4.4 Article

Phenological responses of juvenile pecan and white oak on an upland site

Journal

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
Volume 88, Issue 1, Pages 141-155

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10457-013-9662-5

Keywords

Budburst; Carya illinoiensis; Growth; Leaf senescence; Nitrogen fertilization; Quercus alba

Funding

  1. USDA-ARS, Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, Arkansas [6227-21660-003-00D]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pecan (Carya illinoiensis) and white oak (Quercus alba) produce multiple products and wildlife values, but their phenological responses to N fertilization have not been well characterized. We compared tree growth at planting and for six consecutive growing seasons during establishment (2003-2008, Test 1), and determined if phenology of budburst, leaf area index (LAI), quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), radial growth, and total chlorophyll concentration (a, b) responded to poultry litter fertilization supplying 0, 50, and 100 kg ha(-1) N (2010-2012, Test 2) in a mixed-species orchard on an upland site near Booneville, Arkansas. Species did not differ significantly in height in Test 1. Budburst was 9 days earlier for white oak than pecan in 2010. Budburst for both species could be predicted by accumulating chilling and forcing units throughout the dormant season. Maximum predicted radial growth was comparable for pecan (2.19 mm) and white oak (2.26 mm), and peaked 28 days earlier for white oak (3 June) than pecan (1 July). White oak LAI generally exceeded that of pecan during the growing season. Senescence began about 27 October regardless of species, and was better characterized by decreasing Fv/Fm or total chlorophyll concentration than LAI. Phenology was generally not responsive to N fertilization, perhaps because of adequate soil and foliar N. The study provides additional information on growth responses of these high-valued species to supplemental fertilization on an upland site.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available