Title: Post-planting treatments increase growth of Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana Dougl. ex Hook.) seedlings.
Author: Devine, W.D.; Harrington, C.A.; Leonard, L.P.
Date: 2007
Source: Restoration Ecology. 15(2): 212–222
Description: The extent of Oregon white oak woodland and savanna ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest has diminished significantly during the past century, and planting of Oregon white oak seedlings is often necessary for restoring these plant communities. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of tree shelters, control of competing vegetation, fertilization, irrigation, and planting date on seedling growth and survival. Although survival rates were generally high, solid-walled tree shelters increased mean annual height growth. Plastic mulch increased soil water content and height growth. Controlled-release fertilizer did not increase seedling growth but weekly irrigation, when accompanied by mulch, increased first-year growth.
Keywords: Quercus garryana, Oregon white oak, regeneration, restoration
View and Print this Publication (1.54 MB)
Pristine Version: An uncaptured or "pristine" version of this publication is available. It has not been subjected to OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and therefore does not have any errors in the text. However it is a larger file size and some people may experience long download times. The "pristine" version of this publication is available here:
View and Print the PRISTINE copy of this Publication (2.35 MB)
Publication Notes:
- 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.
Get the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat reader or Acrobat Reader for Windows with Search and Accessibility
Citation
Devine, W.D.; Harrington, C.A.; Leonard, L.P. 2007. Post-planting treatments increase growth of Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana Dougl. ex Hook.) seedlings.. Restoration Ecology. 15(2): 212–222