SlideShare a Scribd company logo
DEEP ROOTS RESEARCH UNRI Webcast – 08/13/08 “ Dysfunctional Root Systems and Brief Landscape Lives” Gary Johnson, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota Urban Forestry and Horticulture Institute Chad Giblin, Research Scientist Jeff Gillman, Associate Professor Dave Hanson, Research Specialist Gary Johnson, Professor and corresponding presenter.  [email_address] , 612-625-3765. Rebecca Koetter, Research Fellow Patrick Weicherding, Ext. Educator and Professor
University of Minnesota Urban Forestry and Horticulture Institute
Some Average Life Spans  Bur Oak 250+ Years* Silver Maple 125+ Years* Boxelder 100+ Years* Jack Pine   80+ Years* Paper Birch   65+ Years* Ford F150 Truck   20+ Years** Urban Core Tree  7-10 Years*** *Silvics of North America.  **I Hope. ***Kielbaso, 1989
State of the Urban Forest – 1989 J.J. Kielbaso Average Tree Lifespans “ Downtown” Urban Trees: 7-10 years. Suburban Landscape Trees: 30-40 years. Rural Landscape Trees:  60-70 years. Native Undisturbed Sites: 150 years.
“Downtown” Urban Trees
“Suburban” Landscape Tree
“Rural” Landscape Tree
Native Undisturbed Sites
What’s a “Normal” Root System? 5 month root system from seed (butternut)
6 year sugar maple root system from seed
Approximately 20 year old root system of linden
White spruce root system Pat Bartlett – Bartlett Forestry
What are “Normal” Roots? Seed Propagated Roots
“ Normal” Roots: Adventitious Roots
Abnormal Root Systems Root systems that deviate from normal or average root systems.
Balled and Burlapped
Containerized Root Systems
Plug Trays
J-Roots
Boulevards, Medians, Planters
Boulevards, Medians, Planters
Dysfunctional Root Systems Roots in unhealthy interactions within a plant system.
Dysfunctional Root Systems Buried root system growing to surface
Dysfunctional Root Systems Stem Encircling Roots
Dysfunctional Root Systems Stem Girdling Roots
Dysfunctional Root Systems Stem Girdling Roots and Stem Girdling Suckers
Dysfunctional Root Systems Pot-Bound Root System
Effects on Landscape Lives Predisposition to other problems Stunted growth Premature death/failure Reduced ability to compartmentalize
A Survey of Practitioners :  North American Members of ISA (1998, n = 282) Regarding Stem Girdling Roots and Tree Loss, Practitioners Stated: Relationship to tree decline and death  -  82% of the time. Relationship to the sudden failure of trees – 18% of the time
Predisposed Health
Predisposed Health
Predisposed Health
Reduced Ability to Compartmentalize
Premature Death
Premature Failure in Loading Events
Three “Deep Root” Studies Frequency of Buried Root Systems. Stem Girdling Roots & Storm Failures. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems.
Frequency of Buried Root Systems in the Landscape
Decline in Canopy Condition Associated with SGRs and Tilia. July 7, 2006.  Tilia cordata “Greenspire”
Depth of Soil Over Tree Roots: A Survey of 5 Landscape Species Range of Soil Depths over Roots Condition of Canopies and Stems Frequency, Extent, Location and Impact of Encircling or Stem Girdling Roots
Depth of Soil over Roots Surveys: Sites and Selection Minneapolis   1997 -  Acer saccharum ,  1999 -  Fraxinus  pennsylvanica , 1999 -  Tilia cordata , Rochester  2001 -  Celtis occidentalis ,  Saint Paul  2004 -  Gleditsia triacanthos N = 100 (+/-)Per Species, Randomly Selected
Depth of Soil Over Roots: Survey Protocol 3-9” d.b.h. Trees Surveys included two teams. 1 st   Team  “blind” condition rated canopies and stems 0-4 Rating System
Criteria for Condition Rating Trees: Canopy and Stem Conditions ~ 10% cambial loss. One crack and/or one seam. 3.0 ~ 10-25% Dieback, or Loss of Density, or <50% L.C.R., or Loss of Symmetry. No cambial loss*. No decay. No cracks/seams. 4.0 No Dieback. Characteristic Density for the species. 60%+ Live Crown Ratio (L.C.R.). Symmetrical. Stem Pts Canopy
Condition Rating: Canopies 0-4 Rating System:  0 = Dead 4 = No obvious defects. Canopy condition  rating factors:  Characteristic density for the Species, Live crown ratio (60% standard), Crown symmetry, Dieback.
Condition Rating: Canopies E.g., Greenspire Littleleaf Linden to the right.  Canopy condition reduced due to density.
Condition Rating: Stems Factors : Lost Bark/Living Cambium, Cracks/Ribs, Decay, Contributing Agents. Stem Girdling Roots (above ground) 0-4 Rating System: 0 = No living cambium in stem, 4 = No obvious defects.
Condition Rating: Stems Dead Cambium Frost Crack
Depth of Soil over Roots Surveys: Root Collar Exams 2 nd  Team  performed root collar examination: Data Recorded : Depth  to first order roots, Frequency and location of  Stem Encircling Roots (SERs) and Stem Girdling Roots (SGRs), % of stem affected.
Depth of Soil over Roots Surveys: Root Collar Exam Protocol Typical tools for root depth evaluations: Surveyor’s arrow Hand tools Wet/Dry vac Air knife
Summaries Majority Had > 1” Soil Over Roots* Tilia, Acer and Fraxinus Worst: > 90% w/4”+ 1”+ Soil = More SER’s Most Vulnerable Species: Tilia, Celtis, Fraxinus Worst Condition Rating:Soil Depth – Tilia, Acer, Fraxinus Most Common SGR’s:Soil Depth – Tilia, Fraxinus, Celtis, Acer
What  IS  Too Deep? Frequency of Stem Encircling Roots: 1-3 Inches* Frequency of Stem Girdling Suckers: 5 Inches** Frequency of Stem Girdling Roots: 1-3 Inches* *Sugar Maple, Green Ash, Littleleaf Linden, Hackberry, Honeylocust **Littleleaf Linden
What  IS  Too Deep? Negative Effects on Health?  Species Dependent.  1-3.5 inches was Too Deep.  Johnson and Johnson, 1997  Johnson and Borst, 1999  Johnson and Hauer, 2000 Johnson, et al., 2006.  Planting Depth Interim Report.
Where it Began?: Containerized Depth Problems
Too Deep? Assume That It Is
How Often Does it Happen? 881 Trees Sampled out of 5500 Total B&B and Containerized 87%: Stem Buried 2+ Inches 50%: Stem Buried 4+ Inches *Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; St. Paul Division of Forestry Nursery Stock Survey 2001-2002*
Why Does it Happen?  To Stabilize Trees in Containers.
Does it Work?  No!* 2002 University of MN/Bailey Nursery Experiment 4 Tree Species, 460 Trees Total 4 Planting Depths: 0 – 2 – 4 – 6 Inches Results?  All Leaned at Same Rates
Storm Failure Research: Most common pre-existing conditions
Storm Failure Triangle Tree Condition and Defects Loading Event wind, ice, snow Site Characteristics Failure   Potential Gary Johnson, University of MN
Storm Failure: pre-existing conditions
Storm Failure: pre-existing condition
Premature Failure in Loading Events* III. Most common pre-existing conditions : For all damage, separating preexisting conditions : CONDITION % OF TOTAL Decay Only 13 Stem Girdling Roots (SGR) 12 Included Bark Only  4 Root Problems  (other than SGR)  3 Codominant Leaders Only  4 Construction Damage Only  1 *Storm Damage 1995-2005; University of Minnesota
Storm Damage in Minnesota:  1995-2005 n=1584 Total Failures (Trees failed at or below ground line) Was Most Common Damage Category =  54%  of all damage, The presence of SGRs was the most common pre-existing condition (32%).
What  IS  Too Deep? Impact On Storm Damage to Trees? Most common reason for total failure: Buried SGRs. Species dependent. 1-4 inches.  Johnson, 2006.  “Storm Damage in Minnesota, 1995-2005.”
When Roots and Stems Conflict Soil Line SGR compression point
Layers of Stem Girdling Roots: Tilia
Soil Line SGR Compression
Storm Damage in Minnesota:   SGRs below ground with compression Norway Maple ( Acer platanoides )
Storm Damage in Minnesota:  1998 n=564 1995-2005 n=1584 Total Tree Failures In Boulevards Most Commonly Damaged Size (d.b.h.) ranges    1998 1995-2005 Size (d.b.h.) Range % of Total % of Total 6-10 inches   28.6   29.0 >25 inches   25.7    26.0 20-25 inches    15.7    16.0 10-15 inches   14.3   14.0 15-20 inches   14.3   14.0
Storm Damage in Minnesota: Failures due to Stem Girdling Roots 1995-2005 n=1584 32% of all tree failures , located on the edges of storms 26% of all boulevard total tree failures (53% of 6-10” category) 68%  of Little-leaf Lindens that failed in  boulevards  (#3 rd  most common species) > 90% of trees that had SGRs had stems buried 4” or more.
Storm Damage in Minnesota:  1998 n=564 1995-2005 n=1584 Commonly Damaged Species  with Chronic Problems 1998 1995-2005 Little Leaf Lindens:  73%  of all 76% that failed were 4”+ deep and had  stem girdling roots causing stem  compression. These trees failed below the stem  compression points.
Decline in Stem Condition Associated with SGR’s and Tilia
Stem Girdling Suckers! University of Minnesota Planting Depth Study 2000-2007 Lindens at 5” depth = Higher Frequency of Suckering. Higher Frequency of Suckering = Stem Girdling Suckers and Higher Mortality Rate
Stem Girdling Suckers!
Stem Girdling Suckers
Stem Girdling Suckers
Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Study One: 14 month experiment. 2 species (Tilia and Salix). 3 Treatments (slice, butterfly and “tease”). No statistical differences between treatments and controls on survival (100%) and root production. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, Volume 33, Issue 1, January 2007.
Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Study Two: Five years. Four species: Acer platanoides, Acer x freemanii, Thuja occidentalis, Malus sp. Two treatments: slicing, “boxing.” Data: survival, condition ratings, caliper increase, root production.
Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Complete randomized block design. Control and 2 treatments. 8 replicates. 11-05 to 11-10 study.
Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems “ Boxing” Control Scoring
Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Results to Date (08-08-08): Mortality Rates: Controls:0; Slice Treatment:0; Boxing Treatment:0. Condition Rating: No significant differences. Growth Rates: No significant differences.
Other Research? Douglas Airhart – Tennessee Tech U. Bonnie Appleton – VA Tech. Mike Arnold – Texas A & M Susan Day – VPI Donna Fare – U. S. National Arboretum Ed Gilman – U of Florida Christina Wells – Clemson University
Other Research? J. Roger Harris, VPI Gary Watson, Morton Arboretum David Williams and Gary Kling, U of IL T. Davis Sydnor and Richard Rathjens, Ohio State University
Other Research?

More Related Content

PPT
Emerald Ash Borer Program March 20, 2012, Scott Schirmer
PPT
Isa tree selection 1
PPT
Mgv Tree Pruning
PPTX
Tree selection
PDF
Cellweb TRP - Tree Vitality Observations
PPT
Isa tree selection
PDF
Top 11 indiana invasive plant species
PPT
Joan Hagar - Birds and Mammals and Herps
Emerald Ash Borer Program March 20, 2012, Scott Schirmer
Isa tree selection 1
Mgv Tree Pruning
Tree selection
Cellweb TRP - Tree Vitality Observations
Isa tree selection
Top 11 indiana invasive plant species
Joan Hagar - Birds and Mammals and Herps

What's hot (6)

PPT
09 how trees grow
PPTX
2015 restoration techniques
PPTX
All about the tree
PPTX
Diagnosing Plant Problems2009
PPT
3. cell structure
PPTX
Defects, Decay And D49
09 how trees grow
2015 restoration techniques
All about the tree
Diagnosing Plant Problems2009
3. cell structure
Defects, Decay And D49
Ad

Viewers also liked (16)

PPT
Cognos Cost reduction
ODP
Otto dix un pintor nas trincheiras
PPT
Translation-English to Gujarati
DOCX
10 técnicas sencillas para utilizar en el aula 1
PPTX
PPTX
Traballo historia lucía,alba,ana
PPT
Film Review
PPT
Social networking 101
PPTX
Marketing Research Powerpoint
PDF
The role of social media in your organisation
PPT
Garfield Phillips
PDF
Naming for Information Management Product Golder Associates Limited
PPT
Media's Influence
PPT
Chimney
PPT
Fact and opinion
PPT
Argue and Persuade
Cognos Cost reduction
Otto dix un pintor nas trincheiras
Translation-English to Gujarati
10 técnicas sencillas para utilizar en el aula 1
Traballo historia lucía,alba,ana
Film Review
Social networking 101
Marketing Research Powerpoint
The role of social media in your organisation
Garfield Phillips
Naming for Information Management Product Golder Associates Limited
Media's Influence
Chimney
Fact and opinion
Argue and Persuade
Ad

Similar to Unri Deep Roots Webcast 08 Compressed (20)

PPTX
Rootwell Annimation
PDF
Soil Vault Systems for Healthy Trees in Cities
PPTX
Fracture mechanics of tree root breakage
PPT
Soil Volume Structural Soils (Socash) 2008 Sept Miami Dade Ciab
PPTX
Deciduous Trees Sew Fdl Compressed
PPT
RPM High Performance Trees
PDF
How May Weather Affects Tree Root Health Insights from Ground-Level Surveys.pdf
PPT
5a Planting
PDF
Cellweb TRP - Tree Vitality Observations
PDF
Ppt fruit-apple-soil-health-merwin-cornell-2014-eng
PDF
Tree preservation presentation (modified)
PDF
Silviculture Upland Hardwood
PPT
10b Trees Fertsoil
PPTX
Rootwell
PPT
Planting Trees in Urban Areas
PDF
Dessication near trees cameron 01
PDF
Gardening in the Winter - Try Bare-Roots, Gardening Guidebook for Placer Coun...
PPT
Construction damage
PPT
Construction damage
PPT
Rhs year 2 week 25 presentation
Rootwell Annimation
Soil Vault Systems for Healthy Trees in Cities
Fracture mechanics of tree root breakage
Soil Volume Structural Soils (Socash) 2008 Sept Miami Dade Ciab
Deciduous Trees Sew Fdl Compressed
RPM High Performance Trees
How May Weather Affects Tree Root Health Insights from Ground-Level Surveys.pdf
5a Planting
Cellweb TRP - Tree Vitality Observations
Ppt fruit-apple-soil-health-merwin-cornell-2014-eng
Tree preservation presentation (modified)
Silviculture Upland Hardwood
10b Trees Fertsoil
Rootwell
Planting Trees in Urban Areas
Dessication near trees cameron 01
Gardening in the Winter - Try Bare-Roots, Gardening Guidebook for Placer Coun...
Construction damage
Construction damage
Rhs year 2 week 25 presentation

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
project resource management chapter-09.pdf
PPTX
O2C Customer Invoices to Receipt V15A.pptx
PDF
A novel scalable deep ensemble learning framework for big data classification...
PPTX
Chapter 5: Probability Theory and Statistics
PPTX
Group 1 Presentation -Planning and Decision Making .pptx
PDF
Assigned Numbers - 2025 - Bluetooth® Document
PPTX
Final SEM Unit 1 for mit wpu at pune .pptx
PDF
A contest of sentiment analysis: k-nearest neighbor versus neural network
PPT
Module 1.ppt Iot fundamentals and Architecture
PDF
WOOl fibre morphology and structure.pdf for textiles
PDF
NewMind AI Weekly Chronicles - August'25-Week II
PDF
From MVP to Full-Scale Product A Startup’s Software Journey.pdf
PDF
STKI Israel Market Study 2025 version august
PDF
Architecture types and enterprise applications.pdf
PDF
DP Operators-handbook-extract for the Mautical Institute
PPTX
1. Introduction to Computer Programming.pptx
PDF
Zenith AI: Advanced Artificial Intelligence
PDF
Developing a website for English-speaking practice to English as a foreign la...
PDF
Microsoft Solutions Partner Drive Digital Transformation with D365.pdf
PPTX
TechTalks-8-2019-Service-Management-ITIL-Refresh-ITIL-4-Framework-Supports-Ou...
project resource management chapter-09.pdf
O2C Customer Invoices to Receipt V15A.pptx
A novel scalable deep ensemble learning framework for big data classification...
Chapter 5: Probability Theory and Statistics
Group 1 Presentation -Planning and Decision Making .pptx
Assigned Numbers - 2025 - Bluetooth® Document
Final SEM Unit 1 for mit wpu at pune .pptx
A contest of sentiment analysis: k-nearest neighbor versus neural network
Module 1.ppt Iot fundamentals and Architecture
WOOl fibre morphology and structure.pdf for textiles
NewMind AI Weekly Chronicles - August'25-Week II
From MVP to Full-Scale Product A Startup’s Software Journey.pdf
STKI Israel Market Study 2025 version august
Architecture types and enterprise applications.pdf
DP Operators-handbook-extract for the Mautical Institute
1. Introduction to Computer Programming.pptx
Zenith AI: Advanced Artificial Intelligence
Developing a website for English-speaking practice to English as a foreign la...
Microsoft Solutions Partner Drive Digital Transformation with D365.pdf
TechTalks-8-2019-Service-Management-ITIL-Refresh-ITIL-4-Framework-Supports-Ou...

Unri Deep Roots Webcast 08 Compressed

  • 1. DEEP ROOTS RESEARCH UNRI Webcast – 08/13/08 “ Dysfunctional Root Systems and Brief Landscape Lives” Gary Johnson, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota
  • 2. University of Minnesota Urban Forestry and Horticulture Institute Chad Giblin, Research Scientist Jeff Gillman, Associate Professor Dave Hanson, Research Specialist Gary Johnson, Professor and corresponding presenter. [email_address] , 612-625-3765. Rebecca Koetter, Research Fellow Patrick Weicherding, Ext. Educator and Professor
  • 3. University of Minnesota Urban Forestry and Horticulture Institute
  • 4. Some Average Life Spans Bur Oak 250+ Years* Silver Maple 125+ Years* Boxelder 100+ Years* Jack Pine 80+ Years* Paper Birch 65+ Years* Ford F150 Truck 20+ Years** Urban Core Tree 7-10 Years*** *Silvics of North America. **I Hope. ***Kielbaso, 1989
  • 5. State of the Urban Forest – 1989 J.J. Kielbaso Average Tree Lifespans “ Downtown” Urban Trees: 7-10 years. Suburban Landscape Trees: 30-40 years. Rural Landscape Trees: 60-70 years. Native Undisturbed Sites: 150 years.
  • 10. What’s a “Normal” Root System? 5 month root system from seed (butternut)
  • 11. 6 year sugar maple root system from seed
  • 12. Approximately 20 year old root system of linden
  • 13. White spruce root system Pat Bartlett – Bartlett Forestry
  • 14. What are “Normal” Roots? Seed Propagated Roots
  • 15. “ Normal” Roots: Adventitious Roots
  • 16. Abnormal Root Systems Root systems that deviate from normal or average root systems.
  • 23. Dysfunctional Root Systems Roots in unhealthy interactions within a plant system.
  • 24. Dysfunctional Root Systems Buried root system growing to surface
  • 25. Dysfunctional Root Systems Stem Encircling Roots
  • 26. Dysfunctional Root Systems Stem Girdling Roots
  • 27. Dysfunctional Root Systems Stem Girdling Roots and Stem Girdling Suckers
  • 28. Dysfunctional Root Systems Pot-Bound Root System
  • 29. Effects on Landscape Lives Predisposition to other problems Stunted growth Premature death/failure Reduced ability to compartmentalize
  • 30. A Survey of Practitioners : North American Members of ISA (1998, n = 282) Regarding Stem Girdling Roots and Tree Loss, Practitioners Stated: Relationship to tree decline and death - 82% of the time. Relationship to the sudden failure of trees – 18% of the time
  • 34. Reduced Ability to Compartmentalize
  • 36. Premature Failure in Loading Events
  • 37. Three “Deep Root” Studies Frequency of Buried Root Systems. Stem Girdling Roots & Storm Failures. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems.
  • 38. Frequency of Buried Root Systems in the Landscape
  • 39. Decline in Canopy Condition Associated with SGRs and Tilia. July 7, 2006. Tilia cordata “Greenspire”
  • 40. Depth of Soil Over Tree Roots: A Survey of 5 Landscape Species Range of Soil Depths over Roots Condition of Canopies and Stems Frequency, Extent, Location and Impact of Encircling or Stem Girdling Roots
  • 41. Depth of Soil over Roots Surveys: Sites and Selection Minneapolis 1997 - Acer saccharum , 1999 - Fraxinus pennsylvanica , 1999 - Tilia cordata , Rochester 2001 - Celtis occidentalis , Saint Paul 2004 - Gleditsia triacanthos N = 100 (+/-)Per Species, Randomly Selected
  • 42. Depth of Soil Over Roots: Survey Protocol 3-9” d.b.h. Trees Surveys included two teams. 1 st Team “blind” condition rated canopies and stems 0-4 Rating System
  • 43. Criteria for Condition Rating Trees: Canopy and Stem Conditions ~ 10% cambial loss. One crack and/or one seam. 3.0 ~ 10-25% Dieback, or Loss of Density, or <50% L.C.R., or Loss of Symmetry. No cambial loss*. No decay. No cracks/seams. 4.0 No Dieback. Characteristic Density for the species. 60%+ Live Crown Ratio (L.C.R.). Symmetrical. Stem Pts Canopy
  • 44. Condition Rating: Canopies 0-4 Rating System: 0 = Dead 4 = No obvious defects. Canopy condition rating factors: Characteristic density for the Species, Live crown ratio (60% standard), Crown symmetry, Dieback.
  • 45. Condition Rating: Canopies E.g., Greenspire Littleleaf Linden to the right. Canopy condition reduced due to density.
  • 46. Condition Rating: Stems Factors : Lost Bark/Living Cambium, Cracks/Ribs, Decay, Contributing Agents. Stem Girdling Roots (above ground) 0-4 Rating System: 0 = No living cambium in stem, 4 = No obvious defects.
  • 47. Condition Rating: Stems Dead Cambium Frost Crack
  • 48. Depth of Soil over Roots Surveys: Root Collar Exams 2 nd Team performed root collar examination: Data Recorded : Depth to first order roots, Frequency and location of Stem Encircling Roots (SERs) and Stem Girdling Roots (SGRs), % of stem affected.
  • 49. Depth of Soil over Roots Surveys: Root Collar Exam Protocol Typical tools for root depth evaluations: Surveyor’s arrow Hand tools Wet/Dry vac Air knife
  • 50. Summaries Majority Had > 1” Soil Over Roots* Tilia, Acer and Fraxinus Worst: > 90% w/4”+ 1”+ Soil = More SER’s Most Vulnerable Species: Tilia, Celtis, Fraxinus Worst Condition Rating:Soil Depth – Tilia, Acer, Fraxinus Most Common SGR’s:Soil Depth – Tilia, Fraxinus, Celtis, Acer
  • 51. What IS Too Deep? Frequency of Stem Encircling Roots: 1-3 Inches* Frequency of Stem Girdling Suckers: 5 Inches** Frequency of Stem Girdling Roots: 1-3 Inches* *Sugar Maple, Green Ash, Littleleaf Linden, Hackberry, Honeylocust **Littleleaf Linden
  • 52. What IS Too Deep? Negative Effects on Health? Species Dependent. 1-3.5 inches was Too Deep. Johnson and Johnson, 1997 Johnson and Borst, 1999 Johnson and Hauer, 2000 Johnson, et al., 2006. Planting Depth Interim Report.
  • 53. Where it Began?: Containerized Depth Problems
  • 54. Too Deep? Assume That It Is
  • 55. How Often Does it Happen? 881 Trees Sampled out of 5500 Total B&B and Containerized 87%: Stem Buried 2+ Inches 50%: Stem Buried 4+ Inches *Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; St. Paul Division of Forestry Nursery Stock Survey 2001-2002*
  • 56. Why Does it Happen? To Stabilize Trees in Containers.
  • 57. Does it Work? No!* 2002 University of MN/Bailey Nursery Experiment 4 Tree Species, 460 Trees Total 4 Planting Depths: 0 – 2 – 4 – 6 Inches Results? All Leaned at Same Rates
  • 58. Storm Failure Research: Most common pre-existing conditions
  • 59. Storm Failure Triangle Tree Condition and Defects Loading Event wind, ice, snow Site Characteristics Failure Potential Gary Johnson, University of MN
  • 62. Premature Failure in Loading Events* III. Most common pre-existing conditions : For all damage, separating preexisting conditions : CONDITION % OF TOTAL Decay Only 13 Stem Girdling Roots (SGR) 12 Included Bark Only 4 Root Problems (other than SGR) 3 Codominant Leaders Only 4 Construction Damage Only 1 *Storm Damage 1995-2005; University of Minnesota
  • 63. Storm Damage in Minnesota: 1995-2005 n=1584 Total Failures (Trees failed at or below ground line) Was Most Common Damage Category = 54% of all damage, The presence of SGRs was the most common pre-existing condition (32%).
  • 64. What IS Too Deep? Impact On Storm Damage to Trees? Most common reason for total failure: Buried SGRs. Species dependent. 1-4 inches. Johnson, 2006. “Storm Damage in Minnesota, 1995-2005.”
  • 65. When Roots and Stems Conflict Soil Line SGR compression point
  • 66. Layers of Stem Girdling Roots: Tilia
  • 67. Soil Line SGR Compression
  • 68. Storm Damage in Minnesota: SGRs below ground with compression Norway Maple ( Acer platanoides )
  • 69. Storm Damage in Minnesota: 1998 n=564 1995-2005 n=1584 Total Tree Failures In Boulevards Most Commonly Damaged Size (d.b.h.) ranges 1998 1995-2005 Size (d.b.h.) Range % of Total % of Total 6-10 inches 28.6 29.0 >25 inches 25.7 26.0 20-25 inches 15.7 16.0 10-15 inches 14.3 14.0 15-20 inches 14.3 14.0
  • 70. Storm Damage in Minnesota: Failures due to Stem Girdling Roots 1995-2005 n=1584 32% of all tree failures , located on the edges of storms 26% of all boulevard total tree failures (53% of 6-10” category) 68% of Little-leaf Lindens that failed in boulevards (#3 rd most common species) > 90% of trees that had SGRs had stems buried 4” or more.
  • 71. Storm Damage in Minnesota: 1998 n=564 1995-2005 n=1584 Commonly Damaged Species with Chronic Problems 1998 1995-2005 Little Leaf Lindens: 73% of all 76% that failed were 4”+ deep and had stem girdling roots causing stem compression. These trees failed below the stem compression points.
  • 72. Decline in Stem Condition Associated with SGR’s and Tilia
  • 73. Stem Girdling Suckers! University of Minnesota Planting Depth Study 2000-2007 Lindens at 5” depth = Higher Frequency of Suckering. Higher Frequency of Suckering = Stem Girdling Suckers and Higher Mortality Rate
  • 77. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Study One: 14 month experiment. 2 species (Tilia and Salix). 3 Treatments (slice, butterfly and “tease”). No statistical differences between treatments and controls on survival (100%) and root production. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, Volume 33, Issue 1, January 2007.
  • 78. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Study Two: Five years. Four species: Acer platanoides, Acer x freemanii, Thuja occidentalis, Malus sp. Two treatments: slicing, “boxing.” Data: survival, condition ratings, caliper increase, root production.
  • 79. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Complete randomized block design. Control and 2 treatments. 8 replicates. 11-05 to 11-10 study.
  • 80. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems “ Boxing” Control Scoring
  • 81. Correcting Pot-Bound Root Systems Results to Date (08-08-08): Mortality Rates: Controls:0; Slice Treatment:0; Boxing Treatment:0. Condition Rating: No significant differences. Growth Rates: No significant differences.
  • 82. Other Research? Douglas Airhart – Tennessee Tech U. Bonnie Appleton – VA Tech. Mike Arnold – Texas A & M Susan Day – VPI Donna Fare – U. S. National Arboretum Ed Gilman – U of Florida Christina Wells – Clemson University
  • 83. Other Research? J. Roger Harris, VPI Gary Watson, Morton Arboretum David Williams and Gary Kling, U of IL T. Davis Sydnor and Richard Rathjens, Ohio State University