4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Container height and douglas fir bark texture affect substrate physical properties

Journal

HORTSCIENCE
Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 505-508

Publisher

AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.43.2.505

Keywords

media; container capacity; air space; total porosity; water-holding capacity; moisture gradient; water management

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study was conducted to quantify the effect of substrate texture on water-holding capacity of douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco] bark (DFB) in containers of varying height. Medium (less than 2.2 cm) and fine (less than 0.9 cm) DFB were packed into 7.6 cm W. aluminum cores 3.8, 7.6, and 15.2 cm tall to determine container capacity (CC) and air space (AS) at varying container heights. Increasing container height resulted in a linear decrease in CC and a linear increase in AS. Fine texture DFB bulk density (D-b) increased 18% with increasing container height, whereas Db of medium texture DFB was unaffected. Water-holding capacity decreased 20% and 42% in medium and fine textured DFB, respectively, with increasing container height from 3.8 to 15.2 cm. A second study was conducted to investigate water distribution in a 15.2-cm tall container for a given substrate texture. Polyvinyl chloride cores (15.2 cm tall x 7.6 cm W.) were packed with the same substrates, drained to CC, frozen, and sawed into 2.5-cm sections to determine water-holding capacity at each height. A finer substrate texture increased the amount of water throughout the container profile, but percent of total water for each strata remained similar. Container height and plant size (i.e., transplant or salable), in relation to substrate texture, should be considerations when producing containerized crops. In addition, bark texture alters water-holding capacity and water distribution within the container, ultimately affecting water management practices.

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