Evaluating Tree Protection Devices: Effects on Growth and Survival–First-Year ResultsAuthor(s): L. R. Costello; R. H. Schmidt; Gregory A. Giusti
Source: In: Standiford, Richard B., tech. coord. 1991. Proceedings of the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management; October 31 -November 2, 1990; Davis, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-126. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 31-35
Publication Series: General Technical Report (GTR)
Station: Pacific Southwest Research Station
PDF: View PDF (295 KB)
DescriptionThe protection of seedlings from animal browsing is critical for the survival and growth of many tree species. This is particularly true in wildland areas and arid areas (McAuliffe, 1986), and oftentimes in urban areas. A variety of techniques and devices have been used to protect seedlings, from using straw stubble to milk cartons to plastic or metal screens. Recently, Tuley (1985) reported the successful use of "tree shelters" to protect oak seedlings in England. Tuley's tree shelters are essentially translucent plastic tubes (up to 6 feet in height and approximately 3 inches in diameter) which are placed over young seedlings. Tree shelters were found to significantly accelerate seedling height growth as well as protect them from animal injury. More recent reports (Frearson, 1987; Potter, 1989; and Bainbridge,1990) have found similar results for other species. Although other protection devices improve survival of young trees, their effects on growth (positive or negative) are not notable or not documented. This paper reports on the effects of three protection devices on the survival and growth of four tree species. Tree shelters, plastic mesh screens, and wire screens were selected. Since many reforestation and revegetation sites in California occur in areas with little or no summer rainfall, and which frequently are not irrigated, tree survival and growth were evaluated under both irrigated and nonirrigated conditions. The study was designed to address the following questions:
1) are there notable (positive or negative) effects from these tree protection devices on survival and growth?
2) when soil moisture is limiting, are effects equivalent to the irrigated condition?
3) are effects consistent for all test species, or do species-specific effects occur?
4) do any of the devices increase or diminish seedling injury by insects or diseases?
- You may send email to email@example.com to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationCostello, L. R.; Schmidt, R. H.; Giusti, Gregory A. 1991. Evaluating Tree Protection Devices: Effects on Growth and Survival–First-Year Results. In: Standiford, Richard B., tech. coord. 1991. Proceedings of the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management; October 31 -November 2, 1990; Davis, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-126. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 31-35
- First-Year Effects of Plastic Tube Shelters, Wire Cages, and Fertilization on Planted Nuttall Oak Seedlings
- Protection of tree seedlings from deer browsing
- Post-planting treatments increase growth of Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana Dougl. ex Hook.) seedlings.
XML: View XML