Progress 01/01/10 to 12/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: The target audience includes: 1. Nursery producers who grow both landscape trees and large shrubs that would take advantage of the different production systems studied in our research. 2. Small and medium sized farmers who are looking for additional enterprises to diversify their farm enterprises. 3. Landscape professionals who utilize trees and large shrubs in landscape installations. 4. Landscape designers who design landscapes and need information about the growth and performance of trees from different producdtion systems. 5. Town tree wardens who use nursery products in town landscape plantings. 6. Extension personnel who advise on nursery and landscape issues and probles. Changes/Problems: Using sites at professional nursery operations proved difficult to manage. Despite paying for their services, we found that the demanding schedules of the nurserymen participating in the studies led to several problems. First, we abandoned one entire site after one growing season. Trees there were not maintained and irrigation problems were not addressed. Second, despite being more diligent, our second site experienced irrigation difficulties for one treatment (the Pot-in-Pot trees). The trees were especially susceptible to drying out and did so on several occasions when additional irrigation was needed. A problem with adequate preasure in the irrigation system went undiagnosed for several days causing the PiP crabapple trees to also suffer. Disease (fungus) also resulted in the loss of one entire species (white oak) requiring that we replant that treatment in 2011. As a result, our final harvest was not completed until fall 2013. Data analysis for those trees was moved back by one year and those data analyses are being finalized now. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The research provided training and professional development opportunities for 5 graduate students who worked on various research components. Through field days, we provided training to nursery producers and landscape professionals on the production methods, the economics of production and the root morphology of the different production methods. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Outreach Summary 2010 Webpage and videos: Established UNH nursery production webpage with project description and links to project videos at http://extension.unh.edu/Nursery-Landscape/Nursery-Crop-Production. To date, there have been over 3100 views on YouTube. Mass. Nursery and Landscape Assoc. Summer Conference – we sponsored speaker Ted Bilderback from NC State Univ. on Pot in Pot Cultural Methods for Nursery Production. We also had a booth and administered the initial survey on grower and purchaser attitudes towards alternative tree products. 2011 Newsletter article: Comparing Production Systems for New England Nurseries. Published in News & Views, Jan. 2011 issue. UNH Cooperative Extension (Circulation 1350). Also published in MNLA Progrow News, Jan/Feb. 2011. (Circulation) 2012 Production Methods for Landscape Trees: Preliminary Results. This was a research field day we conducted at the nursery site in Amherst, Mass., on 20 Oct. 2011, attended by 30 people. The audience was actively engaged in examining, rating and discussing trees from the different systems. Increases in knowledge were self-rated by participants; the topics showing the greatest increase were “How production methods affect root structure”, “pot in pot tree production methods” and “planting costs for different production methods”. The percent of the audience which moved from zero to minimal knowledge to moderate or considerable knowledge levels was 60%, 80% and 88%, respectively, for each of these topics. Long Island Horticulture Conference, 25 Jan. 2012; 60 people attended our session, an invited presentation by Cathy Neal and Dan Lass: From Fabric Bags to Pot-in-pot: How Unconventional Tree Production Measures Up. The program organizer indicated our program was “informative and well-received.” Massachusetts Nursery and Landscape Association Summer Meeting, 16 Aug. 2012, Wellesley MA. 67 people attended our invited presentation titled Comparing Tree Production Systems: What Growers and Buyers Should Know. A summary of the talk was subsequently published in ProGrow news, the MNLA newsletter. Northern New England Nursery Conference, 2 March 2012; 31 attendees (after several storm-related cancellations). Alternative Tree Production systems for New England Nurseries (C. Neal and D. Lass) presentation. Participants rated their increase in knowledge based on our presentation at 3.9 (on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the highest) in a post-program evaluation survey. New England Grows Feb 2-4, 2011; C. Neal gave trade show floor talk on tree production systems (22 attended) featuring our research project. Research Tour and Discussion for Master Gardeners, 20 Sept., 2012; 35 attended as part of Master Gardener Training class. Used hands-on samples for teaching about root structure of trees and how it is affected by nursery production. Feedback was very positive. Alumni Group Research Tour; July 2012. Presented project overview to group of 20 UNH Alumni touring the research farm. Landscape and Nursery Research Field Day, 24 Oct. 2012; 108 participants. Conducted at the UNH Ag. Experiment Station, Durham NH. Featured presentations (Comparing Tree Production Systems – what Growers and Buyers Should Know, by D. Lass, and What About the Roots by C. Neal) and a field tour highlighted our research project results. The audience was actively engaged in examining, rating and discussing trees from three different systems. Outreach Program Evaluation: At the end of the year, an online survey was sent to 130 program participants for whom valid email addresses were readily available; there was a 24% rate of completed responses. 60% of landscape and tree care professionals reported an increase in knowledge and skills related to tree root structure, planting and mulching practices. As a result, 55% adopted improved planting/mulching practices, 82% felt they made better purchasing decisions (for example, trees with better root systems), and 64% were better able to diagnose and correct structural and planting depth problems. 2013 Northern New England Nursery Conference, 7 March 2013; 28 attendees As part of our risk management educational programs, I coordinated the fourth annual tri-state (ME, VT, NH) effort for nursery producers and garden center operators. The overall program quality was rated 4.5 on a 5-point scale. Increase in knowledge was rated 4.1 and 4.6, respectively, for my own two presentations (Industry trends and Meadow gardens). News Feature: Dr. Cathy Neal in Getting to the Roots. UNH Cooperative Extension, 11.26.2013. http://extension.unh.edu/articles/Getting-Roots 2014 New England Grows Feb 5-7, 2014; trade show floor talks based on project results were given by D. Lass (Revitalizing Nursery Production and Small Farms in the Northeast) and C. Neal (How Tree Production Systems Affect Root Structure and Transplant Success). Over 11,000 people in the nursery and landscape industry attend New England Grows each year. American Nurseryman Magazine - Horticulture Magazine and Horticulture Books - July, 2014. “Getting to the Roots: Production Effects on Tree Root Growth and Morphology” by C. Neal and D. Lass. Part I of two articles that compares three types of production systems and their effects on tree growth and root morphology. http://www.amerinursery.com/article-10975.aspx American Nurseryman Magazine - Horticulture Magazine and Horticulture Books – in preparation - 2014. “Economics of Alternative Nursery Production Methods.” by D. Lass and C. Neal and D. Lass. Part II of two articles that compares the costs and returns of production using different nursery production methods for river birch.. Abstracts accepted for publication and poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science, July 27-31, 2014, Orlando FL: Growth and Root Characteristics of Trees in Three Northern Nursery Production Systems. C.A. Neal and A. Papineau, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Univ. of New Hampshire; D. Lass, and Hongli Wei, Dept. of Resource Economics, Univ. of Massachusetts. River Birch (Betula nigra) Growth and Root Extension from Three Production Systems during Landscape Establishmen. C.A. Neal and A. Papineau, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Univ. of New Hampshire; D. Lass Dept. of Resource Economics, Univ. of Massachusetts. Root Zone Temperatures and Growth of River Birch (Betula nigra) in Five Above-Ground Pot Production Systems. C.A. Neal and A. Papineau, Univ. of New Hampshire What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Harvest of trees was completed in fall 2013. We are still doing analysis of root data and economic data. We have two journal articles in preparation for submission this summer/fall. We are also finallizing analysis of root data for publication in horticultural journals.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
River Birch Key Findings and Conclusions In summary, we found significant differences in river birch tree height for the two alternative production methods when compared to the traditional field grown trees harvested as B&B trees. Those differences were 18.6 inches and 7.5 inches for the PiP and IGFC production methods, respectively. We found that PiP trees also had significantly smaller caliper measurements. We did not find significant differences in the caliper measurements for IGFC trees when compared to the traditional B&B trees. By modeling wholesale prices, we found that shorter tree heights lead to lower wholesale prices, according to our model, each additional inch is worth about $1. So the average height differences suggest that PiP and IGFC tree prices would be lower on average, by about $19 and $8, respectively. The wholesale price models suggested that caliper was not important to wholesale prices. Holding height and caliper constant, we found evidence of strong negative biases in the wholesale prices for PiP and IGFC trees. We estimated a downward bias in pricing IGFC trees of about $10 and a downward bias for PiP trees of $27 for trees of equal height and caliper. These biases suggest that the markets do not value PiP and IGFC trees that are the same height as highly as a more traditional B&B tree. This suggests that demand favors the large root ball and anticipates that root ball suggests greater success in transplanting. Our results above suggest that wholesale markets may favor B&B trees over PiP and IGFC trees of the same height. Thus, for equivalent trees above the soil line, there must be different expectations about what is contained below the soil line in the root balls. To address this questions, we studied the root morphology of the different trees (B&B, IGFC and PiP), considering the proportions of roots in different size classes and the root-to-shoot ratios (root:shoot). These were analyzed using regression techniques to test for differences across treatments. We found that the proportions of roots in different size classes were different across treatments. PiP trees had significantly greater proportions of fine and small roots and smaller proportions of medium-2 and large roots compared to the B&B trees. Only the medium-1 proportions for PiP and B&B trees were statistically the same. IGFC trees had greater proportions of small and medium-1 roots and smaller proportions of large roots when compared to B&B trees. There were no differences in the proportions of fine and medium-2 root for IGFC and B&B trees. Both B&B and IGFC trees had large root proportions greater than 50%. However, when analyzing the root:shoot ratios, the PiP root biomass actually exceeded the shoot biomass by 12% (a ratio of 1.12) while the B&B trees had root biomass that was just 55% of the shoot biomass (a ratio of 0.55). IGFC trees also had a greater root:shoot ratio than B&B trees (a ratio of 0.72); root biomass was 72% of the shoot biomass on average. Thus, B&B trees may be more highly valued than IGFC or PiP trees of equivalent height, but those alternative production methods generate tree with a greater root biomass relative to the shoot biomass, on average. The greater root:shoot ratios may promote greater success upon transplanting. White Oak Results We found very few statistically important results when comparing growth measures for the swamp white oak trees. We did find that the initial liner height and caliper affected the additional growth; taller liners and liners with greater caliper sizes led to less additional growth. Thus, selecting larger liners did not increase growth. For the same size liner, all three treatments resulted in final heights and calipers that were no different across the three treatments – B&B, IGFC and PiP white oak trees. However, we again found significant differences across treatments when modeling wholesale prices. While river birch prices were affected by tree height, we found no effect of tree height on wholesale price for the white oaks, but prices were dependent upon caliper size with each additional 0.1 inch being valued at $7.50. But, we found significant differences in the caliper returns for the PiP trees. Each additional 0.1 inch increase in caliper for the PiP trees was worth just $1.60. For the IGFC trees, an additional 0.1 inch was worth $9.37, but we could not say the IGFC return was statistically greater than then $7.50 return to the B&B trees. The wholesale price analysis suggests concerns about the size of white oak trees in the black plastic pots used in the PiP method. Based on our wholesale price model, trees of average height and caliper (about 100 inches and 1.5 inches, respectively) would be comparable in price for B&B and IGFC trees at $95.35 and $98.11, respectively, but only $66.08 for the PiP trees, a substantial bias against the PiP trees. Root size class proportions for IGFC oak trees were not different from the reference B&B trees. PiP trees had greater proportions of fine and small roots, and smaller proportions of medium and large roots. For the IGFC and B&B trees, the greatest proportion of roots (more than 30%) were large roots. Crabapple Results Crabapple tree growth was negatively affected by the size of the liner planted. Taller liners had less additional growth by about 0.67 inches for every additional inch of initial height. Thus, the growth that the tallest liners put on was less relative to shorter liners. However, that additional height at planting did add positively to the growth in tree caliper. As with initial height, trees with larger initial caliper added relatively less caliper growth. We did not find significant differences in growth, either height or caliper, acroos the production treatments. To summarize the differences in final height and caliper for crabapples across the three different production methods, consider planting three equivalent liners, all 90 inches tall with caliper measurements of 0.8 inches. At the end of the trial, the B&B tree would be 110.9 inches tall with a caliper of 1.54 inches. The IGFC tree would be 108.1 inches tall, with a caliper of 1.51 inches and the PiP tree would be 105.7 inches tall with a caliper of 1.55 inches. There would be very little difference between the trees in height and caliper. The uniformity of trees at the end of the trials was echoed in the wholesale prices. There was virtually no difference in the prices assigned to the trees which made modeling prices impossible. We found only a bias against the PiP trees; while the B&B and IGFC trees were all priced at $72, the PiP trees were all priced at $60. IGFC crabapple trees had significantly higher proportions of large roots (41%) than the reference B&B trees (34.3%) and the PiP trees were not statistically different (32.6%). IGFC trees also differed significantly in the proportion of medium roots (38%) and small roots (10%), both were significantly lower than the B&B proportions (43.% and 12.5%, respectively). PiP trees had significantly smaller proportions of medium roots (28.0%) and statistically larger proportions of fine roots (23.7%). Root:shoot ratios were found to be affected by the caliper size of the tree; greater caliper size reduced the root:shoot ratio. Thus, as seen with the oak trees, larger top biomass is not balanced by larger root biomass. The root:shoot ratios of PiP crabapple trees on average were estimated to be significantly greater than that of B&B crabapple trees, holding height and caliper constant. There were no significant differences in estimated root:shoot ratios for B&B and IGFC crabapple trees. The root:shoot ratio for a B&B crabapple with a final caliper of 1.5 inches would be 0.58. By comparison, a PiP tree would have a root:shoot ratio of 1.13, suggesting the biomass was nearly double that of the B&B tree.
Publications
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2011
Citation:
Established UNH nursery production webpage with project description and links to project videos at http://extension.unh.edu/Nursery-Landscape/Nursery-Crop-Production.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Daniel Lass and Catherine Neal. "From Fabric Bags to Pot-in-pot: How Unconventional Tree Production Measures Up." Long Island Horticulture Conference, 25 Jan. 2012
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
http://extension.umass.edu/floriculture/crops/nursery-woody-ornamentals
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Daniel Lass, Jill Fitzsimmons, Catherine Neal and Amy Douglas-Papineau. "Production Methods for Landscape Trees: Preliminary Results."
http://extension.umass.edu/floriculture/sites/floriculture/files/fact-sheets/pdf/NurseryResearchSummaryDL.pdf
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Catherine Neal and Daniel Lass. "Comparing Tree Production Systems: What Growers and Buyers Should Know." Massachusetts Nursery and Landscape Association Summer Meeting, 16 Aug. 2012, Wellesley MA.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Catherine Neal and Daniel Lass. "Alternative Tree Production systems for New England Nurseries." Northern New England Nursery Conference, March 2 2012.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
D. Lass. "Revitalizing Nursery Production and Small Farms in the Northeast." New England Grows. Boston, MA. Feb 7, 2014.
and C. Neal (How Tree Production Systems Affect Root Structure and Transplant Success).
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
C. Neal. "How Tree Production Systems Affect Root Structure and Transplant Success." New England Grows. Boston, MA. Feb 7, 2014.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
American Nurseryman Magazine - Horticulture Magazine and C. Neal and D. Lass. Getting to the Roots: Production Effects on Tree Root Growth and Morphology American Nurseryman. July 2014. http://www.amerinursery.com/article-10975.aspx
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2011
Citation:
Catherine Neal and Daniel Lass. "Comparing Production Systems for New England Nurseries." Massachusetts Nursery and Landscape Association Progrow News, Jan/Feb. 2011.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2011
Citation:
Comparing Production Systems for New England Nurseries. News & Views, Jan. 2011 issue. UNH Cooperative Extension.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
D. Lass and C. Neal. Economics of Alternative Nursery Production Methods. American Nurseryman, 2014
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
D. Lass, L.J. Moffitt, N. Zirogiannis, C. Neal. "Stochastic Efficiency Analysis of Alternative Production Systems for Producing Landscape Trees in the Northeast." Submitted: Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.
|
Progress 01/01/11 to 12/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Six field trials (3 birch, 3 oak) were established spring 2010 including three production treatments for each species: field grown, fabric container grown, and pot-in-pot grown. Birch and oak trees were planted spring 2010 at private nurseries in Amherst, Massachusetts, and Sterling, Massachusetts, and at the University of New Hampshire research farm. A video was produced showing the research field trials being planted and discussing research objectives. Oak trials at Sterling, Massachusetts, and the University of New Hampshire were lost due to root fungus. Oaks were replaced at the University of New Hampshire research farm spring 2011. Two field trials of crabapple trees were planted spring 2011. The birch field trials at Sterling, Massachusetts, were abandoned summer 2011 due to neglect by the contractor. Survey data were collected from industry professionals and analyzed to assess attitudes toward the three different production methods and trees. Tree growth data have been collected twice each year. Final annual measurements have been analyzed. These preliminary data have been presented to nursery professionals at field days and conferences October 2011, July 2011, January 2012, March 2012, July 2012 and October 2012. Root structure differences were demonstrated at the October 2011 field day; a video was produced to show the differences in root structure. An air-spade was used to clean roots from birch and oak trees harvested after two growing seasons. Roots were also revealed for growing birch trees to demonstrate the extent to which roots spread outwards for the field and fabric container grown trees. Amherst, Massachusetts, birch trees were harvested fall 2011. New Hampshire birch trees were harvested spring 2012. Trees were weighed with soil, cleaned of all soil, and soil loss was determined for each treatment as well as the weights of tops and roots. Data on the amounts of soil loss across treatments, root-to-shoot ratios, root mass, and the distributions of root sizes across treatments are being analyzed to determine whether statistical differences exist across treatments. A subset of all three types of birch trees (field grown, fabric container and pot-in-pot) were transplanted at the University of New Hampshire during spring 2012 to assess how well the different trees will grow following transplant. Preliminary analyses of differences in root structures were presented at an October 2012 field data at the University of New Hampshire. Preliminary results of a transplant study were also presented at the field day. An air-spade was used to clear soil from the roots of field grown, fabric container and pot-in-pot trees to show how the roots were growing out following transplant. Annual budgets for three different birch treatments have been developed. Costs and returns for Amherst field grown and fabric container trees have been compared as well as distributions of net returns to assess risk differences for the different production methods. Similar analysis for the New Hampshire birch data are being conducted for all three treatments: field grown, fabric container grown and pot-in-pot grown trees. PARTICIPANTS: Professor Daniel Lass, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. Dr. Lass is the principal investigator. He conducts statistical data analysis, develops economic analyses, and directs graduate assistants in conducting statistical data analysis and economic analyses. He directed development of nursery product survey instrument, administration of the survey and survey data analysis. Professor Cathy Neal. Department of Plant Biology, University of New Hampshire. Professor Neal directed the experimental design for the field trials. She has developed protocol for data collection and directed data collection. She has also participated in and directed plant growth data analysis. Professor Neal directs the graduate research assistant at the University of New Hampshire and has directed student employees at the University of New Hampshire research farm. Ms. Amy Douglas-Papineau, Department of Plant Biology, University of New Hampshire. Ms. Douglas-Papineau works closely with Dr. Neal in data collection and data analysis. She has been a key member of the research team. Professor L. Joe Moffitt, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. Dr. Moffitt is an expert in stochastic dominance analysis. He has directed the research on risk and uncertainty for the study. He has helped to direct further data analysis and development of research reports on stochastic dominance analysis. Jillian Fitzsimmons, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. Ms. Fitzsimmons has conducted survey data analysis and developed reports on the nursery product survey data analysis. Dr. Francesca Colantuoni, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. Dr. Colantuoni conducted conditional and mixed logistic regression analysis of survey data and developed reports on the data analysis. Mr. Matthew Denny, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. Mr. Denny has conducted statistical analyses of prices and growth data for birch trees. Ms. Olivia Brassard, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachsuetts. Ms. Brassard worked on developing the nursery product survey instrument and administering the survey. Mr. John Kinchla. Mr. Kinchla has rented land for research trials for three species: birch, oak and crabapples. He has been instrumental in setting up trials at his nursery and in cooperating to develop budgets for the three species. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nursery growers, landscape professionals including landscape contractors and landscape designers, garden center owners, plant sale professionals, state policy-makers and extension professionals. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: A root fungus problem resulted in our loss of oak trees for two sites, Sterling, Massachusetts, and the University of New Hampshire research farm. We replace oaks at the University of New Hampshire farm. Lack of grower care of the Sterling, Massachusetts, site resulted in our abandoning that site. Oaks were not replace and poor irrigation and weed control compromised the birch trials at that site. We used the additional funds to start crabapple trials at Amherst, Massachusetts, and at the University of New Hampshire research farm.
Impacts
Birch, oak and crabapple field trials provide data on tree growth for three different treatments: field grown, fabric container grown and pot-in-pot grown production methods. These data are used to determine whether one technology dominates others; whether one method results in statistically bigger and more vigorous trees than the other methods. The data provide evidence that help policy-makers determine whether one technology can be suggested as a best practice. Data on tree weights and root structure allow us to determine how the trees will perform after being purchased and transplanted into a landscape. Tree weight data with soil also indicate how much top soil is being removed from the nursery each year due to harvest. Growth data are used to determine the returns to the grower in terms of prices of trees. Price data were gathered through a broker who assigned prices to each tree based on the physical characteristics, and with knowledge of how the tree was grown (different prices were observed for different treatments). The revenue data, which are probabilistic due to the growth distributions, are used with cost data to determine distributions of net returns. These net return distributions are compared to determine whether one method dominates the others. Survey data gathered provide a baseline assessment of the market for these different trees. If markets effectively do not exist, if landscape contractors do not demand the alternative trees (fabric container and pot-in-pot trees) then net returns may not be enough to spur production using the alternative methods. Growers may be reluctant to apply these alternative production methods. To develop the trials and gather data, trees were purchased and planted. We hired labor and machinery from the private nurseries to plant and grow the trees. Labor is used for regular care of the trials including weeding, pest scouting, chemical applications, fertilization, irrigation, staking, pruning and harvest. Materials and supplies were purchased including: trees, plastic and fabric containers, planting medium for the pot-in-pot treatment, irrigation equipment, moisture monitoring devices, stakes, etc. Researchers, faculty and graduate research assistants, traveled to and gathered data from all treatments at least twice per year. Researchers have also visited sites to review tree health and general maintenance of the sites. Preliminary data from birch, crabapple and oak trials are being processed to determine differences in tree growth across treatments and root structure differences across treatments. Some birch trees were planted for a transplant study that will be used to assess how well transplanted trees from each treatment grow following planting. These trees are also monitored and data are collected on tree growth. Data on costs of production and returns have been collected for the birch trials and are being completed for oak and crabapple trials. Both oak and crabapple trees are still growing. To determine returns, we hired a plant broker to price the harvested birch trees. The contractor will complete the same assessments of oak and crabapple trees as well.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|