Pa p .- 5 It? I: 4 . i, IC‘VIQA it . 1.3.531.“ I.‘J 2.. . I)... L. gnufloro. V...... ...l I. $4.311... (.1)... )Ila t. . lawn”... Km ,‘lfM¢waivv!n-.IILVI 5 (I “Min-35f v9.1? . I v .3!) t0.§v\.rvli man}: .3 41.115 .5 7.1.1.3 I3. .. ‘II‘JD... .lII or... . {II II). 2 '1... t I 51.“ Alllhan-u A . IAIlf...‘ II I. .9.- Izt‘tl .ff 5.22.! .V... sul...2. or... I‘ll-[rot .14.}...1’. VI.I gull?! I... :11 I\... fit-x); Ila-2.1.3. ‘ . t: I lava: u. ..0\.I.'. b .DI: 5.7.. f5... II); “11...: .50... r‘, u. C Jrhn, {.I vbr'l'. .. .. Inuit-v . I... . 71.63:: E 3!. .. . {29019.}; 5 to . antitahiltnxh . 1!. v 3.0.‘lbor... at Hafihfimufirfztf. 5 sol-lit v! ital-Io!- . , ill I! . :IIEIIH :‘loh lib-‘7 . ‘.I 'n" . I . 1 iii; 5.2!. II :1. still. I...IIIAI.IDIR!....:.I£.II.IIM..3". , 1.3.33.6...«117. 5!. ilIiiiPlasI:IIfiI 1 I. I. fPoogiII-Ing. .03".II It'LI I l (1 II 4’ugxt‘1'tl‘vllro' OI Ethyl}... II III. :1}. I. l .a ’ I‘ . 1).. 131213.}. P2... I551? . 5|: .K’IlhibfitllbIIIII . II .. III- Illlv IE :1... .I..I,-.III...!.II . :I. I I .4. L I. I- . (833:3..IILI , I ., I , I ...I‘ I I. .3... .Itif II I: . 0.13 .bl)..ls‘. I Al I .lnts I.‘ I...I I. Hi; \. , 35..-}, . .III I .rr . .... luau. II,-AI|I- II .n I I .I l I I V In WIS"! . ‘ II‘V ,- l' I... I .III. I. . .. 2 .21.... . I . I . ... ).,.‘r04.o .1. $1.7. Il f I ll ‘IIII,' . r-uI v! . h.I.V+..?,Iv.4I. .. Ca...‘ 31.-.: . , L? .I .III . v . IIII‘ I I’ESQ ngas ITY LIBRARIES II IIII II III I MICHIGANS IIII IIIZIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIII II I This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE RESPONSE OF FRUIT TREES TO ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT presented by Michael Lee Parker has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Horticulture degree in Mmr Majorr professor / 0 Date 311117 2, 1990 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-1277 1 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ‘ IE’IAR I 3:993 ll =II‘~— MSU Is An Affirmative Adieu/Equal Opportunity Institmion CMMHJ THE RESPONSE OF FRUIT TREES TO ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT 3)’ Michael Lee Parker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1990 ABSTRACT THE RESPONSE OF FRUIT TREES TO ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT 3? Michael Lee Parker The effect of orchard floor management on fruit tree growth was evaluated over a three year period. Apple [Mglgg_§ggg§tig§ Borkh. cv. Empire/MMlll] and cherry [Eggng§_gg;§§g§ L. cv. Montmorency/Mahaleb] trees were grown in two sods with 6 different vegetation-free treatments ranging in area from 0 to 7.4 m2. The treatments, established and maintained with herbicide, that provided the greatest amount of vegetation-free area resulted in the greatest shoot length and trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) in 1987 and 1988. A vegetation-free strip of 3.7 m2 in the tree row avoided the reduction in tree growth associated with vegetative covers. The smaller vegetation-free areas had lower mass soil moisture. Soil moisture may be a key factor limiting tree growth in minimal vegetation-free area treatments. Twelve orchard floor treatments were evaluated on peach [zxgngg pgxfiigg L. Batsch. cv. Redhaven/Halford] tree growth. A significant difference in TCA area occurred only in mid-1986. Differences in sheet length were present only at the end of the 1987 season. Significant differences in leaf nitrogen were detected in 1987 and 1988, however all were greater than recommeneded levels of 3.1% for Michigan conditions. Soil moisture levels were greater in the herbicide and clean cultivated treatments in May and June, 1987. Peach tree root distribution was evaluated for six orchard floor 2 of vegetation-free area, either treatments. Treatments providing 37 m with herbicides or cultivation, had the greatest root numbers 1.2 and 1.9 m from the tree in the alleyway. ‘Kentucky 31' tall fescue and alfalfa vegetative covers had fewer tree roots in the soil-profile, both vertically and horizontally, than the vegetation-free treatments. Kentucky bluegrass and fine fescue did not result in as great a reduction in tree root numbers as the tall fescue. DEDICATION To my wife, Laurie, and my parents, Gordon and Ellen, and family for their continual prayer, support and encouragement. I would also like to thank the Almighty God, the source of all knowledge and wisdom, for the grace given to finish this dissertation. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Jerome Hull, Jr. for the opportunity to pursue this advanced degree. I would also like to thank Dr. Hull for his instruction and guidance during my degree program. The time spent in the field implementing and maintaining research plots reinforced much of my education for which I am grateful. I would also like to express my gratitude to Drs. Ron Perry and James Flore for their assistance with labor and equipment during this investigation. Dr. Perry's assistance with methods and techniques used during this investigation were much appreciated. I would also like to thank Drs. Jim Flore, Eric Hanson, Ron Perry, Alan Putnam, Paul Rieke and Alvin Smucker for serving on my guidance committee. Their input and assistance in planning the research and in reviewing the papers was appreciated. I would also like to express my appreciation to fellow graduate students for their friendship, assistance and many interesting discussions. Appreciation must also be given to the crew at the Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station for their assistance with the field work. LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES . LITERATURE REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. The effect of orchard floor management on apple and cherry tree growth and moisture utilization. Abstract Introduction Methods . Results . Discussion Literature Cited SECTION II. The management. Abstract Introduction Methods . Results . Discussion Literature Cited response of peach trees to orchard floor SECTION III. The effect of orchard floor management on peach rooting. Abstract Introduction Methods . Results . Discussion Literature Cited APPENDICES . vi vii xii 20 21 23 25 47 52 54 54 S6 63 77 84 86 86 88 93 104 108 110 LIST OF TABLES SECTION I. The effect of orchard floor management on apple and cherry tree growth and moisture utilization. 1. The effect of vegetation-free area around apple trees in Reliant hard fescue sod on shoot length and trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) The effect of vegetation-free area around apple trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue sod on shoot length and trunk cross-sectional area (TCA). The effect of vegetation-free area around cherry trees in Reliant hard fescue sod on shoot length and trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) The effect of vegetation-free area around cherry trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue sod on shoot length and trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) Linear regression equations and correlation coefficients (r) for vegetation-free area around apple and cherry trees to trunk diameter or shoot length, in hard and tall fescue for 1986, 1987 and 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . SECTION II. The response of peach trees to orchard floor management. 1. The effect of orchard floor management on peach trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) and shoot length The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and AS cm, 61 cm from the tree in the tree row -- 1987 . The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture in the alleyway of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 61 cm from the tree -- 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 28 30 32 33 46 64 65 67 10. The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture in the alleyway of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 155 cm from the tree -- 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of orchard floor management on percent peach foliar nitrogen (N) The effect of orchard floor management on phloem and cambial T50 values of peach shoots after the 1987 growing season The effect of orchard floor management on relative cropping of peach trees on July 5, 1988 The effect of orchard floor management 2on peach leaf net photosynthetic rate (mg C02 dm' hr'l) The effect of orchard floor management on peach leaf area and fresh and dry weight on lO/7/88. Leaf samples taken from the 8-10th leaf from the shoot apex . . Height, fresh weight, and dry weight of the ten vegetative orchard floor cov rs. Fresh weight and dry weight are for a 12.9 cm area . SECTION III. The effect of orchard floor management on peach rooting. l. The effect of orchard floor management on the number of peach tree roots at each Brofile-face location. Root totals expressed per m The effect of orchard floor management treatments on number of peach tree roots on the east profile- face (EPF) and the west profile-face (WPF) 0.6 m from the tree perpendigular to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number in columns 40 cm wide by 100 cm deep on the profile-face 1.2 m (1.2PF) from the tree parallel to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m2 . The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number in columns 40 cm wide by 100 cm deep on the profile-face 1.9 m (1.9PF) from the tree parallel to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m viii 69 71 73 74 75 76 78 94 95 97 98 The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number and percentage (%) of total roots in each orchard floor treatment at 20 cm depth increments on the west profile-face (WPF) 0.6 m from the tree perpendicular to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root numbers and percentage of total roots in each orchard floor treatment in 40 cm columns on the west profile-face (WPF) 0.6 m from the tree perpendicular to the tree row 19 the surface 20 cm. Root totals expressed per m The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number and percentage (t) of total roots in each orchard floor treatment at 20 cm depth increments on the west profile-face 1.2 cm (1.2PF) from the tree parallel to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m ix 99 101 102 LIST OF FIGURES SECTION I. The effect of orchard floor management on apple and cherry tree growth and moisture utilization. 1. Daily maximum and minimum temperature, daily precipitation and applied irrigation for 1987 and 1988 for the Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station. Data presented for April through October each season . . . . The effect of six vegetation—free area around apple trees in Reliant hard fescue on the 1988 percent mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05) when significant treatment differences were present, ns - no significant difference The effect of vegetation-free area around apple trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue on the 1988 percent mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05) when significant treatment differences were present, ns - no significant difference The effect of vegetative-free area around cherry trees in Reliant hard fescue on the 1988 percent mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05) when significant treatment differences were present, ns - no significant difference The effect of vegetative-free area around cherry trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue on the 1988 percent mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05) when significant treatment differences were present, ns - no significant difference 26 35 38 41 44 SECTION II. The response of peach trees to orchard floor management. 1. Daily maximum and minimum temperature, daily precipitation and applied irrigation for 1987 and 1988 for the Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station. Data presented for April through October each season SECTION III. The effect of orchard floor management on peach rooting. 1. Diagram of trench locations for peach tree root distribution study . xi 61 90 LIST OF APPENDICES SECTION I. The effect of orchard floor management on apple and cherry tree growth and moisture utilization. I-A. I-B. I-C. I-D. I-E. I-G. The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around apple trees on shoot length of trees grown in Reliant hard fescue. Measurements for the 1986-1988 growing seasons The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around apple trees on shoot length for trees grown in Kentucky 31 tall fescue. Measurements for the 1986-1988 growing seasons The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around apple trees on trunk cross- sectional area for trees grown in Reliant hard fescue. Measurements taken for the 1986-1988 growing seasons . The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around apple trees on trunk cross- sectional area for trees grown in Kentucky 31 tall fescue. Measurements taken for the 1986- 1988 growing seasons The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around cherry trees on shoot length for trees grown in Reliant hard fescue. Measurements for the 1986-1988 growing seasons The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around cherry trees on shoot length for trees grown in Kentucky 31 tall fescue. Measurements taken for the 1986-1988 growing seasons . . . . . . . The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around cherry trees on trunk cross- sectional area for trees grown in Reliant hard fescue. Measurements for the 1986-1988 growing seasons . xii 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 I-H. I-I. I-J. I-K. I-L. I-M. The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around cherry trees on trunk cross- sectional area for trees grown in Kentucky 31 tall fescue. Measurements taken for the 1986- 1988 growing seasons The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around the tree on the 1988 mass soil moisture values in the tree row for apple trees in Reliant hard fescue The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around the tree on the 1988 mass soil moisture values in the tree row for apple trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around the tree on the 1988 mass soil moisture values in the tree row for cherry trees in Reliant hard fescue The effect of six different vegetation-free areas around the tree on the 1988 mass soil moisture values in the tree row for cherry trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue Soil calibration curves for Bouyoucos moisture meter and percent mass soil moisture for a Riddles sandy loam soil. Solid line is the best fit regression line . . . . . . . . SECTION II. The response of peach trees to orchard floor management. II-A. II-B. II-C. II-D. The effect of orchard floor management on peach trunk cross-sectional area and shoot length - 1986 The effect of orchard floor management on peach trunk cross-sectional area and shoot length - 1987 The effect of 12 orchard floor treatments on 1988 trunk cross-sectional area, average shoot length and relative growth rates The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 61 cm from the tree in the tree row -- 1987 . xiii 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 II-E. II-F. II‘Go II-H. II-I. II-J. II-K. The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture in the alleyway of peach trees at depths of 15,30 and 45 cm, 61 cm from the tree -- 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture in the alleyway of peach trees at depths of 15,30 and 45 cm, 155 cm from the tree -- 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 61 cm from the tree in the row -- 1988 growing season . The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm in the alleyway, 61 cm from the peach tree -- 1988 growing season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The effect of orchard floor management on mass soil moisture at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 155 cm from the peach tree in the alleyway ~- 1988 growing season . . . . . . . . . The effect of orchard floor management on peach tree fruit yield Soil calibration curve for electrical resistance values from a datalogger and percent mass soil moisture for a Riddles sandy loam. Solid line is the best fit regression line. SECTION III. The effect of orchard floor management on peach rooting. III-A. The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number at 20 cm depth increments on the west profile-face 1.9 m (1.9PF) from the tree parallel to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m xiv 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 LITERATURE REVIEW Orchard floor management has made a transition from clean cultivation to clean cultivation plus cover craps to permanent vegetative covers during the 20th century (Partridge, 1937; Partridge and Toenjes, 1937). In Michigan, Toenjes et a1. (1956) stated that the transition from clean cultivation to vegetative covers had occurred during a 25 year period. However, the transition involved many different systems utilizing cultivation, vegetation and herbicides incorporated together in varying combinations. Clean cultivation utilized frequent mechanical tillage to maintain a vegetation-free orchard. Elimination of the vegetation which could compete with tree growth for soil moisture and nutrients was the greatest advantage (Breggar and Musser, 1939). Controlling all vegetation on the orchard floor was frequently practiced to modify the orchard microclimate and provide frost/freeze protection for the fruit crop. Hamer (1975) reported temperatures 3°C warmer just above bare soil compared to just above a heavy vegetative cover. In North Carolina, no differences in the canopy temperature of peach trees occurred between treatments of bare ground, total sod or herbicide strips for frost protection (Meager and Meyer, 1990) Clean cultivation promoted erosion on sloping sites and resulted in lower soil structure. Decreased soil structure and reduced infiltration associated with clean cultivation also contributed to soil erosion 2 (Partridge, 1937; Li et a1., 1942; Aldefer and Shaulis, 1942; Anthony et a1., 1948). To alleviate the detrimental affects, cover-cropping was implemented. Cover-cropping involved planting various vegetative covers, such as wheat, rye, sorghum, etc., in the cultivated soil, once a year or several times during a year. Cover-crapping frequently did not significantly reduce erosion or improve soil structure compared to clean cultivation (Partridge, 1937; Proebsting, 1937; Shaulis and Merkle, 1939; Alderfer and Shaulis, 1942). The disadvantages of clean cultivation and cover-cropping were numerous and frequently documented. In orchard systems maintained for many years, the negative aspects of clean cultivation offset the advantages (Partridge, 1937). The advantages of clean cultivation most commonly cited were increased soil moisture, increased tree size, increased fruit size and ease of maintenance. An extensive survey by Shaulis and Merkle (1939) involving 26 orchards in 15 counties in Pennsylvania studied the long term effect of orchard floor management. Clean cultivated orchards had lower soil organic carbon levels of 20,390 kgs/ha and cover-cropped orchards were only slightly greater with 24,200 kgs/ha compared to orchards with vegetative covers with 34,100 kgs/ha. Total soil nitrogen and porosity were also much lower in cultivated and cover-cropped orchards compared to orchards with a vegetative cover. Decreased soil porosity, measured by soil volume weight also occurred in soils continually clean cultivated or cover-cropped, compared to soils with permanent vegetative covers. Other disadvantages reported for clean cultivation, compared to soils with vegetative covers, included increased soil erosion on sloping sites, reduced soil organic matter, 3 poorer soil structure and lower total soil nitrogen (Judkins and Wander, 1945; Goode and White, 1958). Li et al. (1942) and Anthony et a1. (1948) reported optimal soil structure, measured by mechanical analysis of aggregate stability and probable permeability, in the top 8 cm under a bluegrass sod. Alfalfa sod had the most stable soil structure at the 8 to 16 cm depth because of deep rooting. Clean cultivated plots had the least stable soil structure at all soil depths measured. Li et a1. (1942) and Anthony et a1. (1948) reported on a three-year study in which a bluegrass sod had a 0.05% rainfall runoff with 26 kgs per ha of soil erosion, compared to 4.6% and 9,370 kgs per ha, respectively, for a plot clean cultivated with a fall and spring cover crop. Greater soil structure, measured by decreased bulk density, increased aggregate stability and pore size, was reported in vegetative treatments compared to clean cultivation (Welker and Glenn, 1988). Clean cultivated soils were originally thought to have a greater soil moisture holding capacity and less moisture loss than vegetative covers. This was true initially but was detrimental to soil moisture infiltration for the long term. Kenworthy (1953) compared soil moisture under clean cultivation and sod covers for 2 years and 25 years. Treatments maintained for two years had greater soil moisture under clean cultivation than a fescue sod. However, treatments established for 25 years had greater soil moisture in a bluegrass sod than in a clean cultivated soil. He attributed the soil moisture reduction in the cultivated soil to reduced soil structure. Partridge and Toenjes (1937) stated clean cultivation decreased soil moisture infiltration, compared to soils with vegetative covers 4 resulting from decreased soil porosity. Anthony et a1. (1948) reported that the soil moisture in the surface 15 cm at the base of a 2-3 percent slope under clean cultivation would contain 225 MT more water per ha than the soil at the top of the slope. Little soil moisture difference between the top and bottom of a slope was reported for the same situation with a vegetative cover. The authors concluded that the reduced water content at the top of the clean cultivated slope resulted from reduced soil permeability and decreased infiltration. Li et a1. (1942) found a higher infiltration rate in a bluegrass sod than in alfalfa sod, and much lower infiltration in clean cultivation. Twenty- four hours after a rainfall, the clean cultivated plots had 1 to 8% less soil moisture in the surface 39 cm than the bluegrass or alfalfa sod. Glenn and Welker (1989a) demonstrated greater infiltration rates for both killed and mowed sod compared to clean cultivation. The killed sod was obtained by establishing a tall fescue sod for one-year and then treating the entire area with herbicide to kill the sod without disrupting the sod cover. Decreased soil organic carbon content also reduced soil moisture infiltration. Container grown apple trees grown in soils without organic matter required a 2.5 greater time period for surface water to penetrate into the soil compared to soils with rye organic matter (Shaulis and Merkle, 1939). Clean cultivation equipment frequently destroyed tree roots close to the soil surface. Cockroft and Wallbrink (1966) reported root densities in the surface 18 cm of the soil to be 210 in cultivated soil and 553 in soil maintained vegetation-free with herbicide. Cultivation equipment also frequently damaged tree trunks and the loose 5 cultivated soil impeded heavy equipment movement under saturated soil moisture conditions (Toenjes et al., 1956; Daniel and Hardcastle, 1972). We Permanent vegetative covers gradually replaced clean cultivation in many commercial orchards. A major concern with using vegetative covers was their effect on tree growth resulting from competition for soil moisture and/or nutrients (Kenworthy and Gilligan, 1949; Baxter and Newman, 1971; Lord and Vlach, 1973; Goode and Hyrycz, 1976; Shribbs and Skroch, 1986a). Vegetative covers differ in competition posed to tree growth. Partridge (1937) listed 6 factors to consider in selecting an orchard cover to control erosion in Michigan including two to minimize competition for moisture and nitrogen. The first was that the vegetative cover should be shallow rooted to minimize the competition with tree growth for moisture. The second was that all vegetative covers should be mixtures and contain a legume with "nitrogen-gathering capacity" to minimize nitrogen competition. Vegetative cover mixtures recommended included Canadian and Kentucky bluegrass, fescue, orchardgrass, red top, smooth brome and timothy. Shribbs and Skroch (1986a) evaluated nine different vegetative covers and reported a wide range in apple tree growth. Vegetative covers eliminated many disadvantages associated with clean cultivation, but had the potential to reduce tree growth. Shribbs et a1. (1986) evaluated the effect of Kentucky bluegrass, Korean lespedeza, orchardgrass or red sorrel on apple seedling growth under greenhouse conditions. Treatments of orchardgrass and red sorrel resulted in smaller trees than the bluegrass or lespedeza treatments. 6 The differences in tree growth were inversely dependent on the vegetative biomass of the ground cover, the greater the vegetative biomass the smaller the tree growth. Alfalfa and bluegrass sods that were disked every 3-4 years reduced the growth of young apple trees up to 4 years of age compared to cover- crapped orchards (Anthony et al., 1948). In Ireland, apple trees grown in timothy grass and clover with a l m2 vegetation-free area had smaller trunk diameters than trees maintained completely vegetation-free with herbicides (Robinson and O'Kennedy, 1978). Tree growth and fruit yield were reduced in the vegetative treatment over the duration of the 8-year study. Stinchcombe and Stott (1983) reported significantly larger apple tree trunk diameters in treatments maintained totally vegetation-free compared to treatments of total grass, clover, or vegetative covers with a herbicide strip. Trees in total grass had the smallest stem diameter. Six years after removal of the grass with a herbicide, the trees in total grass were still the smallest. Shribbs and Skroch (1986a) obtained larger apple trunk diameter for trees in vegetation-free areas, either by herbicide or cultivation, than in orchardgrass or tall fescue. Trees grown in tall fescue had smaller trunk diameters than trees grown in bluegrass, wheat or red sorrel. And the trees grown in nimblewill, red sorrel or blackberry covers had greater trunk diameters than trees grown in legume, tall broadleaf weeds, Kentucky bluegrass, orchardgrass or tall fescue. Baxter and Newman (1971) in Australia, obtained greater apple trunk diameter and shoot length in vegetative covers of volunteer weeds ‘with a 1.3 m herbicide strip or totally vegetation-free compared to trees in complete vegetation. In this four-year-study, applications of 200 kgs of 7 nitrogen per he did not overcome the inhibition of growth associated with the sods. Peach trees grown in mowed tall fescue sod produced smaller trunk diameters than trees maintained in vegetation-free soil, either with herbicides or cultivation (Welker and Glenn, 1988). The trees in the mowed sod had the least shoot length, trunk cross-sectional area (TCA), tree height and canopy width at the end of the three-year study. In Canada, Layne and Tan (1988) evaluated clean cultivation and permanent creeping red fescue strips with and without irrigation on peach tree growth for five years. The permanent fescue strip treatment with trickle irrigation was reported as the best treatment and permanent fescue strips without irrigation the worst treatment for tree growth and yield. One and two-year-old peach trees grown in fine sandy loam soil with a 4.9 m wide herbicide strip down the tree row and a 2.5 m wide vegetation strip between rows resulted in equal or larger trunk diameters than trees grown in mechanically tilled soil in Georgia (Daniel and Hardcastle, 1972). However, tree growth under the same management systems in a clay loam soil exhibited no treatment differences. Weller et a1. (1985) grew one and two-year-old peach trees in bermudagrass densities ranging from 0 to 100% and observed reduced tree growth at bermudagrass densities greater than 50%. An inversely proportional linear growth response for shoot and root growth was reported for bermudagrass density. Peach trees grown in mowed sod had smaller trunk diameter than trees in herbicide, cultivation or hay mulch treatments at the end of a 6-year study (Lord and Vlach, 1973). 8 To minimize the competition of the vegetative cover on tree growth many management strategies have been incorporated into orchard floor management. Chemical herbicides to control vegetation proved valuable in orchard floor management (Hague and Neilsen, 1987). Ries et a1. (1962) evaluated simazine for control of vegetation around apple and peach trees. Simazine treated plots resulted in increased peach tree shoot growth and foliar nitrogen levels compared to clean cultivation. The apple trees had greater foliar nitrogen and longer shoot length when maintained vegetation-free with simazine than trees grown in vegetative treatments. Baxter and Newman (1971) also reported greater apple leaf nitrogen in vegetation-free treatments mainatained with simazine. However, Lord and Vlach (1973) reported no differences in apple and peach leaf nitrogen content for trees grown in the field in simazine-treated soil compared to clean cultivation. The growth reduction associated with vegetative covers was also minimized by total herbicide treated areas. Robinson and O'Kennedy (1978) produced apple trees with greater trunk diameter when all vegetation was controlled with herbicide compared to trees in total cultivation. Treating the entire orchard floor with herbicide to control all vegetation did not facilitate traffic movement, erosion control or organic matter production to maintain soil structure and did not gain widespread acceptance. Baxter and Newman (1971) recommended the implementation of a vegetative alley and herbicide strip down the tree row for both economic benefit as well as for ease of orchard maintenance, especially in nonirrigated orchards. Shribbs and Skroch (1986a) reported a herbicide strip to be the standard orchard floor management practice in new 9 orchards. A vegetation-free zone around the tree with a vegetative alley between tree rows minimized competition to tree growth while maintaining soil structure and supporting orchard traffic in the vegetative alley. Lord and Vlach (1973) listed other advantages of herbicide vegetation control over clean cultivation to include a smooth drive alley to minimize fruit bruising, control of vegetation near the tree trunk and no damage to tree roots. Herbicide strips down the tree row has proven beneficial, but the desired size of the vegetation-free area for optimal tree growth has not been determined. Welker and Glenn (1985, 1989) obtained a 78% increase in peach tree trunk diameter by increasing a vegetation-free square from a 0.36 m2 to 13 m2 the first year. Trunk cross-sectional area increased with increasing vegetation-free area from 0.36 m2 to 13.0 m2 for all four years of the study. Peach trees grown 3 years in complete sod had smaller trunk diameters than trees grown in sod killed with herbicide before planting, cultivation or total herbicide treatments (Welker and Glenn, 1988). Trees grown in sod killed with herbicide had the greatest trunk diameter. Daniel et a1. (1972) grew peach trees in a 4.9 m herbicide strip and obtained larger trunk diameters compared to trees grown in complete cultivation or cultivated strips 3.7 or 7.4 m wide. Increased weed competition and root pruning were indicated to be responsible for reduced tree growth. Vegetative covers may compete with trees for soil nutrients. Goode and Hyrycz (1976) grew apple trees in cultivation or ryegrass, with and without nitrogen, and reported trees grown in sods without nitrogen resulted in yellow leaves and reduced tree root growth. Shribbs and Skroch (1986b) found lower leaf and twig nitrogen levels in two-year-old 10 apple trees grown in vigorous vegetative covers, such as tall fescue and tall broadleafs compared to less vigorous covers such as nimblewill, blackberry, or vegetation-free plots. They calculated a positive correlation between apple leaf nitrogen and tree growth and suggested competition for nitrogen was a major factor in reduced tree growth. Stinchcombe and Stott (1983) reported lower leaf nitrogen for apple trees grown for three years in complete grass compared to trees grown in clover, complete vegetation-free or grass with herbicide strip treatments, with respective foliar nitrogen of 1.8%, 2.4%, 2.6%, and 2.4%. Baxter and Newman (1971) reported that apple trees grown for four years in sod treatments had a leaf nitrogen of 2.35% compared to the vegetation-free treatments with foliar nitrogen ranging from 2.69 to 2.75%. The vegetative covers were reported to be the first to utilize applied nitrogen thus limiting nitrogen available for tree growth. Apple leaf nitrogen levels were higher in the legume and blackberry treatments, with 2.45% and 2.35% respectively, than treatments of tall broadleaf weeds, orchardgrass, or tall fescue, 2.14%, 1.83%, and 1.85% respectively (Shribbs and Skroch, 1986b). Significant differences in leaf P, K, Ca and Mg occurred but only leaf N and Ca were deficient, with leaf Ca deficient in all treatments. Nitrogen was concluded to be the a major factor limiting tree growth under vegetative covers. Vegetative covers also affect the foliar nutrient status of peach. Welker and Glenn (1985) reported foliar nitrogen and copper levels were greater for one-year-old peach trees grown in larger vegetation-free squares. Peach leaf nitrogen was positively correlated to the size of 2 the vegetation-free area ranging from 0.4-13 m , while leaf Mg and Zn were negatively correlated. Trees grown in mowed sod had the lowest ll leaf nitrogen after three years compared to vegetation-free treatments (Walker and Glenn, 1988). Leaf nitrogen was lower in mowed sod treatments compared to herbicide, cultivation or hay mulch treatments for six-year-old peach trees and they concluded that the orchard management systems limiting tree growth may affect available nutrient availability as well as soil moisture (Lord and Vlach, 1973). Vegetative covers differ in quantity and depth of soil moisture utilization. Goode (1955) evaluated three grasses and reported perennial ryegrass depleted soil moisture the most, timothy was intermediate and the least depletion under the meadow grass. Perennial ryegrass rooted 15 cm deeper than timothy and 46 cm deeper than the meadow grass. Reduced apple tree growth in these vegetative covers resulted from competition for moisture. Toenjes et a1. (1956) also reported differences in moisture utilization by different sods. Bluegrass, timothy, chewings fescue and redtop treatments had greater soil moisture in the top 61 cm compared to treatments of clover or alfalfa. Soil moisture under the alfalfa and clover at the 102 cm depth, the lowest depth measured, was 3-4 times lower than the moisture under the Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, chewings fescue or redtop Baxter and Newman (1971) reported vegetative covers of volunteer weeds resulted in lower soil moisture in an apple orchard than vegetation-free treatments maintained with herbicides. mm The reduction in tree growth associated with vegetative covers, compared to vegetation-free treatments, suggests interference. Interference was defined as the effect on plant growth of one plant induced by another (Radosevich and Holt, 1984), and can either promote 12 or inhibit plant growth. The mechanisms by which interference may affect plant growth are numerous. Two probable effects of inhibitory interference are competition and allelopathy. Competition for nutrients and water would be a direct effect of interference as discussed earlier. Allelopathy, the inhibition of growth of one plant due to toxic substances released from another (Putnam and Tang, 1986) would be an indirect effect, in contrast to direct effects such as moisture or nitrogen. Some plants which have been identified as secreting toxic compounds are Canadian thistle, oats, rye, sorghum, yellow nutsedge, walnut, wheat or quackgrass (Putnam, 1983). Grapes grown in a greenhouse with rye plant leachates resulted in smaller plants than grapes grown in clean cultivated soil where moisture and nutrients were not limiting (Cubbon, 1925). Overland's (1966) work revealed the inhibitory response of leachates from barley seeds and roots on plant growth. The inhibitory response was plant specific with the greatest growth inhibition on chickweed and no growth inhibition on wheat. An alkaloid was isolated from the root leachates that would inhibit growth as did the root leachates. Residues of barley, oats, rye, sorghum or wheat have been reported to result in reduced weed biomass in field and greenhouse vegetable plantings (Putnam and DeFrank, 1983; Barnes and Putnam, 1983; Putnam et al., 1983). However, some of the smaller-seeded vegetables, such as lettuce and tomato, which are planted shallow, were also adversely affected by the plant residues. Allelopathic interactions have also been investigated in perennial cropping systems. Cover crops of rye, sorghum or wheat planted in the fall and killed with herbicide in the spring resulted in greater apple l3 and cherry tree trunk diameter and shoot length compared to a mowed fescue cover (Putnam et al., 1983). The presence of the crop residues provided 60 days of weed control without inhibiting tree growth. Weller et a1. (1985) reported that reduced peach tree growth in bermudagrass could not be accounted for by nutrient deficiencies and suggested that there was possibly an allelopathic interaction. Fales and Wakefield (1981) reported the growth inhibition of the branches and top of a woody plant, forsythia, when leachates from the roots of Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass or red fescue were applied to the soil of forsythia cuttings. Dry weight root production of the forsythia was also reduced by application of leachates from perennial ryegrass or red fescue. W Atkinson's (1980) review of root systems revealed limited studies of the effects of orchard floor management on perennial root systems. Cowart (1938) studied the root distribution of young peach trees in sandy loam/sandy clay loam. After the first year of growth, trees had an average rooting depth and lateral spread from the trunk of 92 cm. Over 82% of the total root system was within 31 cm of the tree trunk through the soil profile. The greatest root weight occurred at the 15- 31 cm depth, with the greatest root densities at the 31-46 cm depth. After the second year, roots were found to a depth of 1.4 m with a 1.8 m lateral spread from the trunk. Over 67% of the tree roots were within 31 lateral centimeters of the trunk with the greatest root numbers at the 15-31 cm depth. Roots less than 2 mm diameter were estimated to comprise 18% of the tree's total root system. Clean cultivation may have altered tree root numbers in the top 15 centimeters. l4 Atkinson and White (1976) compared complete grass cover, complete elimination of vegetation with herbicide, and a 1.5 m herbicide strip on root growth of 5-year-old apple trees. Tree root number and weight increased with increased vegetation-free area. Complete grass cover had the fewest tree roots and lowest root weight, 50 and 156 g respectively. Total control of vegetation with herbicide resulted in the most roots and greatest root weight, 97 and 219 g respectively. Complete grass cover had fewer roots in the tap 7 cm of the soil with more roots at the 7-15 cm depth than the other treatments. Atkinson et al. (1977) reported lO-year-old apple trees under herbicide strip management had greater root densities in the herbicide strip than in the vegetative alley. Tree roots under the vegetative alley were deeper than those in the herbicide strip. Cockroft and Wallbrink (1966) evaluated peach and pear tree rooting under four orchard floor management systems. Cultivation to a depth of 8 cm prevented rooting in the surface 8 cm, all other treatments had rooting in the surface 8 cm. The greatest root weight was at the 46 cm depth. In peach, bare surface or straw mulch treatments resulted in greater root length, concentration, and weight than cultivation or white clover treatments. They concluded that orchard floor management did not promote deeper rooting but affected surface rooting. Glenn and Welker (1989b) investigated the effect of tall fescue grass on peach root growth in a greenhouse. Comparing bare soil with tall fescue, planted 50 cm from the trees, they reported no decrease in root growth greater than 1 mm under the tall fescue. The tall fescue did result in decreased root length of roots less than 1 mm diameter, 15 both under the tall fescue and in the 50 cm vegetation-free zone between the tree and the tall fescue. Irrigation also affected tree root distribution. Cripps (1971) reported that non-irrigated apple trees rooted to depths greater than 90 cm while the majority of roots of irrigated trees were above 45 cm. In South Africa, apples irrigated every 7 days had greater rooting percentage in the surface 60 cm of the soil while trees irrigated every 58 days resulted in deeper rooting with major rooting occuring in the surface 110 cm (Beukes, 1984). In Australia, peaches irrigated every 3 to 4 days had greater root concentrations in the surface soil, measured by mm of root length per cubic centimeter, than trees irrigated every 12-16 days (Richards and Cockroft, 1975). Layne et a1. (1986) reported that irrigation increased peach root numbers in the surface 30 cm of the soil which increased with irrigation frequency. Non-irrigated trees had 18% of the roots in the surface 30 cm of the soil compared to 42% for trees irrigated each week. 16 LITERATURE CITED Alderfer, R.B. and N.J. Shaulis. 1942. Some effects of cover crops in peach orchards on runoff and erosion. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.:21-29. Anthony, R.D., F.W. Farris and W.S. Clarke, Jr. 1948. Effects of certain cultural treatments on orchard soil and water losses and on apple tree growth. Agric. Exp. Sta. State College Penn. Bull. 493. Atkinson, D. and G.C. White. 1976. Soil Management with herbicides - the response of soils and plants. Proc. 1976 British Crop Prot. Conf.- Weeds 3:873-884. Atkinson, D., G.C. White, E.R. Mercer, M.G. Johnson and D. Mattam. The distribution of roots and the uptake of nitrogen by established apple trees grown in grass with herbicide strips. Rpt. East Malling Res Sta. for 1976. p. 183-185. Atkinson, D. 1980. The distribution and effectiveness of the roots of tree crops. p. 424-490. In: J. Janick (ed.) Horticultural Reviews, vol 2, AVI, Westport, Conn. Barnes, J.P. and A.R. Putnam. 1983. Rye residues contribute weed suppression in no-tillage cropping systems. J. Chem. Ecol. 9(8):1045- 1057. Baxter, P. and B.J. Newman. 1971. 2. Effect of herbicides and nitrogen on growth and yield of young apple trees in permanent pasture. Austral. J. Expt. Agr. Animal Husb. 11:105-112. Beckenbach, J. and J.H. Gourley. 1932. Some effects of different cultural practices upon root distribution of apple trees. Amer Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 29:202-204. Beukes, D.J. 1984. Apple root distribution as effected by irrigation at different soil water levels on two soil types. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 109:723-728. Biran, I., B. Bravado, I. Bushkin-Harav and E. Rawitz. 1981. Water consumption and growth rate of 11 turfgrasses as affected by mowing height, irrigation frequency, and soil moisture. Agr. Jour. 73:85-90. Bregger, J.T. and A.M. Musser. 1939. Observations on effects of soil covers as conservation practices in peach orchards. Proc. Amer Soc. Hort. Sci. :1-6. Cockroft, B. and J.C. Wallbrink. 1966. Root distribution of orchard trees. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 17:49-54. Cowart, F.F. 1938. Root distribution and root and top growth of young peach trees. Amer Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 36:145-147. Cripps, J.E. 1971. The influence of soil moisture on apple root growth and root:shoot ratios. J. Hort. Sci. 46:121-130. l7 Cubbon, M.H. 1925. Effect of rye crop on the growth of grapes. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 17:568-577. Daniel, J.W. and W.S. Hardcastle. 1972. Response of peach trees to herbicide and mechanical weed control. Weed Sci. 20(2):133-136. Fales, S.L. and R.C. Wakefield. 1981. Effects of turfgrass on the establishment of woody plants. Agron. J. 73:605-610. Glenn, D.M. and W.V. Welker. 1989a. Orchard soil management systems influence rainfall infiltration. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114(1):10-14. Glenn, D.M. and W.V. Welker. 1989b. Peach root development and tree hydraulic resistance under tall fescue sod. HortScience 24(1):117-119. Goode, J.E. and G.C. White. 1958. Soil management effects on a number of chemical and physical properties of the soil. East Malling Res. Sta., Ann. Rpt. 1957. p. 113-121. Goode, J.E. 1955. Soil moisture deficits under awards of different grass species in an orchard. Rpt. East Malling Res. Stat. for 1955 p. 69-72. Goode, J.E. and K.J. Hyrycz. 1976. The effect of nitrogen on young, newly planted apple rootstocks in the presence and absence of grass competition. J. Hort Sci. 51:321-327. Hamer, P.J.C. 1975. Physics of frost. In ”Climate and the Orchard". Commonwealth Agric. Bureaux, East Malling, England, pp. 66-72. Haynes, R.J. 1980. Influence of soil management practice on the orchard agro-ecosystem. Agra-ecosystems 6:3-32. Hogue, E.J. and G.H. Nielsen. 1987. Orchard floor vegetation management. p. 377-430. In: Horticultural reviews, vol. 9, AVI, Westport, Conn. Judkins, W.P. and I.W. Wander. 1945. The effect of cultivation, sod, and sod plus straw mulch on the growth and yield of peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 46:183-186. Kenworthy, A.L. and G.H. Gilligan. 1949. Tree growth, soil and leaf analysis in response to various soil management practices in a young apple orchard. Univ. of Delaware, Agr. Expt. Stat., Newark, Del. Layne, R.E.C., C.S. Tan and R.L. Perry. 1986. Characterization of peach roots in fox sand as influenced by sprinkler irrigation and tree density. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111(5):670-677. Layne, R.E.C. and 0.8. Tan. 1988. Influence of cultivars, ground covers, and trickle irrigation on early growth, yield and cold hardiness of peaches on fox sand. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113(4):518-525. 18 Li, L.Y., R.D. Anthony and F.G. Merkle. 1942. Influence of orchard soil management upon the infiltration of water and some related physical characteristics of the soil. Soil Sci. 53:65-74. Lord, W.J. and E. Vlach. 1973. Responses of peach trees to herbicides, mulch, mowing and cultivation. Weed Sci. 21(3):227-229. Meagher, R.L. and J.R. Meyer. 1990. Effects of ground cover management on certain abiotic and biotic interactions in peach orchard ecosystems. Crop Prot. 9:65-72. Overland, L. 1966. The role of allelopathic substances in the "Smoother Crop” barley. Amer. J. Bot. 53:423-432. Partridge, N.L. 1937. Soil erosion in michigan orchards. Mich. Cir. Bul. 162. 35 pp. Partridge, N.L. and W. Toenjes. 1937. Annual cover crops for Michigan orchards. Mich. Cir. Bull. 163. 12 pp. Proebsting, E.L. 1937. The effects of cover crops on nitrogen and field capacity in an orchard soil. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35:302- 305. Putnam, A.R. 1983. Allelopathy: A breakthrough in weed control?. American Fruit Grower 103(6):10. Putnam, A.R. and J. DeFrank. 1983. Use of phytotoxic plant residues for selective weed control. Crop Protection 2(2):173-181. Putnam, A.R., J. DeFrank and J.P. Barnes. 1983. Exploitation of allelopathy for weed control in annual and perennial cropping systems. J. Chem Ecol. 9(8):1001-1010. Putnam, A.R. and C.S. Tang. 1986. The science of allelopathy. Wiley, NY. 317 pp. Radosevich, S.R. and J.S. Holt. 1984. Weed ecology: implications for vegetation management. Wiley, NY. 256 pp. Richards, D. and B. Cockroft. 1975. The effect of soil water on root production of peach trees in summer. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26:173-180. Ries, S.K., R.P. Larsen and A.L. Kenworthy. 1962. The apparent influence of simazine on nitrogen nutrition of peach and apple trees. Weeds 11:270-273. Robinson, D.W. and N.D. O'Kennedy. 1978. The effect of overall herbicide systems of soil management on the growth and yield of apple trees ‘Golden Delicious'. Sci. Hort. 9:127-136. Shaulis, N.J. and F.G. Merkle. 1939. Some effects on the soil of different orchard soil management practices. Agric. Expt. Sta. State College Penn. Bull. 373. 26 pp. 19 Shribbs, J.M. and W.A. Skroch. 1986a. Influence of 12 ground cover systems on young ‘Smoothee Golden Delicious' apple trees: I. Growth. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111(4): 525-528. Shribbs, J.M. and W.A. Skroch. 1986b. Influence of 12 ground cover systems on young ‘Smoothee Golden Delicious' apple trees: 11. Nutrition. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. lll(4):529-533. Shribbs, J.M., W.A. Skroch and T.J. Monaco. 1986. Interference between apple (Malus domestics) seedlings and four ground cover species under greenhouse conditions. Weed Sci. 34:533-537. Stinchcombe, G.R. and K.G. Stott. 1983. A comparison of herbicide- controlled orchard ground cover management systems on the vigour and yield of apples. J. Hort. Sci. 58(4):477-489. Susa, T. 1938. Apple root systems under different cultural-systems. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 36:150-152. Toenjes, W., R.J. Higdon and A.L. Kenworthy. 1956. Soil moisture used by orchard sods. Mich. Quart. Bull. 39:334-359. Welker, W.V. and D.M. Glenn. 1985. The relationship of sod proximity to the growth and nutrient composition of newly planted peach trees. HortScience 20(3):4l7-418. Welker, W.V., Jr. and D.M. Glenn. 1988. Growth responses of young peach trees and changes in soil characteristics with sod and conventional planting systems. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113(5):652-656. Welker, W.V. and D.M. Glenn. 1989. Sod proximity influences the growth and yield of young peach trees. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. ll4(6):856- 859. Weller, S.C., W.A. Skroch and T.J. Monaco. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Gynodon dactylon) interference in newly planted peach (Prunus persica) trees. Weed Sci. 33:50-56. SECTION I THE EFFECT OF ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT ON APPLE AND CHERRY TREE GROWTH AND MOISTURE UTILIZATION ABSTRACT The effect of six orchard floor management treatments on tree growth were evaluated for apple (Malus domestics Borkh. cv. Empire/MMlll) and cherry (Prunus cerasus L. cv. Montmorency/Mahaleb). Vegetation-free areas ranging from 0.0 to 7.44 m2 were applied around the tree and evaluated in both tall fescue and hard fescue sods. A vegetation-free zone around the tree resulted in greater trunk cross- sectional area (TCA) in all three years for apple but only in the second and third year for cherry in both grass covers compared to no vegetation-free zone. The greater vegetation-free areas resulted in greater tree growth. Amount of vegetation-free area was positively correlated to shoot length and trunk diameter in both grass covers and was significant for apple in the second and third growing season and for cherry in the third growing season. Vegetation-free area was related to mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Treatments providing 0-1.49 m2 vegetation-free area, the smallest vegetation-free zones, had less soil moisture than the larger vegetation-free strip treatments. Increased tree growth was directly related to increased vegetation-free area with greater soil moisture levels. 20 21 INTRODUCTION Orchard floor management changed during the 20th century from clean cultivation to grass covers (Partridge, 1937; Partridge and Toenjes, 1937) and herbicide strips in the tree row (Lord and Vlach, 1973; Atkinson and White, 1976a). The combination of cover-cropping and clean cultivation for a portion of the growing season followed by one or two cover crops for the rest of the year, had little benefit over clean cultivation in controlling soil erosion (Partridge, 1937; Shaulis and Merkle, 1939). Clean cultivation resulted in reduced soil structure stability compared to grass, clover or alfalfa covers (Li et al., 1942; Anthony et al., 1948; Welker and Glenn, 1988). Shaulis and Merkle (1939) reported that clean cultivation, year-round or with cover crops, decreased soil structure. Clean cultivation resulted in decreased water infiltration rates compared to alfalfa, clover or grass covers (Partridge and Toenjes, 1937; Anthony et al., 1948; Glenn and Welker, 1989). Bluegrass sod had a greater infiltration rate than alfalfa sod and both were much greater than clean cultivation (Li et al., 1942). Decreased soil structure stability and water infiltration promoted soil erosion (Partridge, 1937; Li et al., 1942; Anthony et al., 1948). Equipment used to clean cultivate frequently damaged tree trunks and shallow tree roots and the tilled soil impeded traffic ability under high soil moisture conditions. Apple trees grown in alfalfa or bluegrass had reduced tree growth (Anthony et al., 1948). Apple trees grown in grass, broadleaf weeds or legumes had smaller trunk diameters than trees maintained vegetation- free with herbicides or cultivation (Robinson and O'Kennedy, 1978; 22 Stinchcombe and Stott, 1983; Shribbs and Skroch, 1986a). Shribbs and Skroch (1986a) evaluated the effect of nine vegetative covers, including grasses, broadleafs, or legumes on apple tree growth and reported a differential growth response. Welker and Glenn (1988) reported that peach trees grown in mowed sod had smaller trunk diameters than trees maintained vegetation-free with herbicides or cultivation. Differential utilization of soil moisture, both in depth and degree, occurred between grass species and legumes (Toenjes et al., 1956; Goode, 1955). Goode and Hyrycz (1976) concluded that grass species differentially compete with trees for soil nitrogen and/or soil moisture. Vegetative covers also affected the nitrogen composition of apple and peach leaves (Neilsen et al., 1984; Welker and Glenn, 1985; Shribbs and Skroch, 1986b). Peach in tall fescue had reduced foliar nitrogen levels with the smaller vegetation-free areas around the tree (Welker and Glenn, 1985). Apple trees grown in complete grass had lower leaf nitrogen than trees grown under varying vegetation-free areas (Neilson et al., 1984). Shribbs and Skroch (1986b) concluded that competition for nitrogen may be a major factor in reduced tree growth in vegetative covers. Shribbs and Skroch (1986a) reported herbicide-treated tree rows with grass alleys to be the standard orchard floor management practice in new orchards. A vegetation-free zone in the tree row with a vegetative alley between tree rows minimized competition to tree growth while maintaining soil structure in the alley. Welker and Glenn (1985, 1989) observed that increasing the vegetation-free area around peach 2 trees, ranging from 0.36 to 13 m , resulted in larger trunk diameters. 23 Daniel and Hardcastle (1972) reported that peach trees grown in a 4.9 m herbicide strip had larger trunk diameters than trees grown in total cultivatiuon or cultivated strips 3.7 and 7.4 m wide. Herbicide strips in the tree row with vegetative alleys offer several advantages over total herbicide systems such as reduced soil erosion and equipment support under saturated soil conditions (Atkinson and White, 1976b). Herbicides have been applied to control vegetation around fruit trees but little information has been reported as to desired area or configuration of the vegetation-free zone. This study was to determine the effect of different vegetation-free areas on apple and cherry tree growth and soil moisture. METHODS This research was conducted on a Riddles sandy loam soil at the Michigan State University Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station in western Michigan. Two sods, Reliant hard fescue [Festucs ovins ssp. duriuscula (L.) Koch.] and Kentucky 31 tall fescue (Festuca arundinscea Schreb.) were compared. The hard fescue was sown at 200 kg/ha and the tall fescue at 305 kg/ha. The sods were sown in September, 1985 in adjacent plantings and each was subdivided into 6.1 m square plots. Empire/MMlll apple (Malus domestics Borkh.) and Montmorency/Mahaleb tart cherry (Prunus cerssus L.) trees were planted in May, 1986. Apple and cherry trees were alternated in a tree row through the middle of each plot with an apple and cherry tree_in each plot. Trees were spaced 2 m apart in each plot and 3.7 m apart between adjacent plots in the row with 6.1 m between rows. Apple trees were headed at 76 cm at planting and trained as central leader trees. Cherry trees were not headed at planting but all 24 lateral branches were removed and trees were trained to a modified central leader system. Six treatments were established in both grass covers to provide varying amounts of vegetation-free area around the trees as follows: mm; Mam ea m2 1. Complete Sod 0.00 2. 61 cm herbicide square 0.36 3. 122 cm herbicide square 1.49 4. 122 cm wide herbicide strip 3.72 5. 183 cm wide herbicide strip 5.58 6. 244 cm wide herbicide strip 7.44 The vegetation-free areas were applied symmetrically around the trees in the patterns described above. The strip treatments were continuous between the apple and cherry tree and vegetation-free area was calculated based on half the distance to the adjacent tree. Treatments were initiated three weeks after tree planting. Gramoxone (1,l'- dimethyl-4-4'-bypyridinium ion), a contact herbicide, was applied with a hand sprayer at 1.1 kg/ha with 0.1% X-77 surfactant at approximately 30 day intervals during the growing season to maintain the vegetation-free areas. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 6 replications. Trunk diameter, terminal shoot length and soil moisture were measured during the growing seasons. Trunk diameter was measured 38 cm above the graft union using electronic calipers. Two perpendicular measurements were averaged and trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) calculated. Shoot length was measured from the base of the current season's growth to the shoot apex for the primary scaffolds. Soil moisture was monitored by Bouyoucos soil moisture blocks (Bouyoucos and Mick, 1940) with a Bouyoucos moisture meter (both from Beckman Instruments, Inc., Cedar Grove, NJ). Before installation the 25 blocks were soaked in water. Those measuring saturation were then air dried to confirm the blocks registered a full range. Blocks that did not register both extremes were discarded. Blocks were placed in the tree row, 61 cm from the tree, at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm. Soil moisture calibration curves, relating mass soil moisture to electrical resistance from the Bouyoucos moisture meter, for the Riddles sandy loam were determined in the laboratory (Appendix l-M). Soil samples were taken from the field at 15 cm, the A horizon, and at 30 and 45 cm depths, the B horizon. The Bouyoucos moisture measurements were converted to mass soil moisture content, total mass of water in soil divided by soil oven dry weight, using the soil moisture calibration curves. The soil moisture range for the 15 cm depth was 7.7%-19.5% and 10.l%-17.3% for the 30 and 45 cm depth. Field capacity for the A horizon soil was approximately 21% and approximately 18% for the B horizon soil. Both 1987 and 1988 were very dry during the growing season (Fig. l) for Michigan. Plots were irrigated on June 4 and July 30 in 1987 and on May 20, June 27 and July 29 in 1988. Approximately 13 cm of water per unit area was applied saturating the soil to a minimum depth of 46 cm to saturate all the moisture blocks. Data were compared by analysis of variance and mean separation determined by Duncan's multiple range test at the 5% significance level. RESULTS We: w -- d Fe There were no significant treatment differences in shoot length in 1986 or 1988 (Table 1). In 1987, shoot length was significantly less Figure 1: 26 Daily maximum and minimum temperature, daily precipitation and applied irrigation for 1987 and 1988 for the Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station. Data presented for April through October each season. 5 5 AEoonoxfiakomE Afiovzotfiéomma 27 dqddfiddddddddd-fidlqdqdd<4qud +J4d414dddidJ—ddddddddddqdd MINIMUM TEMPERATURE ‘0 PRECIPITATION \ MINIMUM TEMPERATURE ------- PRECIPITATION -------- MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE --------— MAXIMUM TEMPfRATURE V I j T T AUG. SEPT. OCT. 1988 JULY JUNE APRIL MAY ...I .....uqu ............. angnuuuuuuuuunuuwm m -..N .............. unnnnununnunuuummfi In”: . VI M.H....- 3.....-Huuuunuuu2-:. J. ..an m WWW” m ...... .33"qu ~OIOCMH. I‘ll-3“ J lllllllll m #- lll' 4] Ill. '0. WI ”M.H.-cokelc ...(Iuoani Ital ..... o~ llllllllllllll asuuuuunnnnunnnnu Amman?! M .... E .3 n! v P ..... ’POIIIIA OOOOO 3......- ..... m . W fin”. . ..."...mwwuH III-2.3a... .............. .. .. J ...-...-............-.r m . ................... . .m. m r llllllllllllllll ‘0. out”, 1 on». In .... law-nah“... A I... oooooooooooo esnnuunnuunuuunnnx I............ 1 Y. ...... v a” Mmmmuomaonl J. A u o a . H ”......I . u . v a: M s ..... Inmaunus. .r in”: ...I nary w: IH....I .u. a m Isa-...»... .- oouonoo. unuuuhhnvncnse‘ll . ...-”mm... ...-fl m . ..nu -- 11.... ................. A I: 15.4”: dummy . a _ q _ a :43: a a a X J a a . a . ... . a we Mu ms nu ma DIS 5 0 5 O 5 0 5 5 0 smemmmsoemwmw ...-221m ...-.44.“...- . _ _ _ Gmmazmmazme GENES/Emit 28 .Amo.onmv ummu mmccu oaafiuasa o‘coocso >n mcszaoo cwcufia monoquom mccma unmaucoua N m ¢H.om m ¢H.m m mm.~ m 0.0m m 5.0m m v.0w mwuum BO ¢¢N n ma.ba Q hm.w o m¢.N o m.¢m Ono b.Nm m b.mm afiuum ED nma n mm.hH no ow.h o hn.m o o.mm no ¢.mw m H.mm Qfihum EU «NH 3 mm.md n mm.o m Hm.m o H.mm on ¢.om o o.mm muoflvm BO «NH O mo.~a O Hm.m m NN.N o h.¢m O o.mh m m.wm whoavm 50 an 6 mm.m c mn.v n mm.a m m.nm v m.vm o n.m¢ 60m mumHQEOU mmwmmmm memmmm mmmmmmmm mmwmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm ezmzecmme Amend «us moamm>< nee. meozma eoomm mo¢ N.A mo vacuum was "a dance 29 for trees in complete sod than all other treatments. The trees in the 61 cm square had less shoot growth than the trees in the 122 or 244 cm strip treatments. Trees grown in complete sod had smaller TCA than all other treatments at the conclusion of each growing season. In 1987, trees in the 244 cm strip had significantly greater TCA than all other treatments except trees in the the 122 cm strip. Trees in the completes sod had significantly less TCA than all other treatments and trees in the 61 cm square had less TCA than all other vegetation-free treatments. The 244 cm strip treatment yielded trees with the greatest TCA in 1988. Trees in the 122 cm square, 122 cm strip, and 183 cm strip treatments had greater TCA than the trees in the 61 cm square. w e -- a es The three strip treatments had significantly greater shoot length than trees in the complete sod or the 61 cm square treatments all three years (Table 2). The 122 cm square treatment did not differ from the complete sod or 61 cm square treatments in 1986 but was significantly less than the 122 cm or 244 cm strip treatments. In 1987, the 122 cm square treatment had less shoot growth than the 183 cm strip treatment but greater than the complete sod or 61 cm square treatment. TCA at the end of the 1986 season in complete sod was significantly less than all treatments except the 61 cm square (Table 2). The 61 cm square had less TCA than the 122 or 244 cm strip treatments. In 1987 and 1988, the complete sod and 61 cm square treatments had significantly less TCA than all other treatments. In 1988, the 244 cm strip treatment resulted in the greatest TCA but did not significantly differ from the 183 cm strip treatment. 30 .Amo.onmv ummu mmcou mamfiuaofi m.:oocoa an mcazaoo canvas oououommm mcoms ucmsuomua N o hm.ma o No.5 o HH.N o o.¢w no H.~m o v.am mfiuum EU «cm no on.ha o mm.h no Ho.N o N.Hm o n.mm no «.me Qwhum 30 an on Hm.mH o Na.m o mm.N o m.hh no m.mh o H.Hm Qwhnm E0 NNH O mm.nH o mm.o no no.N o n.mh n <.o> on o.H¢ Ouozvm EU NNH v Nc.h n mH.n On om.H n m.mm 0 «.me O m.mn Ouozvm 80 do w mn.o n vm.N O H¢.H n o.wm O m.wn O m.nn 60m mumamfioo a ERIE. a a awn-MUN g ezmzecmme ANEOV <09 WUdmm>¢ AEOV mfiwzmq Boomm mw¢ .Adusv omuo HoCOHuoomlmmouo xcsuu oco nuocoa uoonm co pom osommu Haou an Mxosucox cw mmmuu.mammo ocsouo omuo wmuu|:0auoummm> no Hummus one um canoe 31 WW w -- The shoot length of cherry trees grown in hard fescue did not differ the first growing season, 1986 (Table 3). In 1987, trees in complete sod had significantly less shoot growth than all other treatments. Shoot length in 1988 was significantly less in the complete sod or 61 cm square than in the 244 cm strip treatment. Cherry TCA did not differ significantly between treatments in 1986 (Table 3). In 1987 and 1988, complete sod had the smallest TCA. w s -- Shoot length of cherry trees in tall fescue did not differ between treatments in 1986 (Table 4). In 1987, trees grown in complete sod or the 61 cm square treatments had significantly less shoot length than all other treatments. The 122 cm strip treatment had significantly less shoot length than the 183 cm strip. The complete sod treatment also had significantly less shoot length in 1988 than all treatments except the 61 cm square. The 61 cm square had less shoot growth than the 122 or 183 cm strip treatments. The TCA of cherry trees grown in tall fescue did not differ significantly in 1986 (Table 4). In 1987 and 1988, trees in complete sod or the 61 cm square treatments had significantly smaller TCA than all other treatments. Relative growth rates (RGR) for apple and cherry trunk diameter for 1987 and 1988 also differed significantly (data not shown). The complete sod and 61 cm square treatments had the lowest RGR. 32 .Amo.cumv umou mason oaaauaoa m.:oo::n an mcasaoo :Hnu«3 omuouommm mcooa ucoauomua u no «$.0H n bn.ed wH.mH nv.¢H .0 fl ¢F.na O bv.h mm\mH\m no NN.@ n mN.m 6 NH.» no em.o n H¢.m O Oh.n sm\m~\m U M Awaov cue moamm>¢ hm.H nb.d mn.~ mN.N ho.N hm.H om\on\oa a ~.hn so >.no an >.H> so m.ao n «.mm a 5.4m mm\ma\m o m.~m n M.GM nm\m~\m fl w M m.on b.mn em\m\aa nave meozmq soomm moamm>< afiuum so v¢~ deuum so mad deuum so mad duosvm 50 «NH duosvm 30 Ho com oumamaou BZWZB no avenue :0 com osommu one "n manna 33 ..mo.oumv umou omsou oamfiuass mscoosso an massaoo canvas oououonom mcoos usosuooua N o sh.ms a no.4 a Hm.H no o.vo no n.mm m H.om meson so «em a n¢.¢a m ma.m a om.s a m.ap a h.no n H.m~ mason so «as a Ho.ma a on.v a nv.a a «.0» a m.a¢ a o.on assom so «us a ~m.oa a ao.e a mm.a no o.mo an «.mm m m.Hn onusom so «as s «6.4 a ms.~ a Hm.a on o.om o s.ma a ~.Hn osnsom so so a mm.m a Ho.~ a sm.a o m.nn o m.o~ a >.o~ oom ouoadsoo mmmmmmm mmwmmwm mmmmmwmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmwmm ezmzecmms Assoc «us mo¢mm>< Aso. msozms Booze moamm>4 N.A mo Homuuo one we manoa 34 W W Soil moisture differed between treatments at the 15 cm depth in mid-May, 1988 (Fig. 2). Complete sod had significantly less soil moisture than the 183 or 244 cm strip treatments. Trees were irrigated May 20 and by May 27, soil moisture for complete sod was significantly less than all other treatments. Soil moisture in the 61 cm square or complete sod treatments were significantly less than all treatments in mid-June at the lowest level the blocks would register. The 122 cm square had significantly less soil moisture than the strip treatments. On June 27, the strip treatments had greater soil moisture than all other treatments. Irrigation on June 27 saturated the soil. By mid- July, the complete sod treatment had the lowest soil moisture followed by the 61 cm square which was followed by the 122 cm square treatment, all significantly less than the strip treatments. These treatment differences continued, even with 8 cm of rain in mid-July, until irrigation on July 29. Significant differences were next measured September 16 when the complete sod or the 122 square treatments again had significantly less soil moisture than all other treatments. Data for the 30 cm and 45 cm depth (Fig. 2) reveal moisture fluctuations somewhat similar to those at the 15 cm depth. The strip treatments usually had greater soil moisture content than the complete sod, 61 cm square and 122 cm square treatments. However, at the 45 cm depth, the decrease in soil moisture was not as great as at the 30 cm depth. Significant differences were not detected after mid-July at the 45 cm depth, but at the 30 cm depth differences occurred in mid- Figure 2: 35 The effect of six vegetation-free area around apple trees in Reliant hard fescue on the 1988 percent mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05) when significant treatment differences were present, ns = no significant difference. 36 1988 APPLE DATA —— RELIANT HARD FESCUE 15 CM DEPTH I I @203 I In: I I ns ns U . 05184 D I— @15- O 214- :J. 8 12- oeeeeALL $00 $10.. 99969 61 CM SQUARE < 4—H-H- 122 CM SQUARE 2 M122 CM STRIP 8- W183 CM STRIP W 244 CM STRIP 6...v...vwr...r.j T l I I MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. 30 CM DEPTH @19- TJ I CE 2 17s 9 O E 15. d O m 13f U) m I CM SQUARE <11 +-+-H—+- 122 CM SQUARE 2 “I ...... 122 CM STRIP i M183 CM STRIP QIT‘ITI'rIthert'IIIIr MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. 19 45 CM DEPTH 3? g l I I I I 3 H7:_‘_~.“‘ n: E ~§../ ' \\/ \‘ V: O 2 I515 \ \ \s i ' . 8 13- U) GOGGGALL $00 an ‘ cases 51 CM SQUARE <2 :1- * +—+-+-+-+ 122 CM SQUARE 2 u _- M122 CM STRIP W183 CM STRIP 9 M 244 CM STRIP J MAY JUNE JULY[ AUG.I SEPT. 37 September. Soil moisture at the 30 cm depth is not reported for the 244 cm square treatment because the moisture blocks did not function. W Significant treatment differences were recorded June 13 at the 15 cm depth when the three strip treatments had significantly greater soil moisture content than all other treatments (Fig. 3). The moisture blocks in the complete sod, 61 cm square and 122 cm strip treatments were at their lowest registering limit. The complete sod or 61 cm square treatments had recorded this limit by June 6. Soil moisture decreased rapidly following irrigation on June 27, and by July 15, the strip treatments again had significantly greater soil moisture than all other treatments. After irrigation on July 29, significant treatment differences were measured twice in September when the complete sod or 61 cm square treatments had significantly less soil moisture than all other treatments. Soil moisture content at the 30 and 45 cm depths was more variable than at the 15 cm depth for some treatments. At the 30 cm depth, the complete sod, 61 cm square and 122 cm square treatments had the lowest soil moisture content during 1988. On July 15, the 183 cm or 244 cm strip treatments had significantly greater soil moisture than the 122 cm strip. The complete sod or 61 cm square treatments had significantly less soil moisture than the other treatments at the lowest limit of the blocks. A 7 cm rainfall occurred July 16. On July 28, the 183 cm or 244 cm strip treatments had significantly greater soil moisture than all other treatments with the the 61 cm square having Ithe least. Significant differences occurred August 19 when the 183 or 244 cm strip treatments again had significantly greater soil moisture than all other Figure 3: 38 The effect of vegetation-free area around apple trees in Kentucky 31 tall fescue on the 1988 percent mass soil moisture content in the tree row. Vertical bars represent LSD (P<0.05) when significant treatment differences were present, ns = no significant difference. 39 1988 APPLE DATA —- KENTUCKY 31 TALL FESCUE 15 CM DEPTH 23- I A ~= II I I ... I CK /’. E1gd/ /\;V \ \ m \ -17- O 515-4 ._I 513% U) m11~ .- m seesaw. son 3 4 91 3399361 CM SQUARE E +-H-H- 122 CM SQUARE 7s M122 CM STRIP W183 CM STRIP 5 9.4.7.1244 CM STRIP fl I I , I T I MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT 19‘ :50 CM DEPTH [In 7 A I I "3 I 3Q; ns MI I I” I Lu I7— ____ i I- I m i 515- I 2 I _J I g13~ ; i III ‘oeeeeALL $00 I 0.05) or significantly different at P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively. 47 calculated for apples in tall fescue all three years for trunk diameter and shoot length. Cherry trees in hard fescue had highly significant correlations between vegetation-free area and shoot length in 1987 and 1988 and significant correlations with trunk diameter in 1988. Cherry trees in tall fescue had highly significant correlations between vegetation-free area and both shoot length or trunk diameter in 1987 and 1988. For apple and cherry trees in hard fescue, linear correlations between increased shoot length and soil moisture for the month of June were calculated with a ten day lag between soil moisture level and increased tree growth. Correlations for soil moisture versus increased shoot length were R2-0.49** for apple and R2-0.38** for cherry, both highly significant. DISCUSSION Reliant hard fescue is a relatively short, fine leafed, slow growing, shallow rooted sod that exhibits slow growth when moisture is limiting. Kentucky 31 tall fescue is a relatively tall, coarse, deep rooted grass that grows well all season, even in periods of moderately limiting moisture (Biran et al., 1981). Vegetation-free area around the apple trees in tall fescue resulted in greater shoot length and TCA all three years than trees in the complete sod. However, trees in hard fescue exhibited no differences in shoot length in 1986 and 1988 but TCA significantly differed all three years. Vegetation-free area was significantly correlated to apple trunk diameter and shoot length in both sod covers all three years except for shoot length in hard fescue for 1988. This indicates that both sod 48 covers were competing or interfering with the growth of the apple trees all three years. The lack of significant differences in cherry tree growth or correlations with shoot length and trunk diameter the first year did not indicate that vegetation-free area does not affect cherry tree growth. The cultural management of the cherry trees along with the growth characteristics of cherry may have resulted in no measurable treatment differences. Cherry trees do not grow as rapidly as apple trees, therefore the cherry trees were not affected as severly as the apple and significant treatment differences were not measured in the first year. Cherry trees also set terminal bud and do not break vegetative buds as apples do within a growing season. However, in the 1987 and 1988 seasons, tree growth was adversely affected by both grass covers and this effect was partially alleviated with vegetation-free area. This indicates that vegetation-free area does affect cherry tree growth which was not measured during the first growing season. In this study, the strip treatments provivded the greatest vegetation-free area. Apple and cherry trees produced greater shoot length and TCA with increased vegetation-free zones. Welker and Glenn (1989) also reported that peach TCA in tall fescue was proportional to the size of the vegetation-free area around the tree which ranged from 0.36 to 13.0 m2. Apple and cherry trees grown in tall fescue had less shoot length and TCA than trees grown in hard fescue. For the three years, apple shoot length in complete sod averaged 40% less in the tall fescue compared to the hard fescue and TCA averaged 51% less in the tall fescue. Cherry shoot length in complete sod averaged 61% less in the 48 covers were competing or interfering with the growth of the apple trees all three years. The lack of significant differences in cherry tree growth or correlations with shoot length and trunk diameter the first year did not indicate that vegetation-free area does not affect cherry tree growth. The cultural management of the cherry trees along with the growth characteristics of cherry may have resulted in no measurable treatment differences. Cherry trees do not grow as rapidly as apple trees, therefore the cherry trees were not affected as severly as the apple and significant treatment differences were not measured in the first year. Cherry trees also set terminal bud and do not break vegetative buds as apples do within a growing season. However, in the 1987 and 1988 seasons, tree growth was adversely affected by both grass covers and this effect was partially alleviated with vegetation-free area. This indicates that vegetation-free area does affect cherry tree growth which was not measured during the first growing season. In this study, the strip treatments provivded the greatest vegetation-free area. Apple and cherry trees produced greater shoot length and TCA with increased vegetation-free zones. Welker and Glenn (1989) also reported that peach TCA in tall fescue was proportional to the size of the vegetation-free area around the tree which ranged from 0.36 to 13.0 m2. Apple and cherry trees grown in tall fescue had less shoot length and TCA than trees grown in hard fescue. For the three years, apple shoot length in complete sod averaged 40% less in the tall fescue compared to the hard fescue and TCA averaged 51% less in the tall fescue. Cherry shoot length in complete sod averaged 61% less in the 49 tall fescue than hard fescue and TCA averaged 74% less. There were also TCA differences in the two grass covers between the trees in the 61 cm square compared to the treatments with greater vegetation-free area. For example, both in 1987 and 1988 there were no statistical differences in TCA between the complete sod and the 61 cm square treatments for both apple and cherry in tall fescue, however in hard fescue there were significant differences. The tall fescue sod was so competitive that the 61 cm square vegetation-free zone did not result in increased TCA as occurred in the hard fescue. Shribbs and Skroch (1986a) reportd differential growth of apple trees grown in various vegative covers. They reported that tall fescue resulted in reduced shoot length and trunk diameter when compared to vegetative covers such as Kentucky bluegrass or nimblewill. Treatments that provided greater vegetation-free area had higher soil moisture. When soil moisture differences occurred the complete sod or 61 cm square treatments had the lowest soil moisture in 1988. In June, at the lowest levels of soil moisture these two treatments were not recording the actual level of soil moisture as they had already reached the lowest limit of the blocks. In mid to late June, soil moisture decreased for all treatments but the rate and degree of decrease was greater for treatments with the least vegetation-free area. After irrigation saturated the soil, the same soil moisture reduction pattern occurred but not as rapidly or to the same degree. Treatments providing smaller vegetation-free area had less available soil moisture, less shoot length and TCA. Apparently, utilization of soil moisture by the grass in competition with the tree 50 resulted in reduced tree growth. These data suggest that soil moisture under vegetative covers is a key factor affecting tree growth. Welker and Glenn (1985, 1989) reported vegetation-free area for peach trees resulted in increased tree growth and increased yield during the first four years. Maximum apple and cherry tree growth during 3 2 years, the length of our study, occurred where a 7.4 m vegetation-free area was maintained around the trees. However, cherry tree TCA in the tall fescue with a 7.4 m2 vegetation-free area was 23% less the TCA of trees in the hard fescue. The minimum size of the vegetation-free area increased between the first year and the third year. TCA, an indicator of tree growth, suggests that the 122 cm strip treatment was sufficient vegetation-free area for optimum tree growth in both grass covers the first year, but a 244 cm strip was necessary for greatest tree growth in the third year for both grass covers. As the tree's root system expands laterally the vegetation-free area must also increase for optimum tree growth. In another study we found tall fescue greatly reduced peach rooting-both outside and in the vegetation-free zone. This indicates competition and a need for an increased vegetation-free zone as the tree grows. Tree growth was differentially affected by two grass covers providing differing degrees of competition. For either sod, a vegetation-free area was essential for maximum tree growth. However, the tall fescue did compete more with tree growth and resulted in less tree growth than hard fescue when less than 3.7 m2 2 of vegetation-free area was maintained in apples and 7.4 m in cherry, especially in the third year. This indicates that when very vigorous vegetative covers are present in an orchard that a larger vegetation-free area is required 51 for optimal tree growth. This difference in tree growth between the two grass covers indicates selection of an orchard floor cover is an important orchard management consideration before tree establishment. 52 LITERATURE CITED Anthony, R.D., F.W. Farris and W.S. Clarke, Jr. 1948. Effects of certain cultural treatments on orchard soil and water losses and on apple tree growth. Agric. Exp. Sta. State College Penn. Bull. 493. Atkinson, D. and G.C. White. 1976a. The effect of the herbicide strip system of management on root growth of young apple trees and the soil zones from which they take up mineral nutrients. Rep. E. Malling Res. Stn.for 1975. ppl65-167. Atkinson, D. and G.C. White. 1976b. Soil management with herbicides: the response of the soils and plants. Proc. 1976 British Crop Prot. Conf. - Weeds 3:873-884. Biran, I., B. Bravado, I. Bushkin-Harav and E. Rawitz. 1981. Water consumption and growth rate of 11 turfgrasses as affected by mowing height, irrigation frequency, and soil moisture. Agr. Jour. 73:85-90. Bouyoucos, G.J. and A.H. Mick. 1940. An electrical resistance method for the continuous measurement of soil moisture under field conditions. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta Bul. 172. 38 pp. Daniel, J.W.and W.S. Hardcastle. 1972. Response of peach trees to herbicide and mechanical weed control. Weed Sci. 20(2):133-136. Glenn, D.M. and W.V. Welker. 1989. Orchard soil management systems influence rainfall infiltration. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. ll4(l):lO-l4. Goode, J.E. and K.J. Hyrycz. 1976. The effect of nitrogen on young, newly planted apple rootstocks in the presence and absence of grass competition. J. Hort Sci. 51:321-327. Li, L.Y., R.D. Anthony and F.G. Merkle. 1942. Influence of orchard soil management upon the infiltration of water and some related physical characteristics of the soil. Soil Sci. 53:65-74. Lord, W.J. and E. Vlach. 1973. Responses of peach trees to herbicides, mulch, mowing, and cultivation. Weedscience 21(3):227-229. Neilsen, G.H., M. Meheriuk and B.J. Hogue. 1984. The effect of orchard floor managment and nitrogen uptake on fruit quality of 'Golden Delicious' apple trees. Hortscience l9(4):547-550. Partridge, N.L. 1937. Soil erosion in michigan orchards. Mich. Cir. Bul. 162. 35 pp. Partridge, N.L. and W. Toenjes. 1937. Annual cover crops for Michigan orchards. Mich. Cir. Bull. 163. 12 pp. Robinson, D.W. and N.D. O'Kennedy. 1978. The effect of overall herbicide systems of soil management on the growth and yield of apple trees ‘Golden Delicious'. Sci. Hort. 9:127-136. 53 Shaulis, N.J. and F.G. Merkle. 1939. Some effects on the soil of different orchard soil management practices. Agric. Expt. Sta. State College Penn. Bull. 373. 26 pp. Shribbs, J.M. and W.A. Skroch. 1986a. Influence of 12 ground cover systems on young ‘Smoothee Golden Delicious' apple trees: I. Growth. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. lll(4):525-528. Shribbs, J.M. and W.A. Skroch. 1986b. Influence of 12 ground cover systems on young ‘Smoothee Golden Delicious' apple trees: II. Nutrition. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111(4):529-533. Stinchcombe, G.R. and K.G. Stott. 1983. A comparison of herbicide- controlled orchard ground cover management systems on the vigour and yield of apples. J. Hort. Sci. 58(4): 477-489. Toenjes, W., R.J. Higdon and A.L. Kenworthy. 1956. Soil moisture used by orchard sods. Mich. Quart. Bull. 39:334-359. Welker, W.V. amd D.M. Glenn. 1989. Sod proximity influences the growth and yield of young peach trees. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. ll4(6):856-859. Welker, W.V., Jr. and D.M. Glenn. 1988. Growth responses of young peach trees and changes in soil characteristics with sod and conventional planting systems. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113(5):652-656. Welker, W.V., Jr. and D.M. Glenn. 1985. The relationship of sod proximity to the growth and nutrient composition of newly planted peach trees. HortScience 20(3):417-418. SECTION II THE RESPONSE OF PEACH TREES TO ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT Twelve orchard floor management treatments were evaluated for their effect on peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch cv. Redhaven/Halford) tree growth from 1986 through 1988. Trunk cross-sectional area did not differ significantly between treatments. In 1987, trees produced the greatest shoot length in the complete herbicide, Kentucky bluegrass or chewings fescue treatments and the least in clover or alfalfa. Treatments resulted in differences in peach leaf nitrogen in 1987 and 1988 but did not differ in shoot cold hardiness following the 1987 growing season or fruit yield in 1988. Peach trees in the vegetation- free treatments had greater leaf fresh weight, dry weight and leaf area than trees in the vegetative covers in 1988. Herbicide or clean cultivation treatments had greater soil moisture in May and June, 1987. INTRODUCTION Michigan peach growers utilize clean cultivation with cover crops or vegetative alleys with a cultivated or herbicide strip in the tree row. Vegetative covers have different growth habits and pose varying degrees of competition with peach tree growth. The reduction in tree growth has been attributed to competition for nitrogen (Shribbs and Skroch, 1986a), moisture (Kenworthy and Gilligan, 1949) or both (Lord and Vlach, 1973; Goode and Hyrycz, 1976). 54 55 Apple trees grown in grass covers had smaller trunk diameters than trees grown vegetation-free or with herbicide strips (Baxter and Newman, 1971; Stinchcombe and Stott, 1983). When all vegetative competition was eliminated around apple trees the trunk diameter was larger than the trunk diameter of trees grown in grass with a l m2 herbicide treated area or complete mechanical cultivation (Robinson and O'Kennedy, 1978). A 78% increase in peach tree trunk diameter resulted when the vegetation-free area around trees in tall fescue increased from 0.6 m2 to 3.6 m2 (Welker and Glenn, 1985). Peach trees grown in complete vegetation had smaller trunk diameters compared to trees with partial or total elimination of the grass cover (Welker and Glenn, 1988; Lord and Vlach, 1973; Daniel and Hardcastle, 1972). Weed competition resulted in reduced tree growth (Daniel et al., 1972). Apple trees grown in Kentucky bluegrass had greater tree trunk diameter than trees grown in tall fescue (Shribbs and Skroch, 1986a). Larger trunk diameters were also reported for trees grown in nimblewill, red sorrel or blackberry covers than in legumes, tall broadleaf weeds, Kentucky bluegrass, orchardgrass or tall fescue. Vigorous vegetative covers of tall fescue, orchardgrass, or tall broadleaf weeds resulted in lower apple leaf nitrogen than less competitive covers (Shribbs and Skroch, 1986b). Apple trees grown in complete grass for the first three years had lower leaf nitrogen each year than trees grown in clover or herbicide strips (Stinchcombe and Stott, 1983). Apple trees grown in total grass or broadleaf weeds had lower leaf nitrogen than trees in herbicide strips measuring 1.3 m wide and 9.8 m long (Baxter and Newman, 1971). Shribbs and Skroch (1986b) concluded that vegetative covers limited apple tree growth by competing 56 for nitrogen. Mowed sod resulted in lower peach leaf nitrogen than treatments eliminating or reducing the proximity of the vegetative cover to the tree (Lord and Vlach, 1973; Welker and Glenn, 1985; Welker and Glenn, 1988). Peach leaf nitrogen was positively correlated to the size of the vegetation-free area while leaf Mg and Zn were negatively correlated (Welker and Glenn, 1985). Vegetative covers resulted in differentially reduced soil moisture and reduced tree growth as a result of competition for soil moisture (Goode, 1955). Toenjes et al. (1956) found clover or alfalfa depleted soil moisture to a greater depth than bluegrass, timothy, redtop or chewings fescue. Goode (1955) reported perennial ryegrass had less soil moisture than timothy which had less soil moisture than annual meadow grass. Toenjes et al. (1956) advised Michigan fruit growers to utilize shallow rooted vegetative covers that posed little competition to tree growth. Vegetative covers have various growth characteristics which may differentially influence tree growth. Selecting and managing orchard floor covers to minimize competition with tree growth is beneficial. This research evaluated the effect of 12 different orchard covers on peach tree growth and soil moisture. METHODS This research was conducted at the Michigan State University Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station in western Michigan. The soil was a Riddles sandy loam soil (moderately well drained, typic Hapludalfs, fine-loamy, mixed, mesic). The vegetative covers were sown in September, 1985 in 6.1 m square plots. Three peach trees [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Redhaven/Halford} were planted April, 1986 in a 57 tree row in the middle of each plot. Trees were spaced 2 m apart in the row and 6.2 m between rows. Trees were trained to an open center with 3 scaffolds per tree. The 12 orchard floor management treatments were: 1. Herbicide--Maintained vegetation-free with herbicide 2. Clean cultivation--Maintained vegetation-free with cultivation 3. Park Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) Seeded at 100 kg/ha. 4. Manhattan II perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) Seeded at 317 kg/ha. 5. Reliant hard fescue (Festuca ovina ssp. duriuscula (L.) Koch.) Seeded at 199 kg/ha. 6. Wintergreen chewings fescue (Festuca rubra L.) Seeded at 199 kg/ha. 7. 30% Manhattan II perennial ryegrass + 70% Park Kentucky bluegrass (PR+KB), by weight Seeded at 95 kg/ha and 70 kg/ha, respectively. 8. 80% Manhattan 11 perennial ryegrass + 20% Wintergreen chewings fescue (PR+CF), by weight Seeded at 254 kg/ha and 40 kg/ha, respectively. 9. Smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) Seeded at 26 kg/ha. 10. White Dutch clover (Trifolium repens L.) Seeded at 11 kg/ha. 11. Peak alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Seeded at 22 kg/ha. 12. Kentucky 31 tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) Seeded at 305 kg/ha. Gramoxone (1,1'~dimethyl-4-4'«bypyridinium ion), a contact herbicide was applied by hand sprayer at 1.1 kg/ha with 0.1% X-77 surfactant at approximately 30 day intervals during each growing season to establish and maintain the herbicide treatment and a 1.22 m wide vegetation-free strip in the tree row of the vegetative treatments. The clean 58 cultivation treatment was rototilled to a depth of 8 cm at 30-40 day intervals during each growing season to control vegetation. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Data were collected from the middle tree in each plot. Trees were fertilized annually in the spring with 57 grams of nitrogen (N) per year of tree age, applied as urea or ammonium nitrate. Fertilizer was banded around the perimeter of the tree. Twenty three (23) kgs of N per hectare, were also broadcast annually, either as urea or ammonium nitrate, over the orchard floor of all treatments. Trunk diameter was measured 25.5 cm above the soil surface. Two perpendicular measurements were taken, averaged, and trunk cross- sectional area (TCA) calculated. Terminal shoot length of the three main scaffolds was measured from the base of the current season's growth to the shoot apex and then averaged. Soil moisture was monitored with Bouyoucos soil moisture blocks (Bouyoucos and Mick, 1940) and a Bouyoucos moisture meter (both from Beckman Instruments, Inc., Cedar Grove, NJ) through July of 1987. Thereafter, soil moisture measurements were recorded with a Campbell 10X datalogger (Campbell Scientific, Inc., Logan, UT) as electrical resistance. Bouyoucos blOCks were tested before installation by soaking in water for saturation and then air dried to verify the blocks registered a full range. The blocks were saturated and placed at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm at three locations. Blocks were placed in the tree row beneath the herbicide strip 61 cm from the tree trunk, and 61 or 155 cm from the trunk perpendicular to the tree row. The location in the alley 61 cm from the tree was at the interface of the herbicide strip and alleyway 59 treatments. Many blocks did not function in 1988 and those soil moisture data are not presented. Soil moisture calibration curves (Appendices I-M and II-K), relating mass soil moisture to Bouyoucos meter readings and electrical resistance from the datalogger, were determined in the laboratory. Soil samples were collected from the field at the 15 cm depth, the A horizon, and the 30 and 45 cm depth, the B horizon. The Bouyoucos meter measurements and electrical resistance values were converted to mass soil moisture content, total mass of water in soil divided by soil oven dry weight, using the soil moisture calibration curves. The soil moisture range for the 15 cm depth for the Bouyoucos meter was 7.7-19.5% and l4.6-19.5% for the datalogger. At the 30 and 45 cm depths the moisture ranged from 9.9-17.3% for the Bouyoucos moisture meter and l3.9-l6.8% for the datalogger. Field capacity for the A horizon soil was approximately 21% and 18% for the B horizon soil. Twenty leaves were sampled from each tree twice in 1987 and on four dates in 1988 to determine leaf nutrient content. Leaves were collected from the mid section of the current seasons growth, dried at 60 C and ground in a Wiley mill to pass through a 40 mesh screen and digested in sulfuric acid (H2804) with potassium sulfate (K2504) and selenium (Se) as catalysts. Total ammonium (NHa) concentrations were determined with a Quik-chem flow analyzer (Lachat Instruments, Mequon, WI) using the Kjeldahl method. In 1987, leaf samples were dry ashed and diluted in LiCl and Al, Zn, Fe, B, P, Cu, Mn, Mg, Ca, K content. determined by Plasma Spectral Analysis. Peach shoot cold hardiness was determined after the 1987 growing season using the method described by Howell and Weiser (1970). Four 60 shoots from each tree, 16 per treatment, were collected approximately 1.5 m above the ground on the east side of the tree. Cold hardiness was expressed as T50 values, the temperature at which 50% of the shoots had cambial and phloem browning (Bittenbender and Howell, 1974). Relative cropping was evaluated July 5, 1988 by removing six shoots of various length from each guard tree, 48 per treatment, measuring shoot length, and determining fruit number and fruit weight. Fruit were then hand thinned to a spacing of approximately 20 cm. Yield in 1988, involved harvesting all of the fruit in two harvests, a result of extremely warm harvest weather. Leaf net photosynthesis was measured on 2 fully expanded leaves per tree with a portable ADC photosynthetic unit, Model LCA-2 (Analytical Development Co., Hoddesdon, England). Leaf photosynthetic rates were calculated using the computer program developed by Moon and Flore (1986). Leaf size, fresh weight, dry weight and area were measured in October, 1988. Twelve leaves that were located 8 to 10 leaves below the shoot apex, were collected from each tree. Leaf area was measured using a Delta-T area meter (Cambridge, England). The 1987 and 1988 growing seasons were very dry for Michigan (Fig. 1). Plots were irrigated June 4 and July 30 in 1987 and May 20, June 27 and July 29 in 1988. Approximately 13 cm of water per unit area was applied at each date to saturate the soil to a minimum depth of 46 cm to saturate all the moisture blocks. The vegetative covers were mown to a height of 8 cm approximately 3 times during each growing season. Prior to mowing, the height of the vegetative covers was measured. Two-930 cm2 area samples of each Figure 1: 61 Daily maximum and minimum temperature, daily precipitation and applied irrigation for 1987 and 1988 for the Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station. Data presented for April through October each season. 62 25 AEoonomfiéuomE J .1 «I I ..1 .1 d --------- MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE MINIMUM TEMPERATURE I udedddddd‘ddflddqdfld 0.108000 OIAT can“?! «r foo av ooooooooooo V [IMHI T ...... .oou “Mane. N I m “nun... m .... ............ T .w M IJ . OI-‘HHH‘CI I ‘m T .I P ..-. P C I... E W... Ionnwflls ....... DI no.“ IIIII m " """’OIICIIIIIAAU G gnu-”II... "I!!! llllllllllll ...!“- IOIL U I.W.... m u I........... A lawn-UH.“ I . T v aunt. oooooooooooooo nonuuuuuuuuununuur Tm... AP Y ...--.-Hu...uu...... 5f w. 0. IIIIIII 9‘ ...... "I‘SUY J afloat”. JT 'QOQOO'H’I‘ m I‘D-.0; \runounnnoooo a, OOOOOOOOOO ‘ S'flflwvl E V! m J N lain: ..... T .....uuf U DQNLIIOINQI gr). llllllllllllllll II Ar J lllllllllllllllllllllllll A". RANK”! 9 Y ”~WW‘I h? "mm... L. A .-...- M .3: r .- ...... 6. .TI :3: r I.....nu..-........ A. m ...mma: m. P I... ................ i A vanqunuo . q a a a _ a _ _ a A a . 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 O 5 O 5 O 5 3 3 2 2 I I . 1 I 2 2 A v _ _ _ _ 1987 5 Afiovzotéinfimma 2 O 4 J 4 q + .14 +4 4 d 4 .1 d d JI.‘ 4 d 4 d d JI— d J I! ‘II E llflcolonflloflod I! I to"! 'ladt . R“ I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII nuns-.1 a UU .u........... .... N . 0 TT ....n O r M. ........... n .... Em DWI M .fi . PP ..... - .......... II...€.~.mwmmmm.. T MM ‘ul’fflO. P IOIAY P Er... . C a E TT {Sauna-III! E Li S .. ..... R ...;I WM -..t P U ... ..qu“: . w NI. ....... .. .I m m 5.... rue VAN oooooo l u an A A'- » ..... W . ‘0;- M M. -I I . ...I . ooummn IIIIIIIIIIIIII InnhnuunHuHHHHHHHur m N A. Y m {Wan-Nona. W IIIIII uwnnunuan m . II. ”””” I m fiIJ Ila ..... “wane- Illllh. lllllllll Inuwnuflnnfluuflfluu Inn-coral», .I E Mu... . W .unuouuoaooooounflo M w J autouovuncnnuoncaolofl m fill IDNHHHHIQ', ..... L ”H", llllllllllllll II'NHHHNMHHOIIOO‘JI Y 5...... ...... I L. M u ..... n I 1000.!!! TI! I‘Hnonvlf' MI 5.1.100. II”.- “5 IummmmmuI . R ...u. fl P. Cleansiurmmllo IHWHu A A 4 s a s _ -.. J 4 us mu m. W Mu MU 5 5 O 1988 63 vegetative cover were collected from opposite sides of the tree for fresh and dry weight determinations. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance. Mean separation was determined by Duncan's multiple range test at the 5% significance level with a significant F test at the 5% level. RESULTS No significant differences in TCA occurred between treatments during this study (Table 1). Significant differences in shoot length occurred only in 1987. The herbicide, clean cultivation, Kentucky bluegrass, or chewings fescue treatments had significantly greater shoot length than the clover or alfalfa treatments. The herbicide, Kentucky bluegrass, and chewings fescue treatments had significantly greater shoot length than all treatments except the clean cultivation or PR+CF. Soil moisture measurements in the tree row, under the herbicide strip, in 1987 indicated herbicide, Kentucky bluegrass, bromegrass, and tall fescue treatments had significantly greater soil moisture, May 13 at the 15 cm depth, than clover (Table 2). Irrigation June 4 and July 30 saturated the soil. On August 7, treatments of herbicide, chewings fescue, PR+CF, bromegrass and clover had significantly greater soil moisture than the alfalfa treatment. On September 8, all treatments except the Kentucky bluegrass or PR+KB had greater soil moisture than clean‘ cultivation. The Kentucky bluegrass, chewings fescue, PR+CF, clover, and alfalfa treatments had significantly greater soil moisture on September 29 than the vegetation-free treatments. On October 6, all treatments except tall fescue had significantly greater soil moisture than the vegetation-free treatments or perennial ryegrass. 64 .Ho>ma am us was» 9 unseauficmwm £993 «mo.oumv 9mm» omce9 09999999 m.cso:so >9 Umus9mmmm magma 990999099 9 a 9.9o9 on o.n99 a 9.me a mm.m~ a om.h9 m R9.m «comma 9969 a 9.9m9 o 9.~99 m m.eh a m~.en a mo.m9 m >9.m ~99mu9< a m.mo9 o ~.o99 a 9.96 a 99.nn a 9n.99 n 9~.e 96>090 a n.mo9 on «.699 a >.oe a n9.em a Rq.o~ a m¢.m mmm9mmaoum a m.oo9 one m.n~9 m p.66 a mn.nn a no.99 m 9e.v mo+mm a «.moH on n.e99 a m.me a Re.nn a an.m9 a ms.v mx+mm a n.m99 a ~.m¢9 a c.96 a 9m.mn a mm.99 a ~m.v saunas moc9smso n o.~o9 on «.mHH a E.Ro a me.sm m 9R.m9 m mm.e osommm cum: a G.RoH on v.n99 a m.mm a en.~n a om.99 a ms.v .699 969::6969 a ~.u~9 a R.o¢9 a o.o> a ~>.wm a mo.o~ a mm.m .ms99 axosucmx a ~.eo9 an m.vn9 a o.>e a en.mn a nm.9~ a mm.v .9950 :MCHo m m.999 a «.meH a o.n> a 99.ne a on.m~ a no.6 66909996: mm\o~\o9 Rm\e~\a om\m\99 mm\m9\m sm\m~\m em\om\o9 ezmzscmme .90. 996299 eoomm moamw>< Amen. 409 moamm>¢ u.numcma uooem can .aoaa mo9m Hecowpommlmm09o x9999 comma so undamamcsa 9ooHu 6965090 no uoouuo 099 “9 dance the effect of orchard fl tree in the tree rou-198 Table 2: or managment on mass soil moisture of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 61 cm fras the X MASS SOIL MOISTURE -------------------------15 cm oepth------------------------- 10/6 10/20 9/29 9/8 BIT 6/18 5/29 5/13 TREATMENT NONONOOMPOO~C 0'0““Ifllfl0lfllfl0lfl s-e-s-s- 88.0.0.0...‘8 QNMNONOJQe-NNM Ifllflhm0h0hhhk0 'P'F"' '7'7‘9'7'9'3'7‘9‘1‘5‘2'7 IDiCCCiICIIC OOFOQONNNPNO N¢0N=é0dkhhé OONOOON‘ONOO. NNONOO0NNNNN .3333.3i...§ OmmOe-qq0hflhm Nmm000~t000~3m QCWQQQfiqqqqq QMQNQQNMQMOM v-v-e-s-e-e-e-s-s-e-s-s- assesseeteqn MNNPPmPNNOv-N Fw'FFFFPPPF’ sfisxxIfifi..§e "3000.":NMNMOO.“ QNMOPMNMU‘ON” PPFFF Si? is; , 20‘ IL : €3§3§§ 3.:E §§§§E§§§igiz £89856§E9613 -------------------------30 cm Depth------------------------- 5/13 9/29 10/6 10/20 9/8 6/18 8/7 5/29 TREATMENT herbicide 65 QQQQSQSSMQRQ QMQ‘QQQQQU‘QQ ‘e-v-e-e-e-v-s-e-s-e-e-e- §“§QQ§977§97 Q'tfllfllfltfllflifllfllfllfllfl s-v-v-s-s-e-e-e-v-e-v-s- OOIfllfl0NNv-NNQQ I I O I O O O I O O I C ~t~s|nmmnmnlmrwunm v-e-e-v-Pe-e-e-e-e-v-e- fi'fiQQCMQRQMQ Ifllfllfllfllfl0lfl|fllfllfllfl|fl e-v-s-e-e-s-e-e-s-e-e-s- QSCSQNRQRQRC mm0000lfl00lfl|fl0 v-e-e-v-e-s-e-e-r-s-s-e- O O D I I I I O O I O O mmmmmm~e~t¢m~tq s-eI-s-e-v-v-s-v-Pe-s-s- fi99911199QfiQ Q‘N’Qflfi‘QQMN‘ e-e-e-s-r-Pe-e-s-s-Ps- MNIn~t00.In~f.0Q.F.0 QQMQMQMVMNMM hqqqkhnswnoq ¢QQH§QQBMNQQ e-s-v-s- Kentucky Oluegrass Perennial Ryegrass hard Fescus Clean Cultivation Chewinos Fescue PR+KB PR+CF Tall Fescue Bromegrass Clover Alfalfa -------------------------45 cm Depth------------------------- 5/13 10/6 10/20 9/29 9/8 8/7 6/18 5/29 TREATMENT Herbicide 0M0m°~t0dhno0 C I I O I I I O C I O O ccvnmevevmmc e-v-e-v-v-e-s-e-e-Pv-e- «JAN coo—woomo «mnemfifimv'o'mm e-Pe-e-v-s-m-m-m-s-s-e- netteneexeen evmmmmmmmomun e-e-e-e-e-e-s-v-e-e-e-e- fiOOzO0IflNNfinOM cmmmmmunnnvouvoln OMNifiqmva-o‘sfifi. mooovwvomominn NN0°C1~£°FOOQN mcnmnmnmecvv NEQQEQQNQRRQ 00000Ifl00lfl~t¢m s-v-s-s-s-e-s-e-s-m-e-e- ......CCiDC‘8 QRRRQRMRQQSQ m0m00000~2nlfllfl e-e-s-s-s-s-s—e-s-s—e-s- ...-.....QCC {NEEEEQQSQQE 000000000900 pp'—""'p" Kentucky Bluegrass Perennial Ryegrass Hard Fescue Clean Cultivation Chewings Fescue 1 Treatment means separated by Dmcan's mltiple range test (P-0.05), men treatment differences are indicated by a significant F test at the 5% level. 66 No significant treatment differences occurred at the 30 cm depth in the tree row in 1987. Significant differences occurred at the 45 cm depth, in the tree row on May 13 and 29. On May 13, the clover had significantly less soil moisture than all treatments and on May 29 clover had less soil moisture than all treatments except bromegrass or tall fescue. Soil moisture measurements in the alleyway, 61 cm from the tree, were at the interface of the herbicide strip and alleyway treatments (Table 3). At the 15 cm depth, on May 13, the herbicide or chewings fescue treatments had greater soil moisture than the hard fescue or clover treatments. All treatments except the hard fescue, bromegrass, and alfalfa had greater soil moisture than clover. On May 29, the clean cultivation treatment had greater soil moisture than all of the vegetative covers. The herbicide treatment did not differ significantly from the chewings fescue or PR+CF treatments. Significant differences did not occur again until September 8, when all treatments except PR+CF or tall fescue had greater soil moisture than clean cultivation. On September 29 and October 6, Kentucky bluegrass had greater soil moisture than the herbicide, clean cultivation and alfalfa treatments. Clean cultivation had significantly less soil moisture than all other treatments. On October 20, clean cultivation had significantly less soil moisture than all treatments except herbicide, bromegrass, alfalfa and tall fescue. Kentucky bluegrass had greater soil moisture than the herbicide, clean cultivation, alfalfa and tall fescue treatments. Significant differences in soil moisture at the 30 cm depth, occurred only May 29, when the vegetation-free treatments had greater loor management on sass soil moisture in the alleyway of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 45 cm, 61 “d '00 E2 5: 38 L ‘06“ 0 g5 I: 8 UL “W- 58 II M I d .0 0 .- N MASS SOIL MOISTURE 15 cm Depth 5n: 8]? 8/25 9/8 9/29 . 10/6 6H8 5R9 TREATMENT iwm Eu.ss§sszs33 0.;QOOQOFOOQN MQNNNO0NO0U‘IA 3s.§s83§§%.§ 000055mo~omw 0'5555555505 “'ppp as.sssss§s i OQMOOO°°0OMF pheoooooossos CDC-...iIICi N0QP~£QFMMQMQ tQéONNO0F-NNO ‘FNMNQNFOMO0Q QOQNNNQNNNNO {QQONMNNNI-OO 0MOMONlfl000lfl0 '“Fp’ QN0NOO0OOFOOO NNNv-G:NNO::OO e-e-e-e-v-e-v- ~5cwo55moo—~ ~noodoooodoo .sssx.ss§.§e ‘0MMQONMQQOPIA n~§gon~~00w~ 53% m 3 —~¢ 8 :~-§* : § €3§=£§ =43 §§§EE§§§§§Ez £6a&£62§3823 --------------------------------------------------30 cm Depth------------------------- 5/13 10/6 10/20 2R9 W8 6/18 8/7 SR9 TREATMENT Herbicide 67 MPNNMOQ0v-zQNM ivu‘mmfififimnmé Hove-FO- e-v-m-e-e-m- seecsqeececs QQIfl0U‘0IflIflIfl0IflIfl e-e-e-e-s-v-v-e-s-e-e-e- NQfifiQQQfiQfi§Q mm0000lfl0m0lflln s-s-e-e-v-e-e-v-s-v-e-s- MMNN00°Nv=NO|n fiméoinu'no'oémvom FFPFFFFF fiQNQfiQfNQQNQ 0m0lflmm000lfl00 v-o-e-m-v-c-e-v-s—v-v-v- ijlflNIflQONNI-q— mmmmmmmmm0Qm 99fi999§fi9997 QQQNQQMMMNFM Pe-e-s-e-v-e-s-s-s-e-e- aannnflnnnnnn QWQfiQQQQQWQQ MMNNFNNNFFNN e-e-e-e-s-m-a-s-v-v-m-e- MMOQMMPFNMNO QQQQQQQMMNQQ e-e-e-e- l Ryegrass Hudfaan Clean Cultivation Kentucky Bluegrass Pawn“ Uwflmnfuan Tfllfamn -------------------------45 cm Depth------------------------- 5/13 10/6 10/20 ‘W8 9” W7 6/18 5R9 TREATMENT Herbicide mammmmmmmmmm 9999€999719Q IflM‘OIflIflMIflIflIflIflOIfl v-m-v-e-o-e-u-e—e—e-v-e- BOIC‘OCCC'g'aCC QNNPQo—Pva—O QQO0In000|n|n00 enmmmmmmmeie 7MQfl7QfiQQiQQ mqooooo¢nmnm NMNFMMMQQMOO s s a a a a a a a a s mmmmOQQOmQOm e-e-e-e-e-v-e-e-e-e-a-u- §799€W€iq9i9 m0lnln0Q00ln00ln e-e-v-s-m-v-v-e-e-m—v-v- ”QMMMMMOMQOO MQQMMU‘U‘VOMQQQ naiieifiiinni fiQQQQQQQQNfiq 0mQM|nQQMQNNM ”W- V- .- .s§3§3§§3-:s O0OPONFN°QMO dfifiéééfififiJdd e-e-e-e-s-s—v-a-e-e-e-s- ...-.....QCC mQQ0mv-QJ5U-inv-Q 000000000Q00 ial Ryegrass Hmdfaam dummnfamn mus Kentucky Bluegrass mxw Clean Cultivation mam- Iall rescue Pflflh Alfalfa Banana 2 treatment mearm separated by Man's multiple range testh-0.0S), U181 treatment differences are indicated by a simificmt F test at the 5% level. 68 soil moisture than all vegetative covers except chewings fescue. There were no significant treatment differences between the vegetative covers. At the 45 cm depth, all treatments had greater soil moisture May 13 than clover. On May 29, the vegetation-free treatments had significantly greater soil moisture than all vegetative covers except hard fescue or chewings fescue. Clover or alfalfa had significantly lower soil moisture than the vegetative covers of perennial ryegrass, hard fescue and chewings fescue. Herbicide, clean cultivation, and hard fescue treatments had greater soil moisture than clover or alfalfa on June 18. Treatment differences did not occur again until September 29 when all treatments except herbicide, clover, alfalfa and tall fescue had greater soil moisture than clean cultivation. October 6, all treatments except herbicide, bromegrass, and clover had greater soil moisture than clean cultivation. All treatments had greater soil moisture than clean cultivation on October 20. Soil moisture measurements in the alley, 155 cm from the tree, were beneath the alleyway treatments (Table 4). The herbicide treatment had greater soil moisture on May 13, at the 15 cm depth, than the Kentucky bluegrass, hard fescue, bromegrass, clover and alfalfa treatments. The herbicide treatment had greater soil moisture May 29 than clean cultivation and both had significantly greater soil moisture than all vegetative covers. On June 18, again the vegetation-free treatments had significantly greater soil moisture than all vegetative covers. The herbicide treatment had greater soil moisture than perennial ryegrass or tall fescue on August 7. No significant differences were measured during the remainder of the growing season. dN -8 F 2: 23 OI. l5“ cg Ow u 8§ '0-‘0- 'e- "8 0m 8“ NF II Q 0 d .D O .- 005 mmagement on mass soil moisture in the alleyway of peach trees at depths of 15, 30 and 65 cm, x MASS SOIL MOISTURE --------------------------------------------------15 cm oepth------------------------- 5/13 6/18 8/7 8125 9/8 9/29 10/6 5/29 TREATMENT Herbicide Clean Cultivation iwm QOOQOMFPNOFO NOCNNOQOONQN Mme-lenMNQNMe- a s s e s s e a e s I I QQQNQOOOOOQO ‘NF’F'FFP'FPF QfiQfiQQfiWQQQW OOCQQOQOONQO e-e-e-eI-e-e-e-e-m-e-e-e- 00.0v-NONONOIBN NNNONN6NONNN NOQNNOIflIflIflIn0In NNNNNOQNO0NN .93 Isisaiis 0MOMMOO0OOON 000MNNNNNN00 C .QDQDDDQDDD 0Q°0QQOOPQQ° N0oce-e-e-e-e-oce- ”F .DUUOOOUUUUU ‘QQOMOMMNNNON Q2060500NNO¢£ e33303§§nu33 ‘NNMNOMOMQ‘ONN QFONONPMOOOM e-e-e-e- Hard_Fescue Chewings rescue PR+KB Kentucky Bluegrass PR+CF Perennial kyegrass Tall Fescue Bromegrass Clover Alfalfa -----------------'--------30 cm Depth------------------------- 9/29 10/6 9/8 6/18 8/7 5/29 5/13 TREATMENT Herbicide Clean Cultivation iwm 69 >QMOO'MOOOQFO m0000mn00ln00 N0," NMMfiPNfiNN 0050000000000 €9Nflfiifiqfifiifi 000000Ifl00000 e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e- Q°0MMONMOM00 00m00ln00ln0lflm MQOMQMMNONNN 0mm00000m0lnln “WP QNMQMMQOQNFO IfllflIflQIflIflIflIflIflIfllflIfl e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e—e-e- eequuBuBooB ‘Q'T'T'Q‘Q’Tufi'Q'Q‘t'T‘I ~o~ornrwanrnrnrn~av-nsri IDOUUDUO'U'UUU UQMO0NNF0QU=° QMPN‘NPNOONN e-e-v-e-v-v-e-v-e-e-e-v- ”£393§§.3.§s InU-0PQMN00O0O. QMMIflMQMIflNe-MQ e-e-e-e- Hand rescue Chewings Fescue PR+KB Kentucky Bluegrass PR+CF Perennial Byegrass Bromegrass Tall rescue Clover Alfalfa ------------°----—---------65 cm.Depth°----------------------'--- 5/13.b 8/7 8/25 9/8 9729 10/6 10/20 6/18 5/29 TREATMENT QMNNMMNOQNNO 0000000050000 MIflMMMQQNIflMMN 000000000000 991iQ99191QQ 0000000000Ifl0 e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e- 0ONOQONQOQMQ 00mmmmm00000 0°NNQNNMOMQM 00II‘HnInInIn0In000 QMQIQMOQOONQO IO0QQQIflQIflIflQQIh ..3§s§§§§.3s OfiQOqu-zOOOPc-In. NONMQQQQMPNQ a9 aflfifififlawt WOfiQQifiNQ§9§ 0MNQNQNQPONM e-e-e-e-v-e-e-v-e-e-e-e- S...§ii .SuBB Q9fi9fl9%€99fifl 0mm~00~o~o~o~0mm~o §§§ 3:321 i .5333; 2 .§ 2 8 ‘_ m :* £§§§E£§9§633 sagasfizxsasz 2 treatment means separated by Dmcan's mltiple rmge test (P-0.05), than treatment differences are indicated by a simificmt F test at 5% level. 70 Measurements at the 30 cm depth, indicated the perennial ryegrass, PR+CF and tall fescue treatments had significantly greater soil moisture May 13 than the treatments of clean cultivation, bromegrass and clover. On May 29, the herbicide treatment had the greatest soil moisture. Clean cultivation had significantly greater soil moisture than all vegetative covers. The bromegrass or clover treatments had less soil moisture than all other vegetative covers. The herbicide treatment again had greater soil moisture June 18 than all vegetative covers. The clean cultivation treatment had greater soil moisture than all vegetative covers except hard fescue, PR+KB, bromegrass and tall fescue. There were no significant treatment differences after June 18. Soil moisture at the 45 cm depth was significantly greater in the perennial ryegrass or PR+CF treatments than clover or alfalfa on May 13 (Table 4). On May 29, the herbicide treatment had greater soil moisture than all vegetative covers. Clean cultivation had greater soil moisture than all vegetative treatments except perennial ryegrass, chewings fescue and PR+CF. Clover had the lowest soil moisture not significantly different from the Kentucky bluegrass, PR+KB, bromegrass and alfalfa treatments. On June 18, the vegetation-free treatments had greater soil moisture than the treatments of Kentucky bluegrass, clover and alfalfa. No differences were measured during the remainder of the growing season. Significant differences in leaf nitrogen occurred only on September 24 in 1987 and July 27 in 1988 (Table 5). Kentucky bluegrass or bromegrass treatments had lower leaf nitrogen in September, 1987 than the clean cultivation or clover treatments. In July, 1988 the perennial ryegrass, hard fescue, PR+KB and bromegrass treatments had lower leaf nitrogen than clean cultivation or alfalfa. The lowest nitrogen level 71 uno0wuwcmwm an“: Amo.cnmv and» smash mudguaaa mtceocao >3 .Hm>ma an on one» a cmumummmm mauve vamaummua n u he.~ eons on.n a sm.m a om.e an mm.n a mm.n maumom Hana a «o.n a om.n a oe.n a ~>.¢ one mm.m a Hm.n nuanua< a ~m.~ one am.n a om.n a pm.e a Ho.n a nu.n um>oao a mm.~ eon m~.n a He." a os.¢ o on.n a eo.n mmauoosoum a ms.~ one ue.m a me.n a me.¢ no em.n a mm.n mo+mm a «e.~ eon m~.n e em.n a me.¢ one Hm.n a mm.n mx+mm a me.~ an Hm.n a em.” a ee.¢ an pm.n a vs.n «semen masseuse o os.~ e no.n a mv.n a n>.¢ one m¢.n e Ho.n cannon can: a ne.~ no -.n a Hm.n a om.¢ an nm.n a o>.n mmmummmm Hmaccmumm a mp.~ one n¢.n a Hm.n a sm.v on nv.n a ms.n mmmummsam >xosucmx o ~m.~ a em.n a Hm.n a ms.¢ a ~o.a a me.n cowum>nuaso camau a mo.~ an ~m.n a em.m a ms.e an mm.m a so.n scavenge: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII z wIlllllllllllllllllllllllllll auuaaww uaVMMVN uauwauu uauaaum Nuwfimww .MMVMANN Hmuzuanma N..zv comouufi: meadow nonmn unmoumm :o unmammoaea HooHu cumzouo mo uooumm was um manna 72 was in the hard fescue treatment, significantly less than 7 of the treatments. None of the other nutrient elements analyzed in 1987 had significant treatment differences. Cold hardiness was evaluated three times between the end of the 1987 growing season and initiation of shoot growth in 1988 (Table 6). No significant treatment differences in T50 values occurred. Treatments did not differ in the number of fruit per mm of shoot length in 1988 (Table 7). However, fruit weight in the herbicide treatment was greater than all treatments except the PR+KB or PR+CF, and the PR+KB was greater than the tall fescue. Fruit yield did not differ between treatments at either harvest in 1988. Neither total yield, nor fruit size separation indicated significant treatment differences (Appendix II-J). Peach leaf net photosynthetic rate was measured on three days in 1987 and once in 1988 (Table 8). Significant differences occurred only July 30 in 1987 when Kentucky bluegrass had a significantly greater photosynthetic rate than the alfalfa treatment. No other treatment differences occurred. After irrigation July 30, no treatment differences were detected the next day on July 31. The herbicide, clean cultivation and clover treatments resulted in greater peach leaf fresh weight than bromegrass or tall fescue (Table 9). Clean cultivation resulted in greater leaf dry weight than all vegetative covers except hard fescue, PR+KB and clover. The leaves from trees in the vegetation-free treatments had greater leaf area than trees in the perennial ryegrass, bromegrass and tall fescue treatments. The clover or PR+KB treatments had greater peach leaf area than the vegetative treatments of bromegrass or tall fescue. 73 Table 6: The effect of orchard floor management on phloem and cambial T50 values of peach shoots after the 1987 growing season.2 TREATMENT 19:22:31. l:l2:§§ Azizfifi ---------- T50 Values (C)---------- Herbicide 19.3 23.5 18.5 Clean Cultivation 19.3 22.8 18.3 Kentucky Bluegrass 19.3 22.5 18.8 Perennial Ryegrass 17.8 21.3 19.8 Hard Fescue 19.3 23.0 18.5 Chewings Fescue 19.0 23.8 18.0 PR+KB 16.5 22.0 18.3 PR+CF 20.3 22.8 18.5 Bromegrass 19.3 23.8 19.0 Clover 17.8 24.8 18.8 Alfalfa 20.8 23.5 17.0 Tall Fescue 18.8 23.5 19.3 2 No treatment differences detected by an F test at 5% level. 74 Table 7: The effect of orchard floor management on relative cropping of peach trees on July 5, 1988.2 TREATMENT Herbicide Clean Cultivation Kentucky Bluegrass Perennial Ryegrass Hard Fescue Chewings Fescue PR+KB PR+CF Bromegrass Clover Alfalfa Tall Fescue 0.80 1.12 a a 23.9 18.9 19.6 19.5 18.5 19.4 21.5 20.7 17.8 18.1 18.5 17.3 EBQITLEBQQTlmml A¥§1_EBHIT_ET191 a be be be be bc ab abc be be be C z Treatmeant means separated by Duncan's multiple range test (P=0.05) with significant F test at 5% level. 75 Table 8: The effect of orchard floor management on peach leaf net photosynthetic rate(mg C02 dm'zhr'l).z W 54232511422231 22112511212223. Herbicide 25.07 19.31 ab 17.75 a 20.02 a Clean Cultivation 21.12 19.67 ab 15.11 a 19.13 a Kentucky Bluegrass 24.59 22.65 a 19.81 a 19.32 a Perennial Ryegrass 22.33 19.38 ab 16.58 a 16.00 a Hard Fescue 21.22 19.23 ab 15.62 a 14.97 a Chewings Fescue 23.51 21.04 ab 18.24 a 17.41 a PR+KB 22.63 18.85 ab 16.55 a 16.86 a PR+CF 25.02 20.55 ab 17.17 a 17.99 a Bromegrass 24.31 19.65 ab 16.87 a 14.50 a Clover 24.89 20.08 ab 16.28 a 19.69 a Alfalfa 23.34 17.92 b 15.98 a 16.21 a Tall Fescue 22.82 19.79 ab 17.42 a 17.51 a 2 Treatment means separated (P=0.05) with significant by Duncan’s multiple F test at 5% level. range test 76 Table 9: The effect of orchard floor management on peach leaf area and fresh and dry weight on 10/7/88. Leaf samples taken from the 8-10th leaf from the shoot apex.2 TREATMENT FRESH WT(g) DRY WT(g) LEAF AREA(mm2) Herbicide 1.08 ab 0.37 ab 468.0 a Clean Cultivation 1.10 a 0.39 a 467.8 a Kentucky Bluegrass 0.99 abc 0.33 bc 438.1 abc Perennial Ryegrass 0.96 be 0.32 bc 417.0 bc Hard Fescue 1.04 abc 0.35 abc 437.7 abc Chewings Fescue 1.00 abc 0.33 bc 427.2 abc PR+KB 1.02 abc 0.34 abc 431.9 ab PR+CF 0.97 be 0.33 bc 430.8 abc Bromegrass 0.94 c 0.31 bc 400.6 c Clover 1.08 ab 0.37 ab 459.2 ab Alfalfa 0.95 bc 0.32 bc 427.7 abc Tall Fescue 0.92 c 0.31 c 407.3 c 2 Treatment means separated by Duncan's multiple range (P=0.05) with significant F test at 5% level. test 77 Alfalfa was the tallest vegetative treatment followed by bromegrass or tall fescue (Table 10). Fresh weight tended to vary between sampling dates, however, clover or alfalfa generally had the greatest fresh weight. Bromegrass, tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass tended to have greater fresh weight than the remaining vegetative covers. Alfalfa tended to have the greatest dry weight, followed by clover. Bromegrass, tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass generally had similar dry weights, less than clover or alfalfa but greater than the other vegetative covers . DISCUSSION A 1.22 m wide vegetation-free herbicide strip was maintained in the tree row and supplemental irrigation was applied which appeared sufficient for maximum tree growth throughout this three-year study. The peach trees were irrigated frequently, twice in 1987 and three times in 1988 as a result of unseasonably warm and dry weather in Michigan. The large volume of water applied at each irrigation date saturated the soil to at least a depth of 45 cm. The utilization of the 1.22 m wide herbicide strip, annual fertilization and supplemental irrigation minimized the competitive effect of the vegetative covers on tree growth. Vegetative orchard floor covers result in reduced tree growth (Lord and Vlach, 1973; Welker and Glenn, 1985; 1988; Layne and Tan, 1988). In this study, orchard floor treatments affected shoot length only in 1987. No differences occurred in TCA in any of the first three growing seasons. However, treatment differences did occur in leaf weight and area in 1988. Bromegrass or tall fescue treatments had reduced leaf weight and area compared to the vegetation-free treatments. Peach "ah the ten vegetative orchard floor covers. 78 5 cm If“. ----------------------------------u£xcut(c.)--------------------------------- Zflflfi wafl flflfl flflfll ZGMK Zflflfi smug mwumwnuflwymWno weight and dry weight are for s 12.9 Height, TREATMENT Table 10: ...mwwmm.b JJ6.9.J39.9.62 muwnwufiflwa 66666.66“ .6 315J.6.6.sl.9.6.tu 6.56..6.6.52.°u“.8 211111 dacaaabdac AJJJJJJAAJ nwwwwmunflv f a ddfeddc ab JJJJZJJJAJ aauvananwn Cdddddbd 6.6 36.3el.7.6.56.62 L2LL6..L~I.-I.5 211111316 ..wam.bm.b 0.30.0.70.7ms:6.6. nma.Am QHZRW 211 152 d... .666 I“ mnuuuunuua hmmhlflqnu mwfuws mwhmfuwe PR+K8 PR+CF “MmWImqnu tall Fescue mmmnu mm" Alfalfa éflwfi flflfl flflfll iflwfi Zflflfi EWME ~------------------------------ra£su usicut(g)------------------------------- Zflflfi mama? mm m mam. w anwkuzmeu CCCCCC Cb 6b 25J9.7.16.69.3 mumummzmmm CC C C 66.06 CC 6.0.J0.Jn9.37.69. zumwwusnwm 1111 122 muckbbkasb mmmmmmm mmm Cddddddb 6 6 2136996999 mammnammmm ucccccublu 7.0.7021131..6. newnuummmm ff... hf fihfl¢csbd 9896094702 sum gmmfi “meawnnu hnmthQMu mwfuws mprhum “KB Nfif Tall Fescue wanna aw" Alfalfa --------------------------------oav HEIGHT(g)-------------------------------- WHWHT wwww.aadwu 69.6.9.6.J6650. 39.7.nm51h6.6.3el. wawwwwwu.» QI.~I.9.SQI.6.J6.53 nzwz %:B&N CCCCCCbC .6 2701326539 unwanunmnm bucubucuau l~eale7s8salsalselo7sl~ege unm351anuu b.aaaaue.u 7.6V.)60.6.~I.°”7m9. M9R83fiflfl 4 wwmwudub.m 26.6.6.23J6.6.:6. LS9.89..|. 2&6. 211111 ..wcam...c 7.31.6.3m7.6..l.5 “meaquu hnmhlwunu MMFuws muhaflmm WWI NQF tall Fescue Manna aw" Alfalfa hwh 2 Treatment means separated by Duncan's multiple range test (PI0.05) with significant F test at 5% 79 rooting was also severly reduced in tall fescue sod (Section III). The largest treatment effect on tree performance would have been expected in 1988, when the trees' root system would have been the most extensive and possibly interactive with orchard floor treatments outside of the herbicide strip. This study indicates vegetative competition may have affected leaf size but not severe enough to affect TCA or shoot length. Peach leaf nitrogen has been reported to be reduced by grass covers such as tall fescue (Lord and Vlach, 1973; Welker and Glenn, 1985; 1988). No vegetative cover in this study had greater leaf nitrogen than the vegetation-free treatments at either date when significant treatment differences occurred. The lowest leaf nitrogen was 3.4% in 1987 and 3.1% in 1988. The recommended range for peach leaf nitrogen in Michigan is 3.3-4.5% (Hanson and Kesner, 1987). Trees were fertilized annually with nitrogen, which was not the case in studies reporting differences in foliar nitrogen for trees grown in some vegetative covers. When treatment differences in leaf nitrogen occurred, nitrogen levels in all treatments were above the recommended lower limit indicating that nitrogen applications were adequate to maintain tree growth. Shoot hardiness did not differ between the orchard floor treatments. Layne and Tan (1988) also reported no difference in xylem hardiness of peach shoots between clean cultivation with winter cover crops or a permanent red fescue sod alley. This indicates that the trees were not weakened severly enough by stress from the vegetative covers to increase susceptibility to winter injury. Glenn and Welker (1989) reported ‘Kentucky 31' tall fescue reduced peach tree growth and fruit yield. In this study, yield in the third year did not differ suggesting the vegetative covers did not compete 80 with tree growth to significantly affect yield. Fruit size differences in July may have been a result of fruiting competition before trees were uniformly thinned. The difference in net photosynthetic rate in 1987 between Kentucky bluegrass and the alfalfa treatment cannot be explained by leaf nitrogen. Soil moisture measurements are not available for July 30 in 1987, the date treatment differences occurred, to evaluate the effect of soil moisture on leaf photosynthesis. Alfalfa, clover or bromegrass produced the greatest fresh and dry weight but had the lowest percentage dry weight. The growth characteristics of a vegetative cover are a general indicator of the degree of competition a vegetative orchard floor could have on tree growth. Toenjes et a1. (1956) and Goode (1955) reported the rooting depth of a vegetative covers is an indicator of the degree of competition that a vegetative cover would pose to tree growth. Shribbs and Skroch (1986b) also reported that apple tree growth was negatively correlated to the biomass of the vegetative cover. A Bouyoucos moisture meter was used to measure soil moisture in May and June, 1987 and a wide range of moisture values were measured. The moisture blocks were connected to a datalogger in July, 1987 but the datalogger did not register moisture values as low as the Bouyoucos meter, recording over a range approximately 50% of that of the Bouyoucos moisture meter. This may have prevented measuring lower soil moisture values that may have occurred between treatments after July, 1987. Many moisture blocks did not function during 1988. This required calculation of missing values and reduced the statistical sensitivity of the 1988 soil moisture data. The reduced detection range of the 81 datalogger plus missing values in 1988 resulted in variable soil moisture data. Soil moisture measurements in the tree row, 61 cm from the tree, were beneath the herbicide strip and probably affected mainly by the tree's moisture utilization. In 1987, significant soil moisture differences occurred in May at the 15 or 45 cm depths. Clover, a deep rooted cover, had one of the lowest values. In August, alfalfa, also deep rooted, had one of the lowest soil moisture values, and clover one of the highest. This suggests that the vegetative covers affected soil moisture in the vegetation-free herbicide strip. Although the moisture blocks are 61 cm from the tree and the vegetative cover, the reduced soil moisture values in several of the vegetative covers was either a result of increased tree utilization in the strip and/or lateral rooting of the vegetative covers. After September, soil moisture was lower in the vegetation-free treatments. The lack of soil moisture treatment differences after August 25 at the 30 or 45 cm depth may have been a result of reduced growth rate and moisture utilization of the vegetative covers, more frequent precipitation or both. Soil moisture in the alley, 61 cm from the tree row, should be affected by both the tree and alley management. At the 15 or 30 cm depths in May of 1987, the vegetation-free treatments had greater soil moisture. These treatments had no vegetative cover competing for soil moisture. Late in the season however, soil moisture was lower in the vegetation-free treatments than the vegetative covers. At the 45 cm depth, the deep-rooted alfalfa or clover extracted soil moisture to the greatest degree in late May and June as also reported by Toenjes et a1. 82 (1956). Late in the season, again the clean cultivation treatment had lower soil moisture levels at this depth. At each of the previous moisture block locations the soil moisture in both vegetation-free treatments was lower than the vegetative covers late in the season. This may have been a result of reduced moisture infiltration as reported by Glenn and Welker (1989) to occur in vegetation-free treatments compared to living or killed vegetative covers. Soil moisture in the alley, 155 cm from the tree row would be affected primarily by the alley treatment--not the tree. The vegetation-free treatments tended to have the greatest soil moisture content at all three depths in May and June with no vegetative cover to compete for soil moisture. Treatments did not differ after August 7 with relatively high soil moisture values resulting from frequent rainfall and unusually high air temperatures. Soil moisture differences in 1987 and 1988 indicated the orchard floor vegetative covers affected soil moisture and may have competed with tree growth. Clover, alfalfa, bromegrass and tall fescue generally had greater fresh weight, dry weight and lower soil moisture levels and probably should be avoided as orchard floor covers as Glenn and Welker (1989) similarily recommended with tall fescue. Vegetative covers adversely affected leaf size and soil moisture. When differences were detected in shoot length the Kentucky bluegrass and chewings fescue did not result in reduced shoot length compared to the herbicide treatment. Vegetative orchard floor covers utilize soil moisture and may potentially compete with tree growth. However, in this 83 study, irrigation, fertilization and a 1.2 m herbicide strip in the tree row minimized the effect of the vegetative covers on peach tree growth. 84 LITERATURE CITED Baxter, P. and B.J. Newman. 1971. 2. Effect of hericides and nitrogen on growth and yield of young apple trees in permanent pasture. Austral. J. Expt. Agr. Animal Husb. 11:105-112. Bittendender, R.C. and C.S. Howell, Jr. 1974. Adaptation of the Spearman-Karber method for estimating the T50 of cold stressed flower buds. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 99(2):187-190. Bouyoucos, G.J. and A.H. Mick. 1940. An electrical resistance method for the continuous measurement of soil moisture under field conditions. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 172. 38 pp. Daniel, J.W. and W.S. Hardcastle. 1972. Response of peach trees to herbicide and mechanical weed control. Weed Sci. 20(2): 133-136. Glenn, D.M. amd W.V. Welker. 1989. Orchard soil management systems influence rainfall infiltration. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114(1):10-14. Goode, J.E. 1955. Soil moisture deficits under swards of different grass species in an orchard. East Malling Res. Stat. Annl. Rept. 69-72. Goode, J.E. and K.J. Hyrycz. 1976. The effect of nitrogen on young, newly-planted, apple rootstocks in the presence and absence of grass competition. J. of Hort. Sci. 51:321-327. Hanson, E. and C. Kesner. 1987. Fertilizing fruit crops. Mich. State Univ. Ext. Bull. E-852. 16 pp. Howell, G.S. and G.J. Weiser. Fluctutaions in the cold resistnce of apple twigs during spring dehardening. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95(2):l90-l92. Kenworthy, A.L. and G.M. Gilligan. 1949. Tree growth, soil and leaf analysis in response to various soil management practices in a young apple orchard. Univ. of Delaware, Agr. Expt. Stat., Newark, Del. Layne, R.E.C. and C.S. Tan. 1988. Influence of cultivars, ground covers, and trickle irrigation on early growth, yield and cold hardiness of peaches on fox sand. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113(4):518-525. Lord, W.J. and E. Vlach. 1973. Responses of peach trees to herbides, mulch, mowing and cultivation. Weed Sci. 21(3):227-229. Moon, J.W., Jr. and J.A. Flore. 1986. A BASIC computer program for calculation of photosyhthesis, stomatal conductance, and related parameters in an open gas exchange system. Photo. Res. 7:269-279. Robinson, D.W. and N.D. O'Kennedy. 1978. The efffect of overall herbicide systmes of soil management on the growth and yield of apple trees ‘Golden Delicious'. Sci. Hort. 9:127-136. 85 Shribbs, J.M. and W.A. Skroch. 1986a. Influence of 12 ground cover systems on young ‘Smoothee Golden Delicious' apple trees: I growth. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111(4):525-528. Shribbs, J.M. and W.A. Skroch. 1986b. Influence of 12 ground cover systems on young ‘Smoothee Golden Delicious' apple trees: II nutrition. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. lll(4):529-533. Stinchcombe, G.R. and K.G. Stott. 1983. A comparison of herbicide- controlled orchard ground cover management systems on the vigour and yield of apples. J. Hort. Sci. 58(4):477-489. Toenjes, W., R.J. Higdon and A.L. Kenworthy. 1956. Soil moisture used by orchard sods. Michigan State Quart. Bul. 39. No. 2, 2-20. Welker, W.V. and D.M. Glenn. 1985. The relationship of sod proximity to the growth and nutrient composition of newly planted peach trees. HortScience 20(3):hl7-418. Welker, W.V., Jr. and D.M. Glenn. 1988. Growth responses of young peach trees and changes in soil characteristics with sod and conventional planting systems. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113(5):652-656. SECTION III THE EFFECT OF ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT ON PEACH ROOTING ABSTRACT The rooting response of peach trees (Prunus persica L. Batsch cv. Redhaven/Halford) to six orchard floor management treatments was evaluated. Two treatments were maintained vegetation-free and four were vegetative covers in the alleyway with a 1.22 m wide herbicide strip in the tree row. The profile wall method was used to determine rooting frequency. Rooting frequency was recorded on vertical planes, 0.6 m from the tree, transversing the tree row (2.4 m), and on vertical planes 1.2 and 1.9 m from the tree row, parallel to the tree row. Trees maintained vegetation-free with herbicide had the greatest rooting frequency. Vegetation-free treatments, both herbicide or cultivation, resulted in greater root numbers 1.2 m from the tree than the vegetative covers. Peach rooting frequency, 1.2 m from the tree, was lowest in the tall fescue and alfalfa treatments. Peach rooting was intermediate in the Kentucky bluegrass and chewings fescue treatments between the vegetation-free and tall fescue treatments. INTRODUCTION Root distribution of various fruit crops differ in response to tree spacing, fertility level, irrigation and cultivar (Lyons and Krezdorn, 1962; Castle, 1980; Perry et al., 1983). Perry et a1. (1983) reported large differences in root number and root dry weight at various depths 86 87 and lateral distance from the the trunk of four Vitis cultivars. Root distribution of orange trees was also affected by tree density (Boswell et al., 1975; Castle, 1980). Lyons et al. (1962) reported higher peach rooting densities with medium applications of N, K, and Mg (113 g, 113 g or 57 g, respectively), with significant differences only in the surface 20 cm. Nonirrigated peach trees had greater root numbers than irrigated trees (Layne et al., 1986). However, irrigation treatments resulted in shallower rooting than the nonirrigated trees with a greater percentage of roots in the surface 30 cm. Michigan peach orchard management is primarily clean cultivation cover crops or vegetative covers with herbicide strips in the tree row. Several literature reviews have documented the effects of different orchard floor management systems on the tree and the soil (Haynes, 1980; Rogue and Nielsen, 1987), but little has been reported about the effect on root growth and distribution (Atkinson 1980). A vegetation-free area around fruit trees had a significant affect on tree rooting (Atkinson and White, 1976). Atkinson and White (1976) reported apple trees in complete grass had fewer roots and lower root weights while total vegetation-free treatments had the most roots. Ten- year-old apple trees maintained with herbicide strip management had greater root densities in the herbicide strip than in the vegetative alley. Tree roots under the vegetative alley were deeper than those in the herbicide strip (Atkinson et al., 1977). Glenn and Welker (1989) reported tall fescue sod resulted in reduced peach tree root length compared to bare soil for roots less than 1 mm diameter, both under the sod and in a 50 cm vegetation-free zone between the sod and the tree. Rooting was deeper for both apple and 88 peach trees which had not received supplemental water compared to frequently irrigated trees (Cripps, 1971; Beukes, 1984; Richards and Cockroft, 1975; Layne et al., 1986). Soil cultivation eliminates surface rooting while mulch on the soil surface encourages both rooting in the mulch and in the soil surface for apple, peach and pear (Bechenbach and Gourley. 1932; Cockroft and Wallbrink, 1966). Cockroft and Wallbrink (1966) concluded that orchard floor management did not promote deeper rooting but affected surface rooting of peach trees. This study was to determine the impact of various vegetative covers on the rooting of peach trees. METHODS The research was conducted at the Michigan State University Clarksville Horticultural Experiment Station in western Michigan on a Riddles sandy loam soil (moderately well drained, typic Hapludalfs, fine-loamy, mixed, mesic). The six orchard floor management treatments included two vegetation-free treatments and four vegetative covers with a 1.22 m wide herbicide strip in the tree row. The vegetative covers were seeded in September, 1985 in 6.1 m square plots. Three peach trees [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Redhaven/Halford] were planted in April, 1986 in a tree row through the middle of each plot with trees spaced 2 m apart in the row and 6.2 m between rows. The treatments were: 1. Herbicide---Maintained vegetation-free with herbicide 2. Clean cultivation---Maintained vegetation-free with cultivation 3. Park Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) Seeded at 100 kg/ha. 4. Wintergreen chewings fescue (Festuca rubra L.) Seeded at 199 kg/ha. 89 5. Peak alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Seeded at 22 kg/ha. 6. Kentucky 31 (K-31) tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb) Seeded at 305 kg/ha. Gramoxone (l,l'-dimethyl-4-4'-bypyridinium ion), a contact herbicide was applied at 1.1 kg/ha with 0.1% X-77 surfactant at approximately 30 day intervals during each growing season to control any vegetation in the herbicide treatment and the vegetation-free strip in the tree row. The clean cultivation treatment was rototilled to a depth of 8 cm at 30-40 day intervals during the growing season to control vegetation. Trees were pruned to an open center. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Data were collected from the middle tree in each plot. The profile wall method described by Bohm (1979) was utilized to quantify the trees' root systems. Trenches 51 cm wide and approximately 1.8 m deep were dug in October, 1988 and confined to three sides of each tree (Fig. l) to prevent cave-in problems. Two trenches were dug perpendicular to the tree row, one on each side of the tree, 0.6 m from the tree trunk. The trenches extended from the center of the tree row 1.2 m into the alley on both the east and west sides of the tree. Of the 1.2 m trench on each side of the tree, 60 cm was under the alley management treatment. A trench on the west side of the tree, 1.2 m from the tree, parallel to the tree row and transversing the perpendicular trenches provided two profile-faces, one 1.2 m from the tree and the other 1.9 m from the tree. Trench faces were prepared as described by Layne et a1. (1986). A 1.2 m by 1.0 m wooden grid frame divided by string into 20 cm by 10 cm sections, was placed against the profile faces to assist in 90 Figure 1: Diagram of trench locations for peach tree root distribution study. -—>| 1.9PF K..— 91 HERBICIDE r433") T I 65 I k- pr—fls- EPF —>l 1.2m I 1.29: @1- 1 l 0.6 lm #— WPF-H‘- EPF +0 1 1 J ED 92 counting and mapping root distribution. Roots on each profile-face were counted and recorded in one of two diameter categories; those 2 mm and less and those greater than 2 mm in diameter. The trenches perpendicular to the tree row 0.6 m from the tree, were divided into east and west sections at the tree row (Fig. 1). The west profile-face (WPF) and east profile-face (EPF) refer to total root numbers on the respective side of the tree originating at the tree row and extending 1.2 m into the alley. Root numbers for the WPF and EPF are the total of the north and south faces of the trenches, 2.4 m by 1.0 m total area. The 1.2 m profile-face (1.2PF) and the 1.9 m profile-face (1.9PF), 1.2 m and 1.9 m respectively from the tree row, are individual profile- faces on the west side of the tree, 1.2 m by 1.0 m total area. Soil bulk density and organic matter content were measured in the surface 8 cm of each orchard floor cover in October, 1988. Five soil cores (Blake, 1965) were taken from each replication, 20 per orchard floor cover, randomly selected from both sides of the tree outside the herbicide strip. Soil bulk density was determined by oven dry weight/core volume (Blake, 1965) and soil organic matter determined by percentage weight change after removal from a muffle furnace. Roots were counted in two size categories. Because no treatment differences were detected in the number of large roots, all root numbers in both size categories were combined. Data presented are for total number of exposed roots on a square meter vertical plane. Data analysis was performed for each of the four profile-face locations by analysis of variance with mean separation by Duncan's multiple range test at the 5% significance level with a significant P value at the 5% level. Data 93 analyses were also performed for each profile-face location sectioned into 40 cm columns and 20 cm rows. RESULTS The soil A and B horizon interface occurred at a depth of approximately 20 cm. The data are reported in 20 cm increments when presented by depth to separate the A and B horizons. Differential rooting between the A and B horizon was not evaluated, although differences may have occurred due to depth or differences in soil characteristics. Treatments did not significantly differ in soil bulk density which ranged from 1.41 to 1.55 g/cm3 or soil organic matter which ranged from 2.93 to 3.58 percent in the surface 8 cm of the soil. Total root numbers for each profile-face location are presented in Table 1. On the WPF, EPF and 1.2PF the number of roots (were not significantly different in the vegetation-free plots, maintained either by cultivation or herbicide. On the WPF, significant differences occurred between the herbicide treatment and the alfalfa or tall fescue treatments and between the clean cultivation and the tall fescue treatments. Treatment differences were not significant at the EPF. The vegetation-free treatments had significantly more roots than the vegetative covers at the 1.2PF. At the 1.9PF, all treatments had significantly less roots than the herbicide treatment. W Total root numbers at the EPF in three vertical columns, 0-40, 40-80 and 80-120 cm outward from the tree row to a depth of l m (Table 2) did not differ significantly between treatments. The 0-40 cm column 94 Table 1: The effect of orchard floor management on the number of peach tree roots at each profile-face location. Root totals expressed per m .z Profile-face Treatment WPF EPF 1.2PF 1.9PF Herbicide 191.6 a 174.8 a 173.6 a 124.6 a Clean Cultivation 160.8 ab 152.9 a 159.0 a 43.8 b Kentucky Bluegrass 157.1 abc 152.5 a 105.3 b 37.1 b Chewings Fescue 153.7 abc 141.2 a 75.0 be 48.6 b Alfalfa 114.2 bc 112.6 a 85.3 b 8.3 b Tall Fescue 108.5 c 130.2 a 40.7 c 10.7 b 2 Means within columns separated by Duncan's multiple range test (P=0.05) with significant F test at 5% level. 95 Table 2: The effect of orchard floor management treatments on number of peach tree roots on the east profile- face (EPF) and the west profile-face (WPF) 0.6 m from the tree perpendigular to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m .2 EAST PROFILE-FACE ----- Distance From Tree Row----- TREATMENT 0-40 cm 40-80 cm 80-120 cm Herbicide 216.0 a 173.1 a 135.4 a Clean Cultivated 179.8 a 170.6 a 108.5 a Kentucky Bluegrass 216.3 a 145.0 a 96.3 a Chewings Fescue 215.0 a 136.0 a 72.5 a Alfalfa 133.5 a 109.6 a 94.8 a Tall Fescue 186.9 a 122.9 a 81.0 a WEST PROFILE-FACE ----- Distance From Tree Row----- TREATMENT 0-40 cm 40-80 cm 80-120 cm Herbicide 234.1 a 215.4 a 125.4 a Clean Cultivated 180.0 a 178.1 ab 124.4 a Kentucky Bluegrass 232.5 a 169.1 abc 69.8 ab Chewings Fescue 206.9 a 151.3 bcd 102.9 a Alfalfa 148.8 a 126.0 Cd 67.9 ab Tall Fescue 178.5 a 116.0 d 31.0 b 2 Means within columns separated by Duncan’s multiple range test (P-0.05) with significant F test at 5% level. 96 of the WPF, closest to the tree and beneath the herbicide strip, exhibited no significant treatment differences. The column 40-80 cm from the tree row included a transition zone between the herbicide strip and alley management treatment. The herbicide, clean cultivation and Kentucky bluegrass treatments had significantly greater root numbers than the tall fescue treatment. Trees in alfalfa also had significantly less roots than trees in the vegetation-free treatments. The column 80-120 cm from the tree row was completely under the alley management system. The tall fescue treatment had significantly less roots than the herbicide, clean cultivation and chewings fescue treatments. Table 3 presents root numbers in 40 cm columns on the 1.2PF. The vegetation-free treatments had significantly greater root numbers than the chewings or tall fescue treatments. No significant differences occurred between the chewings fescue, Kentucky bluegrass and alfalfa treatments or between the tall fescue, alfalfa and chewings fescue treatments. The 1.9PF was also divided into three 40 cm columns (Table 4). Significant treatment differences occurred in two of the three columns. In the center column, directly adjacent to the tree, the herbicide treatment had significantly greater root numbers than all vegetative treatments. In the southern most column (right), the herbicide treatment had significantly more roots than all other treatments. W Root numbers at different depths were significant between treatments on the WPF (Table 5), but not on the EPF (data not shown). Differences were significant only in the top 20 cm on the WPF. The herbicide, clean cultivation and Kentucky bluegrass treatments had 97 Table 3: The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number in columns 40 cm wide by 100 cm deep on the profile-face 1.2 m (1.2PF) from the tree parallel to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m2.2 l I TREATMENT 60 cm 20 cm 0 20 cm 60 cm Herbicide 171.3 a 209.5 a 140.0 ab Clean Cultivated 158.8 a 157.0 ab 161.3 a Kentucky Bluegrass 104.5 b 115.0 be 96.3 bc Chewings Fescue 81.3 bc 71.3 c 72.5 cd Alfalfa 73.3 bc 93.8 be 88.8 bcd Tall Fescue 38.3 c 2.0 c 32.0 d 2 Means in columns separated by Duncan's multiple range test (P20.05) with significant F test at 5% level. 98 Table 4: The effect of orchard floor management on total peach root number in columns 40 cm wide by 100 cm deep on the profile-face 1.9 m (1.9PF) from the tree parallel to the tree row. Root totals expressed per m .z TREE TREATMENT 60 cm 20 cm 0 20 cm 60 cm Herbicide 124.5 a 133.3 a 116.3 a Clean Cultivation 37.0 a 62.0 ab 32.5 b Kentucky Bluegrass 50.8 a 30.8 b 30.0 b Chewings Fescue 59.5 a 44.5 b 42.0 b Alfalfa 8.8 a 5.0 b 11.3 b Tall Fescue 8.3 a 12.0 b 12.0 b 2 Means separated in columns by Duncan's multiple range test (P=0.05) with signficant F test at 5% level. 99 .ma non madness noon Houoa x .ucofiucmuu Hoodu muonouo some c“ masses: uoou Houou mo ovoucoouma 900% h .Ho>oa »m us was» m usoowuwcmfim nu“: Amo.oumv and» omsou mamfiuasa m.coo=:o >n mach saauwa oouomonom mass: m Am.oc A~.ov 16.6v Aa.nv 16.6. .6.6V 6 6.66 a 6.66 a o.am n 6.66 6 6.66 a H.66 ooanom A6.oc An.sv AH.6V 16.6. AH.6. .6.HH. a 6.66 a 6.46 a m.~e a 6.66 a «.66 a 6.66s 66:66 A6.~HV .n.mav 16.6H. .6.HHV An.mdv .6.HHV e 6.66 a 6.66 a 6.6HH a 6.46 a 6.66 a o.6oH oesoe A~.-V .H.6~v A~.n~c .n.e~c Am.6ac .6.n~c 6 v.o~a a 6.46s 6 H.66H a 6.66H m 6.66H a 6.6mm oeuom 16.46V AH.¢qV A6.66V .e.nmv 16.6mv >16.mev a 6.66N n 6.Hm~ an ~.6en n 6.H~6 m 6.666 x6 6.664 66.6 oucmom muaouflc mauwmu mmmuomsam so«uo>«u~so codewnuom A80. Hana mmswzmno >xo=usmx comao gamma mama «.ma non ommmmumxo macuou uoom .sou mom» on» on Hoasowpsmmumm menu on» aouu a w.o Ammzv moouloawuoun poo: on» :o musoeouocw sumac 30 cm as unoeuomuu hood“ unocouo some cw muoou Houou no any omousoouom use wanes: uoou comma acuou so ucoeooosoa Hood“ muonouo mo voouuo 028 ”m manna 100 significantly more roots than the alfalfa or tall fescue treatments. These treatment differences were present in the area from the tree row outward 1.2 m into the alley under both the herbicide strip and alley management system. The surface 20 cm of this 1.2 m zone was divided into three 40 cm columns to determine if differences were present under the different floor management practices (Table 6). In the column 0-40 cm from the tree, beneath the herbicide strip, there were no significant treatment differences. In the 40-80 cm column, a transition zone between the herbicide strip and the alley management treatment, the herbicide, clean cultivation and Kentucky bluegrass treatments had significantly more tree roots than the alfalfa or tall fescue treatments. The 80-120 cm column was beneath the alley management treatment and both vegetation- free treatments had significantly more roots than the alfalfa or tall fescue treatments. Treatment differences occurred at all depths on the 1.2PF (Table 7). In the surface 20 cm, the herbicide treatment had significantly more roots than all other treatments. Clean cultivation had significantly more roots than all vegetative covers. At the 20-40 cm depth, the herbicide treatment had significantly more roots than the chewings fescue, alfalfa and tall fescue treatments. Clean cultivation or Kentucky bluegrass had significantly greater root numbers than the tall fescue treatment. Root numbers at the 40-60 cm depth were significantly greater in the herbicide, clean cultivation, Kentucky bluegrass and alfalfa treatments than the tall fescue treatment. At the 60-80 cm depth, the vegetation-free treatments had significantly more roots than the chewings fescue or tall fescue treatments. The clean .65 you muonasc uoou H6909 x .uo>oo «>6u6uomo> £060 :6 masses: uoou H6uou no oumusoouom uoom > .66>66 66 66 6666 6 66666666666 101 saga Amc.onmv umou ovc6u oamfiuasa m.:60::o ha msou canvas coumuemom meme: 6 A6.6c 16.66. 16.666 “6.666 .6.666 .6.66. a 6.66 a 6.66 66 6.666 66 6.666 6 6.666 6 6.666 666-66 .6.666 .6.66. A6.66V A6.66v 16.666 .6.66. o 6.666 6 6.666 66 6.666 66 6.666 6 6.666 66 6.666 66-66 16.66. .6.666 16.666 .6.666 16.666 6A6.66v 6 6.666 6 6.666 6 6.666 6 6.666 6 6.666 x6 6.666 66.6 uaomom nuanuad moomwm mmmummsam co«u6>wuasu mcwofinhmz Aaov H669 onwm >xosucox c6660 sou own» name aoum 00:6umao u. a use oommounxo 66690» uoom .50 cm ooemnsm ecu :6 son emu» as» on 66H5066cmmuom won» on» scum a 6.o Ammzv 006uloawuoua umo: on» so mcaaaoo a0 66 :6 unmau6ouu Hood“ Unmsouo some :« muoou Hmuou no va ooouceouoe 6:6 Hones: #006 30609 Hugo» no usuaoomsua poodu 6665060 no Hummus 0:8 “6 oun6a .6: 609 66065:: uo06 66uoa x .u:0au606u 6oo66 6666060 :060 :6 66065:: HOO6 66606 no 0U6u:0060a uoom a .66>66 66 66 6666 6 66666666666 102 :663 «mo.onmv 6606 00:66 0696665: 66:60:50 >6 03O6 :66663 606666Q0m 6:60: a 66.66 .6.66 66.66 66.66 66.666 66.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 666-66 66.66 66.666 66.66 66.666 66.666 66.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.666 66 6.66 66-66 66.666 66.666 66.666 .6.66. 66.666 66.6. 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.666 6 6.666 66 6.66 66-66 66.666 .6.66. 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 6 6.66 66 6.666 66 6.666 66 6.666 66 6.666 6 6.666 66-66 .6.66. 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 6.6.666 6 6.66 6 6.666 6 6.666 6 6.666 6 6.666 x6 6.666 66-6 050606 666666: 060606 00660056: :06u6>666:o 06606660: 630v 666a 60:630so >x0:u:0x :6060 :um0o 006» 0s» 306% mum . a 60m 606006mx0 066606 uoom .SO6 0066 0:6 06 60666669 n.6v : 6.6 0066-066HO6Q 6003 0:» :o 66:0:060:6 :6m06 :0 ow 66 #:0366066 6o066 666:06o :060 :6 muOO6 666a» no A». 0566:00609 6:6 606:5: uOO6 6060: 666a» :o 6:0:0m6:6: 6oo66 666:06o 60 600660 0:9 .5 Odnma 103 cultivation treatment had significantly greater root numbers than all vegetative treatments. At the 80-100 cm depth, the clean cultivation treatment had significantly more roots than all vegetative covers. Only in the top 20 cm did root numbers significantly differ between the herbicide and clean cultivation treatments. We Another way to consider root distribution is on a percentage basis, referred to as rooting percentage. Rooting percentages, expressed as the percentage of total roots in each treatment at a particular depth or distance from the tree, are presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7. Rooting percentages for the WPF are presented in Table 5 by depth and there were minor treatment variations. Rooting percentages decreased with increased depth for each treatment. In Table 6, rooting percentages are presented in 40 cm columns from the tree row on the WPF. In the first 40 cm column, under the herbicide strip, the vegetation- free treatments had less rooting percentages than the four vegetative covers, but greater root numbers. In the 40-80 cm column, intermediate between the herbicide strip and the orchard floor treatment, there appeared to be little difference. between all treatments. Rooting percentages under the orchard floor treatments, 80-120 cm from the tree trunk, were greater in the vegetation-free treatments than all vegetative covers. The vegetation-free treatments had a relatively gradual decrease in rooting between all three columns but there were relatively large differences for the vegetative treatments between the columns. Rooting percentages at the 1.2PF are presented in Table 7. Rooting percentages in the surface 20 cm were greatest in the herbicide or tall 104 fescue treatments and lowest in the alfalfa. The clean cultivation treatment had less rooting percentage than the herbicide treatment in the surface 40 cm. In the 20-60 cm depth, the vegetation-free treatments had lower rooting percentages than the vegetative covers, except between the clean cultivation and tall fescue treatments at the 40-60 cm depth. Below 40 cm no single treatment had the lowest or highest rooting percentages at both depths, although clean cultivation did have greater percentages at the 60-100 cm depths. DISCUSSION Orchard floor management treatments affected root number and distribution, both horizontally and vertically. The herbicide treatment had the greatest number of roots. The clean cultivation treatment had more roots than any of the vegetative covers on the profile-face 1.2 m from the tree. Roots at the 1.2PF were directly beneath the orchard floor management system. Reduced root numbers at the 1.2PF occurred as a result of differential competition of the vegetative covers on tree root growth, not affected by the herbicide strip in the tree row. All treatments had fewer roots with increased depth or distance from the tree as reported by Cowart (1938) and Lyons and Krezdorn (1962). There were also large differences in root numbers under the orchard floor treatments at each profile-face location. On the WPF, 0.6 m from the tree, treatment differences in root number were not present in the first 40 cm from the tree under the herbicide strip where root numbers were the greatest. Atkinson and White (1976) also reported greater root numbers under the herbicide strip than the vegetative alleys for apple. Treatment differences would not be expected in this vegetation-free strip as there would be no vegetative cover competiting 105 with the trees' root growth. In the following 40-80 cm area, a transition zone between the herbicide strip and alley management, root numbers were greatly reduced under the vegetative treatments. Tall fescue had 478 fewer roots and the chewings fescue treatment 21% fewer roots than the herbicide treatment. Root numbers were further reduced in the 80-120 cm zone, totally under the alley management system, where tall fescue had 25% as many roots as found in the herbicide treatment compared to 828 for the chewings fescue treatment. Peach rooting was reduced under the vegetative treatments as well as under the transition zone from the herbicide strip to the vegetative cover as also reported by Glenn and Welker (1989). There appeared to be differential interference of the vegetative covers on tree rooting. Tall fescue had the fewest roots, both in depth and lateral spread. Tall fescue had no roots in the 60 to 100 cm depth at the 1.9PF. The alfalfa treatment also had reduced root numbers, but greater than the tall fescue. The Kentucky bluegrass had significantly greater root numbers than the tall fescue. Statistical analysis did not always indicate significant treatment differences between the vegetative covers because of null data and treatment variations. However, the large differences in root numbers between the wintergreen chewings fescue or Kentucky bluegrass treatments and the alfalfa or tall fescue treatments suggest differential rooting between vegetative covers that should be examined further. Cockroft and Wallbrink (1966) reported orchard soil management did not result in deeper peach tree rooting. The same response was found in this study. The vegetative covers had reduced root numbers compared to the vegetation-free treatments at all depths and locations. 106 Reduced root numbers in the surface 20 cm of the clean cultivated treatment on the 1.2PF, compared to the herbicide treatment, resulted from the elimination of surface roots by the mechanical cultivation. Cockroft and Hallbrink (1966) reported that cultivation eliminated roots in the surface 8 cm of the soil. Clean cultivation, even though root numbers were reduced by cultivation, had greater root numbers than the vegetative covers on the 1.2PF. The reduction in root numbers under the vegetative covers compared to the vegetation-free plots suggests interference. Interference is the effect on plant growth of one plant induced by another (Radosevich and Holt, 1984), and can either promote or inhibit plant growth. The mechanisms by which interference may affect plant growth are numerous. In this study, two probable effects of inhibitory interference were competition and allelopathy. Competition for nutrients and water would be a direct effect of interference. Allelopathy, the inhibition of growth of one plant due to toxic substances released from another (Putnam and Tang, 1986) would be an indirect effect. Further study is needed to determine if any of these factors are involved in affecting peach tree rooting under vegetative covers. The distance from the tree to the center column on the 1.2PF is approximately 6 cm less than the distance from the tree to the center of the columns on either side of the center column. This increased distance resulted from using straight faced trenches centered on the tree. The increased distance was unavoidable due to the trenching methods utilized. However, only small differences were present in rooting between the three columns indicating no real differences between the three columns resulted from the increased distance. 107 Trees in this study did not exhibit symmetrical rooting around the tree. There were no treatment differences on the EFF, but treatment differences did occur on the WPF. This differential in rooting was not observed in orange trees by Castle (1980). Prevailing winds may have contributed to this situation. The site was moderately windy, and trees leaned slightly to the east, away from the prevailing west winds. Rooting differences may have resulted on the windward side to anchor the trees in response to the wind or a result of shading which may have affected soil surface drying. The limited sampling depth and possible insufficient sample number did not reveal significant treatment differences in response to orchard management in soil bulk density and organic matter as has been reported by others (Welker and Glenn, 1988; Atkinson and White, 1976). Another explantion could have been the relatively short duration of this study compared to the average life span of a commercial orchard. The orchard floor management systems affected peach rooting. The very vigorous and deeper rooting covers of K-31 tall fescue and Peak alfalfa resulted in fewer tree roots both vertically and horizontally than the vegetation-free treatments. Greater rooting occurred in the relatively low vigor cover of Park Kentucky bluegrass than in K-31 tall fescue. Treatments controlling all orchard floor vegetation resulted in the greatest number of tree roots, both horizontally and vertically. Clean cultivation to a depth of 8 cm did reduce root numbers in the surface 20 cm compared to the Paraquat herbicide treatment. 108 LITERATURE CITED Atkinson, D. and G.C. White. 1976. Soil management with herbicides-the response of soils and plants. Proc. 1976 British Crop Prot. Conf.-Weeds 3:873-884. Atkinson, D., G.C. White, E.R. Mercer, M.G. Johnson and D. Mattam. The distribution of roots and the uptake of nitrogen by established apple trees grown in grass with herbicide strips. Rpt. East Malling Res Sta. for 1976. p. 183-185. Atkinson, D. 1980. The distribution and effectiveness of the roots of tree crops. p. 424-490. In: J. Janick (ed.) Horticultural Reviews, vol 2, AVI, Westport, Conn. Beckenbach, J. and J.H. Gourley. 1932. Some effects of different cultural practices upon root distribution of apple trees. Amer Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 29:202-204. Beukes, D.J. 1984. Apple root distribution as effected by irrigation at different soil water levels on two soil types. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 109:723-728. Blake, G.D. 1965. Bulk density. Agron. 9. Part I:374-377. Bohm, W. 1979. Methods of studying root systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Boswell, S.B., G.D. McCarty and L.N. Lewis. 1975. Tree density affects large-root distribution of ‘Washington' navel orange trees. HortScience 10(6):593-595. Castle, W.S. 1980. Fibrous root distribution of ‘Pineapple' orange trees on rough lemon rootstock at three tree spacings. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105(3):478-480. Cockroft, B. and J.C. Wallbrink. 1966. Root distribution of orchard trees. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 17:49-54. Cowart, F.F. 1938. Root distribution and root and top growth of young peach trees. Amer Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 36:145-147. Cripps, J.E. 1971. The influence of soil moisture on apple root growth and rootzshoot ratios. J. Hort. Sci. 46:121-130. Glenn, D.M. and W.V. Welker. 1989. Peach root development and tree hydraulic resistance under tall fescue sod. HortScience 24(1):117-119. Haynes, R.J. 1980. Influence of soil management practice on the orchard agro-ecosystem. Agra-ecosystems 6:3-32. Hogue, E.J. and G. H. Nielsen. 1987. Orchard floor vegetation management. p. 377-430. In: Horticultural Reviews, vol. 9, AVI, Westport, Conn. 109 Layne, R.E.C., C.S. Tan and R.L. Perry. 1986. Characterization of peach roots in fox sand as influenced by sprinkler irrigation and tree density. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. lll(5):670-677. Lyons, G.C., Jr. and A.H. Krezdorn. 1962. Distribution of peach roots in Lakeland fine sand and the influence of fertility levels. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 75:371-377. Perry, R.L., S.D. Lyda and H.H. Bowen. 1983. Root distribution of four Vitis cultivars. Plant and Soil 71:63-74. Putnam, A.R. and C.S. Tang. 1986. The science of allelopathy. Wiley, NY. 317 pp. Radosevich, S.R. and J.S. Holt. 1984. Weed ecology: implications for vegetation management. Wiley, NY. 256 pp. Richards, D. and B. Cockroft. 1975. The effect of soil water on root production of peach trees in summer. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26:173-180. APPENDICES 110 .66>66 66 66 6666 6 6:60666:066 :66? Amo.cnm. 6606 06:66 06:66633 6 :60::o a: 606666906 6:60: 6:0566069 6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 666 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66x66\6 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\66 ---- --------- --Aaov=ewz66 966:6 66666>6----------- 66666 66666 66:66 666666 666666 666 6966 so 666 :6 666 :6 666 so 666 so 66 66666266 - --------- -- ---------------- 6626:66666-------------- 6.6:06606 0:63060 6666-6666 0:» 6ou 66:05066660s .050606 666: 6:6660m :6 :306m 6006» no :um:06 uoo:6 :o 60066 060:6 6::O66 66066 0066-:o66660o0> #:0606666 666 no 600660 0:9 «:IH 666:0dd: 111 66666666666 666: “66.6.6. .60>06 «m 66 6006 m 6006 06:66 06666663 0.660660 an 006666600 00603 660666068 6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 «.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6n\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6~\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\o6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\n\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6~\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6~\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6~\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 «.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\o~\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\n6\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\6 66 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6~\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\66\6 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\n\6 6 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 66 6.66 6 6.66 6 6.66 66\6\66 unnnnunnuuuuuuuunnnuu6666666266 60066 6666666 nnnnnnnnnnnnnn nuauuuuu 66666 66666 66666 666666 666666 606 6666 66 666 66 666 66 666 66 ~66 66 66 66666666 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuu uu66z6666666nun uuuuuuu nuns: uuuuu uuuuuuuu N.m:Omfl0m 06:30.60 mmmfllwmad 65H HON muflmfimhflmflmz .060006 6666 66 >6066c0x :6 03066 00066 606 260606 60060 :0 00066 06696 066066 06066 0066:6066660m0> 660606660 660 60 600660 066 “6:6 66060966 112 unmofluficmflm an“: Amo.oum. .Hm>ma am an ummu m 9mm» macaw «Huangsa m.:mo::n >n cmunumnmm mcwma unmaummua N a H.o~ a «.5H a c.5H n m.oa o n.~a c o.o~ mmxmaxm a «.ma 3 h.oa n o.nH n m.ma o v.~H c h.m om\s\m a o.ma a a.md n m.ma n «.ma 0 o.~H u «.m mo\Hn\m a ".ma 2 m.ma a H.wa n p.¢H o m.HH c ~.m ma\q~\m a o.pa a m.qa a «.ma n ~.¢H o o.HH o m.m am\>a\m u m.ma n n.«~ n p.vH n w.na o m.od o m.m mm\oa\m o H.wa a w.na n o.va n m.~a o n.oa c «.5 om\n\m a «.ma n «.ma 3 q.na a n.~a o p.m u v.5 mo\n~\u a w.va n «.ma n >.~H a o.aa o n.m c «.5 mo\a~\u a o.na a m.aa n o.~H a n.HH o o.o c o.» maxedxh a “.md a n.oH a H.~H n n.oa o a.» c e.» mm\o\u a m.aa n m.m a ¢.oa n p.m o m.p o o.o om\-\o a M.HH a n.m n a.m n H.« o «.5 u m.m moxowxo a v.oa n o.o an n.a n p.m o o.» u o.m mmxnaxo a ~.m a a.» an n.» n o.» o m.w c n.m mo\n\m a a.m a o.» no «.5 a m.» o o.m c e.¢ pm\v~\m a m.o a p.m a H.m a o.m n m.v o o.n hm\~a\m n o.m on «.v nu m.v can m.¢ no m.n c o.n Fox¢a\p a «.n nu m.~ nu ~.n no ~.m n m.~ o ~.~ nm\¢\o a ~.n an H.n an o.n an H.n on o.~ o ~.~ >m\m~\m a o.~ a m.~ a v.~ o m.~ a ~.~ n m.H om\on\oa m n.a a n.a n n.a a ¢.H a m.H m v.a om\v~\h o o.o a b.o a o.o a o.o a m.o a p.o om\mfl\m uuuuuuuuuuuuuu Amaovcum< qconsommummomu xzoma mu ucououuqv Xau no uomuua 0:9 "UIH awesommd .5m>o5 «m as ummu m unmowu5cmwm cu53 Amo.oumv umou «0:05 GHQHHaza m~cmocso >8 omuouamom mcnma unmauuoua 5 113 a o.m5 an 5.55 on m.m5 o o.55 o o.5 o ¢.o om\m5\m m o.o5 an 5.55 on o.m5 o «.55 o o.5 o n.» om\5\m n 5.55 no o.o5 n 5.m5 o 5.55 o 5.m o 5.@ mm\5n\o a c.55 a 5.o5 a o.m5 n n.55 o m.o o m.m om\v5\5 o o.o5 no 5.m5 n 5.55 o o.55 o n.o o 5.m 55\55\5 a o.m5 an 5.55 n v.55 o m.55 o o.o o m.m mm\o5\o a 5.m5 a 5.55 an 5.55 n m.o5 o a.m o 5.m om\n\m o o.¢5 a 5.55 an 5.55 n ¢.o5 o e.m o o.m 55\55\5 o n.55 no v.55 on o.55 o 5.5 o 5.m o 5.5 55\55\5 o 5.55 o 5.55 no 5.55 n «.5 o 5.5 o v.5 mm\e5\5 a 5.55 a o.55 no n.o5 a 5.5 o o.v o 5.5 mmxox5 s 5.55 o «.o5 on 5.5 n 5.5 o n.v o o.« 55\55\o o e.c5 a v.5 on 5.5 n 5.5 o 5.5 o 5.5 omxo5\o o 5.5 o o.m no 5.5 n m.5 o 5.5 o 5.5 55\55\o a o.m no m.5 no m.5 a o.5 o 5.5 o v.5 55\n\o a o.5 a 5.5 a m.o a m.o n 5.5 a 5.5 55\v5\m a o.» no 5.m no 5.m n 5.5 o 5.5 o m.5 55\55\m o 5.5 a e.v a 5.5 a 5.5 n m.5 n 5.5 55\¢5\5 a 5.5 a 5.5 a 5.5 a 5.5 n o.5 n 5.5 5m\¢\o a o.5 o m.5 a 5.5 a o.5 n 5.5 n 5.5 5mxm5xm a 5.5 no o.5 a «.5 no o.5 on o.5 o «.5 oo\on\o5 a 5.5 a 5.5 o 5.5 a 5.5 a o.5 o 5.5 om\¢5\5 a m.o o 5.o a m.o a 5.o u 5.o o 5.o om\m5\m nununu uuuuuuu n.5sov4mm< 5< uuuuuuuuuu ulna mHmam mHmam mHmBm amazon mmsoom com mace so 555 so 555 so 555 so 555 so 5m mamqmzoo nuns: uuuuu u uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mazmzacmma uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u uuuuu 5.u:omu0m 5:53050 momHImmmH on» How coxou mucoamnsmsmz .oaomou Han» 5n mxozucox :5 £3055 moon» you sous 5M¢05uommlmmouo 2:55» so moon» 05996 assess mamas moquGOAUnummo> usouomuau x5u no Hummus one "oIH x5vcomad usoo5u5sm5m s55: .mo.onmv .50>m5 am an ummu m ummu mason 0595uasa m.:moc:o an wousummmm mcmoa unmaumoua 5 a 5.55 on 5.5@ an 5.55 no 5.5o a «.55 n 5.«m 55\m5\m s 5.o5 no 5.«m no 5.55 no «.5o n 5.55 n m.«m 55\5\5 a 5.«5 no 5.5m no «.mo an 5.50 an 5.55 a 5.55 55\55\5 o 5.55 an 5.50 no c.5o an 5.5@ a 5.«m n 5.55 55\m5\m o m.oo an 5.55 no 5.5w an 5.55 an 5.55 a 5.5« 55\55\5 a o.«o ono o.«m no m.oo ono 5.55 on 5.5« o o.m« 55\o5\5 a 5.55 a 5.55 a 5.om o o.5« a 5.5« n o.o« 55\5\5 a 5.55 n 5.5« a «.om an 5.5« a 5.5« n 5.o5 55\55\5 o 5.5« a o.5« a o.5« no «.5« n 5.55 o o.«5 55\55\5 o 5.5« a 5.5« a o.«« an 5.5« n c.55 o 5.55 55\«5\5 a 5.«« a 5.5« a 5.«« an 5.5« a 5.55 o 5.55 55\o\5 a 5.5« o c.«« « o.5« no o.5« a 5.55 o 5.o5 55\55\o a 5.55 n m.o« a 5.o« n «.55 o m.o5 n 5.55 mmxo5xo a a 5.o5 a 5.55 a 5.55 a 5.55 a o.o5 n 5.55 55\55\o u a 5.55 a 5.55 a 5.55 a 5.55 no o.55 n v.55 55\5\o a c.5o a 5.55 a 5.mm a 5.55 o 5.55 a 5.55 55\«5\m no m.5« an 5.5« a 5.55 on 5.5« on «.55 o 5.o5 55\o5\o a v.55 an 5.55 a m.o5 a 5.«5 on 5.55 o o.m5 55\5\o a m.o5 a 5.55 a 5.«5 o «.55 o 5.55 o 5.55 om\m\55 aaaaaa nuuannuunnaannnAsovaaozmq Boomm mo¢mm>4uasanuunauuunnaunuuunu mHmam mHmBm mHmBm mm ucoumuuwv Nam mo Homuum «:9 «NIH x5ocomm¢ 115 us5o5550555 5553 550.0u5v .50>05 wm #5 5505 5 5505 0m555 05955555 0.:00500 an 005555Q0m 0:503 #:0355055 5 n5 5.«5 5 5.55 5 «.05 n5 0.55 on 5.05 o 5.55 55\55\5 5 0.55 5 5.05 5 5.55 n5 «.55 on 5.5« o «.55 55\5\5 5 5.55 5 «.55 5 5.55 5 5.55 5 0.55 n 5.55 55\55\5 :5 0.«5 5 5.55 5 5.05 n5 5.55 on 0.5« o 5.55 55\55\5 n5 «.55 5 5.55 n5 5.55 n5 5.05 on 5.5« o 5.55 55\55\5 n5 «.55 5 5.55 5 5.55 n5 5.55 on «.5« o 5.55 55\05\5 5 «.55 5 5.«5 5 5.55 5 0.«5 n 5.0« a 0.55 55\5\5 5 5.55 5 5.55 5 «.55 5 5.05 n 5.55 n 5.55 55\55\5 5 5.5« 5 5.5« 5 5.5« 5 5.5« a 5.«5 n 5.55 55\55\5 5 5.5« 5 5.5« 5 5.5« 5 0.5« n 5.55 n 5.55 55\«5\5 5 5.«« 5 5.5« 5 5.«« 5 5.«« n 5.55 a 5.55 55\5\5 5 5.5« 5 0.5« 5 5.5« 5 0.5« a 5.55 n 5.55 55\55\5 5 5.55 5 «.55 5 5.55 5 5.0« n 5.55 o 5.«5 55\05\5 n5 5.05 n5 5.05 n5 0.55 5 5.55 n 5.55 o 5.05 55\55\5 :5 5.55 n5 5.55 a5 5.55 5 5.«5 n 5.55 o 5.55 55\5\5 n5 5.55 5 5.55 n 5.5« n5 «.55 o 5.55 o 5.05 55\«5\5 5 5.5« 5 5.5« 5 5.55 5 5.5« n 5.55 n 0.55 55\05\5 5 5.55 5 5.55 s5 5.05 5 «.55 on 5.55 o 5.5 55\5\5 5 5.05 5 5.55 5 0.05 5 5.55 5 5.55 5 5.55 55\5\55 uuuuuuuuuu - - -.so5550255 50055 50455><----------- 55555 55555 55555 555005 555005 005 5550 so ««5 so 555 so 555 so 555 so 55 55555200 ---------------5555:5<555 uuuuuuuuuu --- uuuuuuuu --- 5.0:00505 0:53050 5555-0555 0:» 505 :0xsu muc0a055500z .000505 555» 55 axosuc0x :5 53050 5005» 505 555:05 90050 :0 0005» >550so 009055 00055 0055-0055550m0> #:0505550 550 50 500550 0:5 "m-H x5050mad 116 Flu-:5. 5 -... r- .. 3%.. _ .50 05.5.25.“ 05.0.. .50305 55 50 5005 5 50005550050 0553 550.0u9v 5005 00005 05955500 0.000000 >0 005050900 00000 000050055 5 05 5.55 0 «.«5 5 5.55 0 «.«5 0 5.55 o 5.5 55\55\5 05 «.55 o05 5.55 5 «.55 on 0.«5 o 5.55 0 5.5 55\5\5 05 5.55 on 5.55 5 5.55 on 5.55 o 5.55 0 5.5 55\55\5 05 5.«5 on 5.55 5 0.55 on 5.55 o «.55 0 5.5 55\55\5 05 5.55 05 0.55 5 5.«5 05 5.55 0 «.55 o 5.5 55\55\5 05 0.55 05 «.55 5 0.«5 05 5.55 0 5.05 o 5.5 55\05\5 05 5.55 0 5.05 5 5.55 05 5.55 0 0.05 o 5.5 55\5\5 05 5.55 0 5.5 5 5.55 05 «.05 0 5.5 o 5.5 55\55\5 05 «.05 0 0.5 5 «.55 05 5.5 0 5.5 o 5.5 55\55\5 05 5.5 05 «.5 5 5.05 05 5.5 0 5.5 o 5.5 55\«5\5 05 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 05 5.5 0 «.5 o 5.« 55\5\5 05 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 05 5.5 0 0.5 o 5.« 55\55\5 05 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 05 5.5 0 5.5 o «.« 55\05\5 05 5.5 0 «.5 5 5.5 05 5.5 05 5.5 o 5.« 55\55\5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.« 55\5\5 05 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 05 5.5 0 «.5 o 5.5 55\«5\5 05 «.5 n 5.« 5 5.5 05 5.5 0 5.« o 5.5 55\55\5 05 0.« on «.5 5 5.« 05 5.« on5 5.5 o 5.5 55\«5\5 05 5.5 05 5.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 05 5.5 0 0.5 55\«\5 5 «.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 «.5 5 5.5 55\55\5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 «.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 55\05\05 5 «.5 5 «.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 «.5 55\«5\5 0 5.0 05 5.0 5 0.5 5 5.0 5 5.0 05 5.0 55\55\5 - ------------- A5sov5555 552055055-55050 52055 50555>5- ---------- -- 55555 55555 55555 555005 555005 005 5550 so ««5 so 555 so 555 so 555 so 55 55555000 -------- -----------55z5z55555-------------- 5.0000000 0053050 0055-0055 005 505 05000050000: .000005 500 5005505 05 03050 00055 505 0050 500055000-00050 00055 00 00055 5000 000050 00050 005510055050003 000505550 550 50 5005550 005 “0-5 55000994 117 .4 .50>05 «m 55 5005 5 50005550050 0553 500.0n9v 5005 00005 05955555 0.000050 >0 005050900 00005 500550059 5 5 5.55 5 5.55 5 0.55 5 5.05 0 5.5 0 0.5 5 5.55 5 5.55 5 5.55 5 5.05 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.55 5 5.05 5 0.55 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 0.55 5 5.55 5 5.05 5 0.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.05 5 5.55 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.05 5 5.55 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.05 5 5.5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.0 5 5.5 0 0.5 0 5.5 5 «.0 5 0.0 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 0 0.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 0 5.5 0 0.« 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 0 5.5 0 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 05 5.5 on 0.5 o 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 0.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 5.5 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 uuuuuuuuuuuuu .asov 5555 550055055n5505o 52055 50555>5uuuuuuuuuuuuuu 55555 55555 55555 555005 555005 005 so 555 so 555 so 555 so 555 so 50 55555500 uuuuuuu nunuuuunuuuunuuuuunuuu5525055555auunuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuannuuuuu 50\55\5 50\5\5 50\55\5 05\5~\0 00\55\0 50\05\0 50\m\0 05\5~\5 55\5~\5 55\55\5 55\5\5 55\5~\5 05\0~\5 55\n5\0 55\5\5 55\5~\5 50\~5\5 55\55\5 05\5\0 50\5~\5 55\05\05 50\5~\5 00\55\5 H949 5.0000000 0053050 0005:0005 005 505 00x05 05005055050: .050005 5505 5M5 55055005 05 03050 00055 505 5050 550055000100050 50555 00 00055 5000 005055 05055 0055i005555000> 500505550 550 50 500550 005 "0:5 55000995 118 428. an uI .3. b .5825: ...... 39.02: :3 Inc: 23...:- I..Iufi6 3 03:30. I!” «$.53..— ~ n.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 I 0.3 0.5— «.5. I 0.3 I 0.3 I 0.3 I 0.3 I 5.3 I 5.3 I 0.3 at: I... 000 0.3 ~.3 n.3 0.3 0.3 5.3 0.5— 0.3 0.3 I 0.3 0.3 0.3 I 0.3 a n.0— I 0.3 I 0.3 a «.3 o 0.3 a 0.3 0...: II 03 —.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.3 5.3 0.3 I 0.3 5.3 0.3 I 0.3 0 5.3 I 0.3 I N.3 I 0.3 i 5.3 I 0.3 0...: In «- 5.3 0.3 0.3 5.3 0.3 3.5— 5.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.: I 73 a 0.3 I 0.3 I 5.3 I 0.3 I 0.3 I; In 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 ..5— 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.0— v 0.3 uh 0.: I 0.3 I 0.3 90 0.3 I 0.3 Isl! lo .0 0.3 0.3 5.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.3 a 0.3 0.3 0.5. a 0.3 v 0.3 u 0.3 a 0.3 I 0.5— In 0.3 I 0.3 to. 3:900 . .— .¢. . . . .-.0 M . 1. ...0 .. 3.0 . . . .. ..1. .. .4. .-. .0 «0 A 4. .« - - . . 4 - a .0 ..... ....u.....o..............ucuo...:ou.-.....c....-....u....--.u.o..:...-..--oa...£ufiuoa awe-......oo.........o.o.oun.....n....n..:......u.......un.........ouaou:.....uuono... .-.- .... ..-. o... ..-- .... .-.. .... .... .-.. .-.. .-.. .... ..-. o... ....- ..-. a-.. .... Q7308 00N a 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 5.3 0.3 I 3.5. I 0.3 I 0.3 I 5.3 0.3 I 0.3 I 3.3 I 0.5p I 0.5. 0.3 I «.3 0.3 0.5: lo 00— I 0.3 0.: 0.5. ..5— I 0.5— 0.3 0.3 I 0.5. i 0.3 I 0.3 I 0.3 0.3 I 0.3 I «.3 a 0.3 a 0.3 0.3 I 5.3 0.3 at: In «- 0 5.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 v 0.3 a ..3 on 3.3 5.3 a p... a 0.: u 3.0— I 0.3 0.3 I 5.3 0.3 I; I 03 o 0.3 p.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 R. 0.3 I 0.3 .1 0.3 0.3 a 0.3 u 0.3 .- 06- 0 0.3 0.3 I 0.0. 0.3 III! I9 .0 o 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.0. 0.3 0.3 u 0.3 to 0.3 0 0.0. I 0.3 0.3 a 0.0. o 0.3 v 0.3 I 0.: 0.3 a 0.3 «.3 03 8:033 .4. .u . . . . . .4: . ..Q t .. .1. . .-. .. .4. 0 . .4. . a. ... ...u . .4. ... . .... .4 . .4. . .-. . . .4. 3.0 .-Q . .-.....-.-.u..u.........u..o....c....u:u....o....u.....:c:..-...:........-.oo-....£u£ a auocao-o..:..us....o.o....n.:..o....-.o.o.o.-.o.o.....-.ooouo.uouo:.uo.:.ouoo..-... I ..3 0.3 0.53 0.03 0.03 0.0. 0.03 I 0.5— i 0.3 I 0.3 a 0.5. 0.3 I 0.: I 0.3 I 0.3 I 0.5. I 0.0— i 0.3 0.3 at: In 3~ I 0.3 0.3 0.3 ..0— 0.0— 0.0. 0.0— I «.3 I 0.0. I 0.3 I 0.5. 0.0. I 0.: I 0.0.— I 0.3 I 0.5. I 0.03 I 0.3 3.3 0:: lo 03 I 0.5. 0.3 0.0. 0.0. p.0— 0.0. 0.0. I 0.3 I «.0. I 0.3 I 0.3 0.0. I 0.: I 0.3 I 0.3 I 0.0— I 0.0. XI 0.3 0.3 0...: In 03 I 5.3 0.3 0.5— 0.0. 0.0. 0.0— 0.0— a 0.3 us 0.5. 0 0.5. f 0.3 0.0— 0 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 I 0.03 BI 0.3 5.3 I; 8 0.3 a 0.3 0.3 3.5. 0.0— 0.3 0.0. n.0— .- 0.3 of 0.3 o 0.3 i «.5. 0.0. a 5.5 a 5.5 I 0.5 u 0.0 I «.0- 90 0.3 0.3 III! In —0 a 0.3 0.0— 0.5— 0.0. 5.3 0.0. 0.03 o 0.3 9 ..5p t 0.0 a 0.3 ..0— a 5.5 a 5.5 o 5.5 I 5.5 a 0.3 o 0.: 0.3 02 33.38 ... h . .Q. . ! Q 6 A... . .... .-.. Q . .4. x. .J .o. .w.# .u .q.< .4. N .. . ¢ - 4 .4. .V hig‘gb .-....ac-c-.coooon.n.o...o.o.-.o..onuannuoa.:.....-.....a.....--.o.:...-o...u..:.o.£u§a mp-.aoo.auu.c-..:n:o.-....uucu......o..n:..-..:coon-...o..noouuu-.naoo.uoauuco....-u Its-.8 :3 III: a o a... E... Us.~08 C. ”Qua .7; .30 8.- 90.; 0.: C. Ila—C) 0300—8 q—s I! 80— 20 8 000a 0.: ‘25. 0.0.0. :Luos—uluie) 0500.0—‘ 3: .0 ~00... O‘b "-.- I—g 119 ..0>0. um .0 .9... . .5223... ...... $0.02.. ....0. 00...... 0.30.3. 0.5.0.50 >0 0.0.9.09: 0:00.- ...0500: u . ...... . ...: . ...: . a... . ...... ...». ...... . 3. . n... . a... a... o... . 3. . ...... . no. ...... a... a. We. . ...... . ...... . ...... ... ...... 3.. ...... . .... . n... . ...... a... ..o. a. a... . ...... . a... «.2 ...... i ...o. . a... . ..o. . o... ... .6. ...... ...... . we. a. 0.2 . ..o. ...... a... a .... .. ...... .. .6. o... ...... 8 a... . a... ... n... . ...: .. .... ...: ...... a o... a a... a .... o... ...... u ..o. a ...... a a... 9.0. .6. u .... . ...: 8 .... .. .... a. a... o... ...... a .... u .... a .... .... ...... u .... a a... o .... ..o. ...... .. ~.~. a .... o a... A o... o a... .... o... u .... .. ...~. 0 ...... a... 3.. u ... .. ...... a. o... ..o. ...... 0 . .1. . . .n. . .1. 1 . 8 . a .1. . 8 0 . 8 . .4. 1 .4. . . . .1. ..... O ..1. . .1_. . . NV .10 . -- ..... ........... .........:..38 3 .......... ------- .1 n... . a... a... a... . ...... .... a... . ..o. ... ...... . ...... . 3. ...... a a... a a... a. .... ...... a... . ...: a. a... .... ...... . a... ..o. ...... . a... . .... . ..o. . n... ..o. . ...... . o6. . a... ...... o... a a... a. o... .... ...... a a... a... a... a a... o ..n. a o... u 0... .... .1 a... . o... . a... ..o. to. a. n... i ..o. .... .... a ...... ..o. .6. u ...: B ...: u .... . «... ..o. u ..o. o .... 8. 2. ..o. I... a o... u a... No. .... u we. a... ..o. u n... .. .... a a... a a... ..o. u n... a ...: o ... ...... ...... 9 ..~. .3 .... .... n... u ...: o... a... o a... o u... v n... o o... ...... u a... B a... B .3. ...... .1. 0 . .1..V . . .4. p . ... M . . . . .. :14 . .1. 0 . ... . .4. ..1. 1. Q .1. .4. . .1 .... . ..1. . . .1... 90 . . ....... ...-.-............-.-.... ......... ....-.-..--. ..... ......................098 on..---....-......-.-..-.-.........................----.......--...-.-..-.-... . ..o. . .... . n... . ...... .... .. .... a... .. «... i o... . ...: .1 a... «.2 . ..~. . .... .. ...... a... a a... . ...... . 2. . .... .. a... ...... . a... a... . .... . .... . a... . n... a... . ...: . .... . .... a... . .... . ...: . n... o a... . .... a... .... «... a... . .... ... ...: . n... . .... ...... .. .... . a... . ...... ....o. .. o... o o... . .... . a... . .... ..o. i ..2 a... a a... a a... a ...: a. n... ...... a ... a ... a o... «.2 . .... a 0.. a a... a a... .. ...... .... o .... ...... u ...: u .... a ... a .... fie. .. ... a ... u ... a... . .... a ... a .6. o a... a .6. n... 3 ~.o. a... o ..o. o o... a .... u a... .... .. ... .. ... u ... ..o. . .... : 303% a}: 833%: -- ................ ......998 3:.-- ........ - ....... ..... ..... ........ ....-----.---...-.-.-. 0.3-.8 ..o- 30.. u ...... lo 3... ...... 8 8. ...... 8 -. 083.. In -. 9.5.8 In .0 .6. 80.380 023.000— ....zI l0 3... ...... .a no. ...... .u a. El...- Iu -. 0.3.6. In .0 to. I.I.§ 583.5000— ...3o 3 3n 0...: I0 n0. 0...: lo -. 0.3.6. 3 nu. 9.3.8 In .0 no. 0.0.9.8 089:5: (03.0. ..I. .n >38..ch c. I00: 0.30 .3. .8. 00... I... ... 0032. 0.5.0....- ..3 Inn! 000. I... .8 00... I... 0503 803 00.7.8230?) 2.0.0:... ...I .0 .9030 I... ”.... 52092 120 ..0>0. um .I .00. . 2.00.0.3.- ..._.. .36.... .00. 00:: 0.32.3 0.5050 3 90.0.3000 0:00.- 0..0.I.I0... I a... No. ..0. a... 0... 0.0. ...... B. ...: a... 0.: ..0. 0.0. a. ...... ._ 0... . ...... a a... ...... ..0. a... at: 8 0.« 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. I 5.0. 0.0. 5.3 5.0. 0.0. I 0.... I 0.». I 0.... AI 06. 5.0. 5.0. ..0. at: 3 no. .... .... .... ...... a... 0.0. ..0. B n... a... I... ..0. 0.... 0 ...: . .... .. .... a. n... 0.0. 0.0. ...... ...... 8 -. ..n. 0.0. ..0. 0.0. 5.2 0.0. 0.0. 0.1 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 3 0... A 5.3 A «5. AI «.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.33.. I... -. 0.“. ..0. 0.0. 0.0. ..0. 0.0. 0.0. AI 0.«. 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. .8 0.0. 0A 0... A 0.3 “.A 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.318 In .0 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 0.3 ~.0. 0.0. 0.0. u 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. .8 0.0. 0 5.0. 0 0.... 0 0.3 0.0. 0.3 5.0. .80 000.330 .1. 0 . .1. - 1 1. - .1 :10 4% A .v .1. 1 12V 1 1 . . O o .1. 1. 1 1 b.!b‘=h ..--508 I 9-..- 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. w... 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. 5.3 0.0. 5.0. A 0.«. .1 5.~. .1 0.0. I 0.0. 0.0. 0.3 0.0. ...:- 8 35 0.«. 5.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. A 5... 0A 5.3 0A 0.». AI 0.». 0.0. 0.0. ..0.. ......I I. no. ..0. 0.0. ..0. 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 0.3 0.0.. 0.0. «.3 ..0. 0.0. I 0.5. I 0.3 I 0.0. I 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. .....I I. «N. 0.0. «.0. 5.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. ..0. 0.0. 0.0. 0A 0... 0 I... u 0.5. 0A 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. 0.333 In -. 0.0. 0.0. ..0. 5.3 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. ..0. 0.0. 0.0. .8 0.0. 0 5.0. v 0... 0 n.n. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.3.8 00 .0 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. n-n. 5.0. ..n. 0.0. 0.0. 0 «.0. 0 5.0. v ..o. 0 0... 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. .80 0.0.9.3 .1. . . .1. .. . .44 1% F .. 1 . V 1 C . 1. .... 1 1 1 .4 .1. 1. 1 . 1 - .1. q. - p.258. 111-111.........-111112.111...-1111111111111111:...-1.11.11.11-11!-1...1...1....11..11..11111111801068 31111111111111.1111..--11111111111111-1113...-111-111.11.1!-1......11111111111111.1111...-.. 0.0. 0.5. 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 5.5. 5... 0.3 0.0. 5.0 I 5.0. I 0.3 I n.5. 0.0. 0.0. 0.3 0.0.0 In 00.0. mi. 0.5. 5.0. 0.0. 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. 0.«. 0.5. ..~. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0 i 0.9. I 0.3 AI 0.0. 0.5. 0.0. 0.5. .....I In an. 0.3 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. ~.5. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.3 .... 0.0. 5.0. 5.0 .1 0.0. I 0.«. I 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0.0 8 -. ..0. 0.5. 0.5. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. ..0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0 0.1 0.0 A ..0. A 0.3 0.0. 0.». 0.0. 000.90 I. N3 ..0. 0.0. 0.5. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.5. 0.0. 0.5. 0.0. 0.0 0A 0.0 9A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0. 5.0. 0.0. 0.160 to .0 0.». mi. 0.5. 0.0. n.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0.. ..5. 0.0 ..5. 0.0. 0.5 0 0.5 u 0.5 o 0.5 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. to. 0.0.008 $0 . . .1. -. «a - 0 0 u. - qu 1 .1. G .1. 1. .0 1. .1. - ..v 1. . a. 1 .-.0 . pagaflp -.----.-.----.---.--.--.---.-- ....... ...... .-...-.-.-.-.:..0..Iu ..5.-.11.-.. ..... . ...... - 05.0.3 ..0. III: u . 330. 0.0.. 0.8..00 .... III... 5.20:0 .8. I... 00.. 0... ... 003.00 0.53.01 ..00 III! 000. 0... co 00... 0... 059.0 III-.0 00.0-8330?) 060.03.! ...I .0 0000.0 0... 3.. 5.0.09? Appendix l-l: 1110 eftect of “I dlf1erent vegetatlarfree areas aromd the tree on the 1988 has. 0011 noiature values In the tree rou tor cherry treea 1n Kentucky 31 tall team‘. X Has: soil couture 15 an Depth . "(AIKII iAIiII 999999 322223 939133 CON“ 5 0-0-0-0- .- Qfifqfif .g...’ 0- 0-0-0-0- 333%”! 822222 999999 2‘0000 '—'p' 19.5 19. 19.5 19.5 19. 19. “.5 abc 13.. be 11.2 in 17.3 a 16.! fi 12.! c 99~-99 széésa 13139”! 020.00 p -pp- fiNGQBM 1O 7 l I 7 "’F’ 61 ca «para 122 a «pare 122 a atrlp 183 c- atrIp 2“ a atrlp Cwlete and 121 ............................................................................30 c- Depth---------------—---u--------------"nu-- "EM!" NNQfiY! 001001201 0.0--0- .- n°.“.fi . . C . . I 222322 832222 ””3939 235500 "” 61 ca aware 122 cu «pare 122 a atrlp 183 a atrlp 2“ ca atrlp Caplete and 4.5 an Depth 088 “ELM“! .8 I O I I UTNQQNO nnn000~ PF"-’ 303033 QQQQQW 00050: p”" £94.39 hthN . I C I O C “MQOQV‘ 399339 300000 p"" 999999 200000 ’ppp— 8.9“ 0‘“ I Qfififififi ~~00n0~ -”"' fiAAIAi 39‘919 OQMNQO -p p p-“ 88.322 . £555 ,3 :z: 3883'! ENNM' 3022: ‘ heat-lent Ileana aeparated by Dutcan'a ault1ple range test (9:13.05) with algnflcant F test at 5% level. Appendix l-M: 122 Soil calibration curves for Bouyoucos moisture meter and percent mass soil moisture for a Riddles sandy loam. Solid line is the best fit regression line. 211223 1 ...L Cporo Moisture Soil Soil——1 5 cm -.::-.«.nu. A Horizon + 0.1179X Y=7.71 0.964% r. L3C3.C) -‘-—-|l-sll:l.1-l :Ol ,_-. i- -..!!! 5.0—1 oo-+ ‘1‘ Aevmmaeméz .50 5.2 youcos O A... an. a,” Cu 3 .3 «U isture -- n-o—t ..z. .x. «JV A Vv \11 sthe n. . z 1. 7. -.Is‘ a . . 3...... 5......3451... 3.2.03.1. .. . .. ..-: .... J MM . . x.“ A. 2. a . 1;. ... ... 1 . A J .1 _ . - ..- .m .1 3.. - e c e ".... ; __ _ .x. . . “w“ . . ... _ S - _- .... AU .0. l C Ax. an. ..-t Am”. .1 2. /.- no H». .mu. 3 ...; PU w. A. ... ... -.- A”. ma. ..- , . _ ...a-gav00anuzzne...aa..-.1 -- - -. . ... 3 «. Au . 1. A.“ ..w a w ... . . al— I 1 I u fi©.:: : :52 -__:n a 2.: 124 ..o>m. am 00 ummu m ucuo.u.:0.u cv.: A000.0nm. 9009 mmcmu mamauHsa 0.000000 >A owumummmm 0:005 unwaumoua n a ..00 0 0H.0 0A0 00.0 0 00.. 000000 Hams 0 0.00 0 0H.m 0 00.0 0 00.. muamuad a 0.H0 0 H~.0 on 00.. 0 00.. um>o.o a 0.00 a 00.0 020 00.0 0 00.. mwnuwoaoum 0 0.00 0 H0.0 0A 00.. 0 00.. mo+mm 0 0.00 0 00.0 0A0 00.. 0 00.. mx+mm 0 0.H0 0 «0.0 o H0.H 0 00.. 000000 000.3020 0 0.00 a 00.0 0A0 00.. 0 00.. 090000 cum: 0 0.00 0 00.0 on 00.. 0 00.. mmnummhm Howscmumm a 0.00 0 00.0 0A0 00.. 0 00.. mmmummaam axoausmx 0 0.00 0 00.0 o 00.. 0 00.. scau0>auaso 000.0 0 0.00 0 00.0 an 00.0 0 H0.H mcaownum: 1mmmml Immmmml IflMMMI .1mmmml 020290009 .ao.0auzma soomm mo¢mw>¢ .mao.0H am #0 9009 h unmoauacowm an“: 500.0um. #00» @0505 0.0.9.53 0.500550 an vmuaunmmm 0:005 unmauaoua n ddflflfldflfldflflfl 00.0 00.0 mn.m 00.0 06.0 mo.m Nd.m 0H.m mc.m 00.0 mn.m mN.m 0005x000 m~\aum~\m 005x000 ma\m:n\0 flflflflflflflflfldflfl m~\0 flflflflflflflflflflflfl HH.H bo.d NN.H mo.H nH.H 00.H 0H.H mo.H OH.H 0H.H nH.H 0H.H 90.0H 00.md HM.0H 00.0N n0.md hm.mH nm.0H Hh.mH 00.0H 00.0N mm.HN on.mN ddflflflflflflflflflfl ~H\0 on U O on 020 on Q on on d A0 0 HH.NH mm.~H b0.HH No.0H 00.NH 0N.nH mm.NH MN.MH 00.NH mm.0H OH.0H 00.5H 0.0.. m 0... a n.5n ..~.. 0 m... a 0.00 ~.o.. a 0.50 0 0.50 0.0.. a 0.0. a 0.00 0.00. 0 0.0. a «.0n 0.0.. a 0.0. a 0.0m 0.0.. a 0.50 0 «.00 0.0.. a 0.«. 0 «.00 0.... 0 a... a m.nn 0.00. a m.mp 0 «.00 0.0n. 0 5.00 0 0.00 n.m0. 0 0.00 0 0.00 0~\m on\0 «\o .so.0eozmq soomm mo< 0 00.0 0 00.0 a 50.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 a 00.0 0 00.0 0 05.0 0 no.0 0 50.0. 0 00.0 0 «0.0 0 00.0 a 00.0 a 00.0 0 ~0.m 0 00.0 0 .>.m a 00.0 a 00.0 a ~m.m 0 «0.0 0 no.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 a 00.0 0 00.0. a «0.0 a 50.0 0 .0.05 0 00.0 a mm.m a ~0.~. 0 00.0 0 mm.. 0.\. 0\0 m~\m .mao.o~o 0005003050 h0+mm mx+mm 050000 005.3050 050000 050: mmmumohm .mficcouom mmmumm5am >305ucmx scaum>wua5o 500.0 00.0.2505 BZNSB‘NKB 050000 Hams nuamuad um>o~u 0005005050 ho+mm . mx+mm 050000 005.3050 050000 050: mmmuvmhm Hawccmumm mmnumm5am >305ucmx Godum>aua5o 500.0 00.0.Auo: Ezmxfidmma Husoauoomummouo x555» comma so #505000505 .000H15umcma #0050 050 0050 500.0 oumnouo no uomuuo was .01HH xfiusmnmd The effect of 12 orchard floor treatments on 1988 trunk cross-sectional area, average shoot lemth and relative growth rate».z Appendix ii-C: --------------------------AvsaAc£ snout EXteuslou(an)—--------------------------- 673-9715 RGRX1000 6/30 777 7714 7722 7728 873 8/10 8/17 8725 9/1 9/7 9/15 6723 6717 6710 6/3 TREATHEflT 333333333333 333333383 81 71 79 13 121 06 101 17 102 50 115 3 338333333 33333333333 3 333833333 323332333333 83333 333333 3333333333 3 333388333333 333333333333 83383333 333 333333333333 338883333333 333333333333 833338333833 333333333333 333333383333 333333333333 333333333338 333333333333 Kentucky Bluegrass Perennial Ryegrass Clean Cultivated hard Fescue Chewings Fescue PR+K8 PR+CF Bro-egress Clover Tall Fescue Merbicido Alfalfa H6 -----------------------------Inuux CROSS-SECIIONAL AREA¢cu?)----------------------------- 6/3-10/20 IGRX1000 10/20 777 771‘ 7722 7728 873 8/10 8/17 8725 9/1 977 9/15 [30 6 6710 6717 6/23 673 IREATHEII 333333333333 000000000000 "FFF—P”P" 3333333 3:33 333333333333 333333333333 333333333333 832332223832 333333333333 333333323333 333333333333 333333333333 333333333333 333333333383 333333333333 333338333833 333333333333 333833833233 333333333333 ONIANNNQOVN h Nov-WON P'- In 333333333333 333338333333 333333333333 333333333333 333333333333 338338333382 333333333333 383333338333 333333333333 333833333383 333333333333 838838883333 333333333333 332333333333 333333333333 333333233383 333333333333 Kentucky Bluegrass Perennial Ryegrass Clean Cultivated Hard Fescue Chewings Feecue PR+KB PR+CF Ironegrass Clover iall Fescue Herbicide Alfalfa 1 treatment means not simificantly different as determined by Dmcan's mltiple range test(P-0.0S) uith significant F test at 5 1‘ level. “than In: a..- in n 40>». an a. :3 m «...-£38.. a h. .8521... o..- uoucugomtu Ens-0.; :2! .396}: :3 8:... 3.25:- ..c-ufia I tout-no. Blu- nts-0.; u 127 CDC-G.C..‘e use ..B'Sifi .‘3 IDQICIQCII-I .0 .0 ...-......fl.. CHICO-IIIQCC 50m. .3341” .88 . . A 535:! :8 ans. 8 33$ :3 33: Stan Sumo; 35.65 Sum: .82. 36.505. .51.!an 3383; 395:3 £33333 :35 0203.5: 53555. cacao; ......— 3:5: 82003. .3532. 32903: 393:3 52.253 :38 0229.0: pausing» ”Us; ad’— 263; 35:05 038; v.3: 3969:. .3582. 39503. b.8502 cot-3:3 :38 «Butte: £35.: .82 . -..2 no.3 05 5 85 05 not In 5 .3 me .3..- on .5 Va £33 an .00.: gonna mo 0.53:! :3 3.! co pen-Bone. Loo: “...-5.3 .Ouuuo?‘ 2..— 3-.. 51.092 128 ..23 an a. :3 ; «So—:8: . 3 sou-32. 2. 88232.. «558.; Si .331. :8 8c... 33::- 3593 B vat-no. 8:... .838..— u *8 m. 5 you one wove n8 8. 38: :3 3:3: oaomom 35105 Sumo; v.5: 329;: .2520: 8383; 553:3 5:03:35 :35 0329.5: paws—<2: UII£IIII§§II ......Ifi‘s‘a IDICIIICCCCC .Q-ICIIIIIIC ..aa aii‘fifinni IIIIIIICCDIC .efis - .11”, In \P J! ‘ M~ 0308; :0» Sumo; 35:05 Sumo“. PE: 3333. .3530: 30.503; >532: cot-.353 :35 03033: 59:55 a n a n a a n- a a n a - ...-EDI .6 u‘. 44 :- II. 0:30: 3:305 038: .22. $9303. .3595: 395an >535: 52:3.3 :35 0395.5: 59:55 nun oi Sumo; :3 gm u an.“ of $0388; a . a . 5:... ...1 i 82: of .1 .1 no . n1 .1 . - .3i93§§§u§ .eaeeeéeo§ Call-II'EIIIQ CUOOBOBUUUU fiin .8 n. “558.. :8 3:. a Koo—loch . 05 8.: lo 3 .lo 9 vi on .m— we 2.500 a. 305 :93... .0 >250:- 05 c. 8328 :8 3!- :o vein—5' .30: “...-5.5 mm «00:0 2:. 3-: £13 the effect of Qrchand floor want on can soil minor. in the alleyway of peach tron at depths of 15, 30 and 45 an, 155 cu fru the tree-1987 Appnndix ll-F: xnnsumJommu 15 an Depth 9/8 9l15 9/22 9/29 9/1 6/18 5/29 mama" 10120 10113 mm ‘FP”- m” 612‘ 5/13 OOOQOMfiPNOfiO NOONOOOOQNQN 0NOPOPONONOQ 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 9fi97€§§§999fl QOQQQOOUOQOC c-v-v-Pv-c-v-v-v-v-v-c- NO0O00NONIfl00. ONONNNNNN000 ""' QEfiQQQfiQfiflQQ QNQNQOQNQQCQ v-v-v-Pv-v-c-Pc-c-c-c- QNIflO0000N000 NNNNNédNONNN NO0NNOIflIflIflIQOIfl ‘NNNNNOONO0NN €99N99§QQfiQ§ OONONQOONCQQ I-c-c-v-o-v-v-v-c-v-P— .93 39199833 0MQBMOO0QOO éé0lflNNN'NNNO PH" “FF—"'0 C 088i8e8i889 Q99€59995QQQ oo~~mncnno~e ‘PFPN'F’F'PFF 0 08888888888 91Q911Q9fi9€Q N0OOPPPPPO~OP p, ""PF PF 080000000000 QQQQQQQ§§EQQ :zoooooossoo .3333331uu32 NNU‘POIflOIfl00NN 9wa~ouwnoocn H”, 5%? 33:31 a 3'- “ 8 €3§°§£§ if! 35“ B??? E: zafizzszzaaz: ------------------------------30 an 0epth------------------------------ 10/13 9/29 6/18 6/2‘ 8/ 7 8/18 8/25 9/ 1 9/8 5/29 5113 mama“ 10120 1mm ‘wn 9ns 129 QMOOPmOOOOfiO m0000lfllfl00ln00 ONOOPFOOOQP O mmm000000ln00 NOPNnflgv-zPNv-NN ‘30Ifl0000000000 "”-Ppp iQNQQ€§N€Q€Q 000000In00000 u-v-u-v-v-c-c-v-v-Pv-v- Qfififiiflflfififiii 000000000000 """'F"F' 19QQ19€Q1Q11 0000 010000000 I-v-c-c-c-v-v-c-v-c-Pv- 00.000.00.00 oomQOmOOmOmm 90-0-0."- 0'...- PF.- QQQQWQQN§QQQ oomOOmOOmOmm v-v-q-c-c-v-c-v-c-v-I-v- QQQfliQflNQQ§§ 0mm00000lfl0lfllfi c-Pv-v-v-v-v-v-v-c-v-v- 0MNM|nIn~tMInM~0n anon-0.0000. ‘000000000000 c-v-c-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-c-c- CNMOmM00~lNP0 I I I I I I I I I I I I IfllfllflQlfllfllfllfllfllfllflm c-c-v-c-v-v-v-c-v-v-v-P I .8888888888 efinietnefiflfin 00NNnMMMMPNM "F""PFFPF 08001808080018 IQc-v-OmlnInMOQv-ii 00MNMMMMMPNM F'FF"'FF" .80000000‘00 NQIQO0NNPO0U‘O QMPNPNPNOOPN PPPFP ”0- Pv-v-C- §§§e3§§.a.§e mfi0Pflom§00q0q ennmncnmmwnc §§§ :37: § 2°-3* : § £3333§ : .3 fi§9§§2§§3§§2 zzézzfizzaazz -----------------------------------------------------------45 ca Depth--------------------------°---- 5113 10/13 10/6 9/15 9/22 9/ 1 9/8 8/25 BIT 6/ 24 HUME" IWZ' ‘wa ans ¢na 5R9 OMNNQMNO~£NN° ‘0000000Ifl0000 O‘MNMMNO0Nv-v- 0000 0000\0000 anMQO~£NMMMN 000000000000 P”, v?" QfliifififlfifiiQfi ‘0000000000Ifl0 Pu-u-Pv-v-v-v-v-v-c-v- m0°00m009~€00 00in0ln0ln00000 pm, QQQiQQQiQiifi 00m0m0m0|fl000 PPPC-c-v-v-v-c-c-c-P 0ONOOON~IC~0MQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00mmmmm00000 Pv-Pv-I-I-c-v-v-v-v-c- 9991999€9€1€ 00m0lnlnln00000 PFC-1- Pc-c-v-v-c-c-v- €9559fififi§flifi 00mmlfllnln0lfl000 Pc-v-v-c-c-v-Pc-c-c-v- QNiQQQQQQflQ€ m00lnln00000|n0 v-v-v-c-v-v-v-v-v-u-v-c- CIflilfllfl00O°NQ° “0000160115!“30“ v-Hv-c-c- .iuzfixxssuui QNQiNQQQfifiNQ N0NM00MMMFN0 Pv-v-v-v-v-I-c-v-v-c-u- ..3§i§§§§oxi OPQOmfiOOOfiv-In =0NM0000MFNO 0-0-0-0-0-0-0- 0-0-0-0-0- o9 .88B8Bo-: QQTQQflfiNQQQE 0mN0N0N0P°Nn 'PF'F"""' °§§.§ee.§uxe “MON‘NOU‘NOONM 0000000000.. 0mm000000|fllfl0 I-v-v-c-v-v-c-v-v-Pc-v- £33 :33 g 2'. ‘ 3 €3§3£§ 33:! §§§§23§§§szz ifiugflfififikaifl z Trout-ant lam sap-rated by Duncan's ultiple range test (P-0.05), than trutmt differences are indicated by a simiflcmt F test at 5% level. 130 ...->0. um a. :3 3 .5238: o 3 033.1: a... noucouo:_v 2.9.5:: :23 £3.03: an: .9... 0.2:... c.0095: #- tog-.330. Ila. Eula-o..— u gm ...» .8888 I88 .33. P... 3.; .353: 32003- 38803 ...-«.323 ...—u .2933. 33:53 on 8 8 us on u 8 I i I 3 3 a o 163. :0— 3... 3 0 ' m.- I 0’0 0.0- I 0‘0“ “0“: l§i%.aaii€.§i 338:: who-'- on—v-cnu-CI-CIIC- MMMMMHHMMMM -'-----"-’ --.-“------“ --.-“’0- m0- :anmmmm Fr~ “1.33: can.» oncnonnn N mn-wpc-CICIu-cna- 0 I GHQ. cunt-o- 8.83:8 :8: .223... ~23.» 1.92929ee9992 '0N0.”0fi09N' I I I I I I I I I _”P"—- 0.0-0.0- nnnnnnnnnnnn ’ o I o k zaaamnmaa oeeeeeeeeeea *°~«-eneeenen .2 ‘~0§«~9~§°9en 13'.“ 8 “9:9": 9999299". afmnwmw S‘Hfiififlfififififlfi": 31333232332233: . «weave-20.". alzzsxazeaamz B‘QQQQQQQQQQQQ :mnnnnnnnnnnn n‘eeeeeeeem». p ammm seem-meme” awe-manage cleeeeeeeemm 3 {wanna-22999 alzzzzczaunn: a ‘9‘...“29919'2'92'2 3 Mnnnnnnnnnnn \"0 3 \ E C v: s Q 0 o n 8 ................................................................................... 599 8 3.1.3-............-...............................--.-......-............. .6... calp 33!. 9.3.. 3...: 7.5.9.: 39.93- :32: 5:02:39 :38 .3933: uzg0. an a. .00. . 280.28.. 0 k. 3....2. 0... 00800:... .5500: ..0.... .306“... .00. 0!... 0.3.2.! 30.8.5 I. v0.0.1.0. .500 2.00.3.» n ... ... “I ‘I .. u. ‘0 ‘0 a. ... ... .. a a ... a I C. ...... =2 . . . a. . . . a: ............................................................................ 5.0. I. 9................................................................................ ..aIIIaaI I I I I I I . I B . I 0 ooiflifliiiiio N ............................................................................ is... .0 3...:........................................................................... .aaaaaaaaaa .3. . . u s n. s s s ............................................................................ g.aoo .o n..--.----..--..-.----.......--....----.-.-.---..-..--..-..---.....---....----.... us:.u.ox ..oa 00¢: a as; cglb 03.0. e...- 3..o.>¢ 3.5.0.... 3.30.... 33...... 5...)...3 50.9 0203.0: bagpag 0.6.0. ...— ......1 .300. 7... 0.390». ...E...‘ .0932... 332.0; 5.0.233 50.9 0.0.0.0.... ~25:— gn u~lh .300. v... .0390: .35.... .0950...- 9.32.00 8.0.323 50.9 0303.0: nil—(w.— ..830. 9...... 80.200... 5.0.. 0... lo... 00 3 $010... 0... ... 00 a. a... an .n— .0 .590 a. 0.3.... ..0. .00. co ecu—coo... .8: 9.2.0... .o 000... 0..— «x... 59.0.8. 132 ..0>0. Rm .0 .00. 5 £30.25.- 0 k. v0.3.3... 0.. 32.0.0.2“. 505.00... :05 .236»... .00. 09.0. 03...: 0.30930 3 ..0.-.800 05‘ 2.08.00.— 0 03000. ..0. 020:: §3xx.ouz 000.003 1.5.0.00 03.90:.- 33.5. 8...)...3 600.9 0...”.3.0= plg¢u= 0888888 .888 :3. to. p s s s s n. 03 ............................................................................. 59.8 a.-. 0300. ..0. 020.: 0.600. at... 000.00». 3.5.0.05 000.903.. 33...: 8:02.26 600.9 0303.0: p25: 30:5 .dlh 000.00: 3.5.0.0.. 30.00:.- 33.5. 5:02.59 .30.“. 020.350.. pig—(un- ..aiaaagefii .§§°§§§.o§. — .n: u s N s :0 83 ............................................................................. 5609 I... n—-.......-.....--.-.2.1:-.-..-......-....213-....-..---...-.-.-..o...---.... gnu—9. ..8 on! u .6300. 8.39.. 897L010... 0... ... 00... 3000.. 0... I... la an. .8 9 a... on .n. .0 £30.. .0 05.0.8 ..0. :I :9 .6080!!- ..8.. 32.0.... .o .0030 0... ...: 59.092 .Hm>mu wm um 9mm» m >n vmuomumo mmocmummuwc unmaumouu 02 n EB mv v IlmmNHm EB o.omlc.mm IlmmNHm Ea m.mmlm.Nm II¢WNHm BE m.~wlm.mm IlmmNHm Ea h.mmlo.vh IINWNHm SE mbA IIHQNHm 133 muawmdflq «.«. ..n n.m m.o m.~ 5.« n.n m.o ~.o 050mm. Hana ..n. o.m ... m.o o.n m.m m.~ m.o o.o n..nu.¢ 5.«. c.n ~.m o.~ ... o.v ..m m.o o.o um>o~u «.«. n.n .... ... ... n.m m.n u.o o.o mmmuowaoum ..m. m." m.~. ¢.o v.n ... m.n «.o o.o mo+mm o.m. ... o.~. ... m.m m.m m.~ v.o o.o mx+mm v... m.~ m.m o.~ «.n ... o.. ..o o.o 090mm. mmc.3mzo o.~. «.« n.o. ..m v.n 5.« n.~ n.o o.o 090mm. can: m.m. m.n o.m m.o «.« >.m v.n m.o o.o mmaummam .m.::mumm m.~. ..n ..m n.. m.~ o.m o.~ m.o o.o mmnummsam >xosucmx n... «.« v.o. o.~ m.n e.m ... p.o o.o :o.un>.u.:o cacao n.n. m.v m.» «.m ... «.« o.~ n.o o.o 06.0.3.0: uuuuuuuu awxnnnnnuunuu unuuuanuuuunuuuuunnmxuuunuuuunuuuuuuunuu quqa AdeH quaH auuuw «uuuw muMHw «uuuw muunIIMMMHw quuaamma «mm. m.\. ~.\o M.GHoah Hanna 000» gouon :0 unmaomncma HOOau vumnouo no uomuum was .nIHH Xaocmmn< Appendix II-K: 134 Soil calibration curve for electrical resistance values from a datalogger and percent mass soil moisture for a Riddles sandy loam. Solid line is the best fit regression line. 135 Soil Moisture Calibration Curve 22.0 A Horizon Soil-~15 cm A 0 £3 LLJ 20.0 - 0C D I.— m I 618.0 “ 1 E i d i O 16.0 — 5 m 5 U) Y=22.27 - 0.025X J 214.0 -« =“O-79‘” i E rical i and 12.0 YTTIIlIITFIIIIIIIIIITIITITIII]ITVII‘IIIIXTYTi—TI .1 idles 50 100 150 200 250 300 fit ELECTRICAL. RESISTANCE(Onm) 20.0 B Horizon Soil—~50 and 45 cm A $8 [£180 - DC :3 I... (D 516.0 - 2 :1. 014.0 — m 0 (fl Y=18.31 —- 0.015X O 2 12.0 _ r=_0.45* l E 10.0 IIIlTrTjI IIIIITIII XIIllriln InIIIiIIT ll—Tiiltil 50 100 150 200 200 300 ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE(Ohm) 136 ..m>0. .m an 0000 m unno.u.cm.m spa: Amo.oum. noon 00:00 mamHuasa m.cooc=o an msou swap“: omunummmm 0:00: 0 a 0.0 a n.m a n.H a a." a m.nH M M.Hn ooauom a 0.0 n m.h n o.m on v.oa n w.md m m.hw omnom a n.n a v.m a m.nv a n.m~ a n.0m a h.Hw omIOV A o.vH n e.m n m.o> n m.~¢ Q m.ho a n.HmH oviom M v.mm a w.mH a m.hHH n H.NOH a m.mm xm h.HHn omlo osomom muaauad oscmmm mmoummsam sofiun>fluaso oofioanumz A30. Hams mocwsmcu axosucmx sumac spawn . 3 H09 ounmmunxo maauou uoom .300 00.» 0:» on Hoaaounm 00.» on» mama .H. a m.H modulomwuoun umm: 0:» co mucoaouosa sumac so on an .mmm Hones: uoou comma kuou so ucoamvmsoa Moody oumnouo no nomumo one “alHHH xfiocmnad HICHIGRN STATE UNI V. I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII7IIIIIIIIIIIIIII|