Forestry 58:390–391.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ursic, SJ. 1963. Modifications of planting technique not recommended for loblolly on eroded soils. Tree Planters’ Notes 57:13–17.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ursic, S.J., H.L. Williston, and R.M. Burns. 1966. Late planting improves loblolly survival. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., South. Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, La. Res. Pap. SO-24. 12 p.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1984. Guidelines for seedling care: National Forests in Mississippi. Washington, D.C. 24 p.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Venator, C.R. 1984. Evidence of the presence of a lifting window for loblolly pine nursery seedlings. Pages 184–191 In Proc. 1984 Southern Nursery Conferences (C.W. Lantz, ed.). Cosponsored by Louisiana Office of Forestry, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., South. Region.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Venator, CR., and J.P. Barnett. 1985. Relating root growth potential to survival and growth of loblolly pine seedlings. Pages 125–127 In Proc. 2nd Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference (E.P. Jones, Jr, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast. Forest Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wakeley, P.C. 1954. Planting the southern pines. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Washington, D.C. Agrie. Monogr. No. 18. 233 p.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wakeley, P.C. 1969. Results of southern pine planting experiments established in the middle twenties. J. Forestry 67:237–241.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Watson, W.F., T.J. Straka, and S.H. Bullard. 1987. Costs and cost trends for forestry practices in the South. Forest Farmer 46(5):28–34.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weaver G.H., B. Izlar, F.S. Broerman, and G.K. Xydias. 1980. Preliminary report on the 1979 American Pulpwood Association pine plantation survival and nursery practices survey. Pages 24–30 In Proc. 1980 Southern Nursery Conference (C.W. Lantz, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, Ga. Tech. Publ. SA-TP17.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Williston, H.L. 1980. A statistical history of tree planting in the South, 1925–1979. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, Ga. Misc. Rep. SAMR-8. 36 p.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Woods, F.W. 1980. Growth of loblolly pine with roots planted in five configurations. South. J. Appl. Forestry 4:70–73.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xydias, G.K. 1981. Plantation survival studies of Continental Forest Industries. Pages 8–15 In Proc. 1st Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference (J. P. Barnett, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., South. Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, La. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Xydias, G.K. 1983. Factors influencing survival and early stocking trends in plantations of loblolly pine. Pages 101–108 In Proc. 2nd Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference (E.P. Jones, Jr, ed.). U.S.D.A. Forest Serv., Southeast. Forest Exp. Sta., Asheville, N.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-24.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xydias, G.K., R.D. Sage, J.D. Hodges, and D.M. Moehring. 1983. Establishment, survival, and tending of slash pine. Pages 165–182 In Proc. Symposium on The Managed Slash Pine Ecosystem (E.L. Stone, ed.). School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yeiser, J.L., and J.L. Paschke. 1987. Regenerating wet sites with bareroot and containerized loblolly pine seedlings. South. J. Appl. Forestry 11(l):52–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan J. Long

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations