This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 27 October 2014, At: 01:27Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compost Science & UtilizationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

Effects of Compost on Loblolly Pine TreeGrowth In Northeast TexasH. Troy Stuckeya & Paul F. Hudakb

a Institute of Applied Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton,Texasb Department of Geography, University of North Texas, Denton,TexasPublished online: 23 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: H. Troy Stuckey & Paul F. Hudak (2001) Effects of Compost on LoblollyPine Tree Growth In Northeast Texas, Compost Science & Utilization, 9:1, 65-72, DOI:10.1080/1065657X.2001.10702018

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2001.10702018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001 65

Compost Science & Utilization, (2001), Vol. 9, No. 1, 65-72

Effects of Compost on Loblolly Pine Tree GrowthIn Northeast Texas

H. Troy Stuckey1 and Paul F. Hudak2

1. Institute of Applied Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas2. Department of Geography, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of compost on loblolly pine treegrowth. Approximately 750 seedlings were planted, 270 of which were measuredmonthly, in a northeast Texas forest ecosystem. Compost was applied at rates of 5, 25,and 50 tons per acre. Planting holes were filled with either native soil or compost. The25-ton per acre application with soil backfill (25S) increased tree survival and growthrelative to a control group and other compost amendments. After two years, trees inthe 25S treatment survived twice as much and grew 41 percent higher than a controlgroup. In general, compost applications yielded higher soil moisture levels, highersurvival rates, and larger growth increases than the control group.

Introduction

Approximately 36 percent of the U.S. municipal waste stream is available for com-posting using existing strategies and technology (EPA 1999). The timber industry maybe a large market for compost produced from municipal solid waste. This industry har-vests loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees throughout the southeastern U.S. (Biblis et al. 1998).Loblolly pines are the main softwood source in the U.S. Potentially, compost could beapplied to large tree plantations to accelerate tree growth and shorten harvest times.The objective of this preliminary, two-year study was evaluating the effect of compostapplications on loblolly pine tree survival, growth, and soil moisture in northeast Texas.

Previous Studies

There have been few previous studies evaluating the effects of compost on pine trees.Bengston and Cornette (1973) applied compost to slash pines (Pinus elliottii) in Florida,finding the compost did not affect tree growth. However, the compost was of low qual-ity, containing nutrient deficient material such as plastic. Geertsema et al. (1994) appliedsewage sludge (biosolids) to pine trees, monitoring the trees for 30 months. The biosolidsdid not affect tree growth. However, other studies have shown that using biosolids asfertilizer can increase forest productivity (Lee et al. 1999). Moreover, concerns thatbiosolids may produce wood with poor mechanical quality are unfounded.

Other investigators have studied the effects of compost on potted vegetation.Valdrighi et al. (1996) applied compost and humus to potted chicory plants. The com-post applications improved plant biomass and stimulated microbe populations in thesoil. Thuesen (1999) applied composted biosolids around 283 freshly planted, con-tainer grown trees in north central Texas. Amendments improved soil nutrient contentbut did not significantly affect tree growth.

Methods

Loblolly pine seedlings were planted in March 1997 near Daingerfield, Texas (Figure 1) on sandy-loam soils with pH levels between 6 and 7. The study area has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

H. Troy Stuckey and Paul F. Hudak

66 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001

long, hot summers and short, mild winters. In July and August, temperatures fre-quently exceed 100°F (38°C) in the daytime. The average annual rainfall is approxi-mately 45 inches (114 cm).

The seedlings, averaging approximately 17 cm in height and 4 mm in diameter,were harvested in a Weyerhaeuser nursery and donated by a local forester. Seedlingswere planted on a 0.74-acre clearing in a loblolly pine forest. Prior to planting, a bull-dozer cleared large brush, while native grasses and low underbrush were clearedwith machetes. Herbicides were not used because the authors did not want to riskcontaminating soil or water on land that was borrowed for the study.

Seventeen rows of experimental tree plots were established. Each experimentalplot measured 6 feet (1.8 m) wide and 16 feet (4.9 m) long (the length parallel to rows).Two to five plots were located in each row (the specific number constrained by siteboundaries). The experimental plots were spaced 18 feet (5.5 m) apart along rows and12 feet (3.7 m) apart between rows. Five trees were planted in each experimental plot,one in the center and the others at the corners. This pattern was used to replicateforestry practices in east Texas and to efficiently utilize available space. Seedlingswere also planted in buffer zones between experimental plots, at a similar spacing totrees in experimental plots, to simulate a tree plantation and prevent cross mixing be-tween experimental plots. Including the buffer zones, approximately 750 trees wereplanted at the site.

Twenty cubic yards (15 m3) of compost from a vendor in Fort Worth, Texas were de-livered to the study area. The compost was made from yard trimmings, pallets, lumber,bread, dough, vegetables, brewery waste, and rhinoceros and elephant manure from theFort Worth Zoo. Upon delivery, it had a pH of 7.5 and a 0.13 percent total nitrogen con-tent. Compost was applied at four rates randomly assigned among the 54 plots (Table1). The compost was evenly spread on top of each plot using shovels and rakes.

Figure 1. Location of study area

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Effects of Compost on Loblolly Pine Tree Growth in Northeast Texas

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001 67

Height and diameter were measured monthly at the 270 trees in experimentalplots. A stake was hammered into the soil next to each tree to establish a constant pointfor measuring height, which was measured from the stake to the highest point of thetree. Needles were not counted as a part of the height measurement. A caliper was usedto measure diameters in millimeters. Diameter measurements were taken at the high-est point just below the first branch of a seedling (newly planted loblolly pine treesshow little variation in trunk diameter up to the first branch).

Soil moisture was monitored with a Kelway tester at each compost application andthe control group. One plot was selected for each application, and each of the trees inthe plot was monitored for soil moisture. Temperature and precipitation data were ob-tained from a nearby collection station of the National Weather Service.

Each month, tree growth was calculated by subtracting the original height (or di-ameter) of a tree from the current height (or diameter). Growth values attained for anygiven month (X) were accumulated rather than incremental values, because the initialmeasurements (Month 1), rather than measurements taken in the preceding month,were subtracted from heights and diameters measured in Month X. Accumulatedgrowth in height and diameter were plotted as time series. Data were analyzed withparametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with repeated measures, using Tukey’sMultiple Range Test, and Chi-Square contingency tests.

Results

Cumulative rainfall was close to the annual average in each year of the experi-ment. However, periodic drought conditions persisted during the initial summermonths. Figure 2 illustrates monthly deviations from normal precipitation levels.Mean monthly maximum temperatures ranged from the upper 50s (°F) in winter to90s and 100s in summer (Figure 3). Temperature lows ranged from the 30s in winterto 70s in summer.

Drought conditions caused sharp declines in tree survival over the time periodspreceding Months 7 and 19 (Figure 4, Table 1). Chi-Square tests were performed atfour-month increments to determine if tree survival was contingent on application.The p-values for Months 17 (p=0.030) and 21 (p=0.043) were statistically significant(�=0.05). At Month 17, the 25S treatment had a 48 percent survival rate, 50C had a43 percent survival rate, and the control had a 20 percent survival rate. By Month

TABLE 1.Tree survival and growth

Cumulative Application Number of Growth (Living Trees) at Rate Plots/ Survival % Month 25(tons/acre) Back-fill Trees Month 7 Month 19 Height (cm) Diameter (mm)

0 S 13/65 51 20 44.9 7.8C 5/25 48 12 63.4 9.5

5 S 6/30 50 17 59.5 9.5C 7/35 43 17 60.7 9.3

25 S 5/25 64 44 63.5 9.9C 6/30 43 23 50.8 8.0

50 S 6/30 47 20 49.3 7.3C 6/30 60 40 48.1 7.1

S: hole dug for seedling filled in (backfilled) with native soil removed from hole; C: hole dug for seedling filled in withcompost; 0S: control group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

H. Troy Stuckey and Paul F. Hudak

68 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001

Figure 2. Monthly deviations from normal precipitation

Figure 3. Mean monthly temperatures

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Effects of Compost on Loblolly Pine Tree Growth in Northeast Texas

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001 69

25, survival rates for 25S (40 percent) and 50C plot (40 percent) were still the high-est among all treatments, though not statistically significant (p=0.084). The controlgroup had a 20 percent survival rate at the end of the experiment. Other applica-tions had survival rates ranging from 12 percent (0C treatment) to 23 percent (25Ctreatment) (Figure 4).

Drought also stunted growth of surviving trees. Little growth occurred during thefirst 11 months, while the trees established themselves (Figure 5). In the South, growthtypically accelerates in February and March (Schultz 1997). By Month 11 (March 1998),trees in the 25S plots had grown slightly higher than trees in the other plots. Growthdifferences among treatments increased between Months 12 and 18 (Figure 5). DuringMonths 19 to 22, the trees lay dormant with little growth. The second growing seasonbegan at Month 23 (March 1999). By the end of the study (May 1999), living trees inthe 25S group had grown an average of 63.5 cm, compared to 44.9 cm for the controlgroup (Table 1).

Growth in diameter was less obvious than height, but still differed between theeight treatments. By the end of the experiment, living trees in the 25S plots had anaverage diameter increase of 9.9 mm, compared to 7.8 mm for the control group(Table 1).

ANOVAs showed no statistical significance (�=0.05) among diameters of liv-ing trees for any of the 25 months compared to the baseline month (May 1997).Growth in height was significantly different among applications from Months 3to 9. Throughout the experiment, soil moisture levels were higher in compost ap-plications compared to the control group (Table 2). There were significant differ-ences in the mean moisture content of the eight treatments in months 1, 2, 4, 6-8,10, and 18-25.

Figure 4. Tree survival trends

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

H. Troy Stuckey and Paul F. Hudak

70 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001

Figure 5. Average heights of living trees

TABLE 2.Percent mean soil moisture

Treatment

Month 0C 25C 25S 50C 50S 5C 5S Control

1 51 42 57 56 46 25 40 28

2 59 54 66 66 60 54 50 50

3 30 32 27 42 23 27 18 17

4 70 67 63 66 66 70 53 56

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 2

7 61 59 58 67 60 63 43 53

8 54 52 51 64 49 58 42 50

9 50 46 57 59 46 57 50 48

10 52 59 66 68 54 68 44 58

11 49 50 60 57 54 55 44 49

12 63 60 59 63 54 67 39 49

13 14 21 20 29 0 19 5 18

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 56 50 70 72 63 60 53 55

19 61 70 70 67 54 66 46 52

20 62 64 61 66 62 63 48 51

21 54 58 59 65 60 58 45 52

22 48 65 60 67 62 59 41 49

23 60 58 70 63 61 64 43 52

24 61 63 68 71 56 64 43 57

25 76 65 83 68 77 70 55 65

ANOVA showed significant differences among treatments in underlined months.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Effects of Compost on Loblolly Pine Tree Growth in Northeast Texas

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001 71

Discussion

Periodic drought, especially during the first five months of the experiment, causeda high death toll, but provided an opportunity to study survivability as a function ofcompost application. Hot, dry summer months were most stressful. The first summerwas especially traumatic, because the seedlings had not yet established deep rootstructures. In order to replicate standard forestry practices, the site was not irrigated.Drought tolerance is crucial in northeast Texas tree plantations, where extended peri-ods of low rainfall and high temperatures are common.

Survival differences are noteworthy compared to height and diameter differencesover the two-year study. By the end of the study, the 25S and 50C applications hadtwice the survival rate of the control group. Most of the growth occurred in the springand early summer months, which is typical of pine forests in northeast Texas. In gen-eral, compost-amended trees had higher survival rates and grew more than trees inthe control group. Among compost amended plots, trees in the 25S treatment grew themost. Apparently, the nutrient and moisture retention capacity of this application isfavorable for growing loblolly pine in the study area.

The 25S application employed native soil as opposed to compost backfillaround planting holes. Shocking the roots of pine seedlings with compost canslow tree growth. Compost layered over the soil moves to the roots more gradu-ally and accelerates growth. At an actual tree plantation, a 25S application wouldbe easier to use than some of the alternative applications. It does not require back-filling planting holes with compost, and it requires less compost than 50C or 50Sapplications.

This study also suggests that compost should not be applied to tree plantationsat arbitrarily high levels. An intermediate application of 25 tons per acre yieldedmore growth than a 50-ton per acre application. Arbitrarily high compost applica-tions can develop soil conditions that deviate too far from those in which the treesnormally grow. For example, the compost had a pH of 7.5, but native soil at the sitewas slightly acidic.

Summary and Conclusion

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of compost on loblolly pinesurvival and growth in northeast Texas. A 25-ton per acre application of compost, cou-pled with native soil in planting holes, doubled survival and increased the height ofpine seedlings compared to a control group. This study illustrates the potential utilityof compost for planting loblolly pine trees. Such environmentally responsible, sus-tainable establishment practices could catalyze more compost production, savingvaluable space in municipal landfills.

The study was restricted by drought conditions, causing high mortality amongpine seedlings, and a short time frame. Future studies should explore alternative ap-plication styles, the use of compost on established trees, and longer time frames. Al-ternative application styles include plowing compost into soil instead of layering itover soil and using localized, circular layering instead of broad, orthogonal layering.Using compost at established sites would alleviate planting shock. Future studies, inconjunction with results reported herein, would help determine the economic viabili-ty of applying compost to tree plantations, an essential step for establishing a new com-post market.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4

H. Troy Stuckey and Paul F. Hudak

72 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2001

Acknowledgement

This study was funded in part by grants from the Texas Natural Resource Con-servation Commission, ARK-TEX Council of Governments, and University of NorthTexas.

References

Bengtson, G.W. and J.J. Cornette. 1973. Disposal of composted municipal waste in a plan-tation of young slash pine: Effects on soil and trees. Journal of Environmental Quality,2(4):441-444.

Biblis, E., H. Carino and L. Teeter. 1998. Comparative economic analysis of two managementoptions for Loblolly Pine timber plantations. Forest Products Journal, 48(4):29-33.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Organic Materials Management Strate-gies. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Geertsema, W.S., W.R. Knocke, J.T. Novak and D. Dove. 1994. Long-term effects of sludgeapplication to land. Journal of American Water Works Association, November Issue:64-74.

Lee, A., G. Chen, D. Dickens and A. Miller. 1999. Selected mechanical properties of woodproduced by loblolly pine trees fertilized with sludge. Forest Products Journal,49(9):43-47.

Schultz, R.P. 1997. Loblolly Pine: The Ecology and Culture of Loblolly Pine. U.S. Forest Service,Agricultural Handbook 173, Washington, DC.

Thuesen, K. 1999. Effects of Organic Surface Amendments on Soil Nutrients and Initial Tree Es-tablishment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.

Valdrighi, M.M., A. Pero, M. Agnolucci, S. Frassinetti, D. Lunardi and G. Vallini. 1996. Ef-fects of compost derived humic acids on vegetable biomass production and microbialgrowth within a plant (Chichorium intybus) soil system: A comparative study. Agri-culture, Ecosystems and Environment, 58:133-144.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

1:27

27

Oct

ober

201

4