ArticlePDF Available

The Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings II: A Review of Strategies to Mitigate Human Impacts

Authors:
  • illinois landscape contractors association

Abstract

Root systems of nearly all trees in the built environment are subject to impacts of human activities that can affect tree health and reduce longevity. These influences are present from early stages of nursery development and throughout the life of the tree. Reduced root systems from root loss or constriction can reduce stability and increase stress. Natural infection of urban tree roots after severing has not been shown to lead to extensive decay development. Roots often conflict with infrastructure in urban areas because of proximity. Strategies to provide root space under pavements and to reduce pavement heaving have been developed, but strategies for prevention of foundation and sewer pipe damage are limited to increasing separation or improved construction.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
249
Gary W. Watson, Angela M. Hewitt, Melissa Custic, and Marvin Lo
The Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban
and Suburban Settings II: A Review of Strategies
to Mitigate Human Impacts
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2014. 40(5): 249–271
Abstract. Root systems of nearly all trees in the built environment are subject to impacts of human activities that can aect tree
health and reduce longevity. ese inuences are present from early stages of nursery development and throughout the life of the
tree. Reduced root systems from root loss or constriction can reduce stability and increase stress. Natural infection of urban tree
roots aer severing has not been shown to lead to extensive decay development. Roots oen conict with infrastructure in urban
areas because of proximity. Strategies to provide root space under pavements and to reduce pavement heaving have been developed,
but strategies for prevention of foundation and sewer pipe damage are limited to increasing separation or improved construction.
Key Words. Ground-Penetrating Radar; Infrastructure Damage; Root Architecture; Root Decay; Root Defects; Rooting Space; Root
Flare; Root Severing; Stability.
Tree root systems are generally shallow and wide-
spread (Day et al. 2010). Human activity around
trees frequently impacts tree root systems, decreas-
ing tree health and reducing longevity compared to
trees on natural sites. Construction and repair of
infrastructure oen severs tree roots. e presence
of buildings and pavements can restrict root systems
with detrimental eects on both the tree and the
structure. Urban landscape design and maintenance
can be very dierent than the natural environment
to which the trees are adapted. Root architecture is
altered by nursery production and transplanting,
which can aect the tree throughout its life. e
management challenge is to avoid or reduce these
impacts through proper management, including
minimizing injury to existing roots, speeding root
regrowth aer severing occurs, and maximizing
the quality and quantity of root space in design.
ROOT ARCHITECTURE AND
STABILITY
Tree stability depends heavily on both root system
architecture and the anchorage of roots in the soil.
Root/soil resistance gives rise to the characteris-
tic mass of roots and soil seen on uprooted trees,
known as the root plate. e anchorage strength of
a tree root system has four components: 1) the mass
of the roots and soil levered out of the ground, 2) the
strength of the soil and depth of root penetration
under the root plate, 3) the resistance to failure in
tension of tree roots on the windward side as the up-
ward movement of the root–soil plate causes roots
to pull out of the soil with or without rst break-
ing, and 4) the length of the lever arm (where the
roots hinge) on the leeward side, which is aected
by root diameter and resistance to bending of the
tree roots (Coutts 1983; Coutts 1986; Blackwell et
al. 1990; Kodrik and Kodrik 2002). A change in one
feature can aect several others. us, an increase
in root plate diameter will increase the weight com-
ponent, the length of lever arm between the trunk
and the roots around the perimeter of the plate,
and the area of root/soil contact under the plate.
As each of these anchorage components increases,
the greater the force needed to tip up the root plate.
Uneven distribution (large sections without roots)
reduces anchorage (Sundstrom and Keane 1999).
Environmental factors inuence root architec-
ture and stability. If roots penetrate deeper, as can
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
250
be the case in sandy soil, the tap root and deeper
roots have more inuence on overturning resis-
tance in sandy soil compared with clayey soil (Four-
caud et al. 2008). Wind loading appears to result in
increased growth of lateral roots at the expense of
the tap root. Development of the lateral root system
may therefore ensure better anchorage of young
trees subjected to wind loading (Tamasi et al. 2005).
Root branching shortens the root plate lever
arm and makes tipping easier. e roots of nearly
all trees in urban areas have been severed during
transplanting, which creates branching at the cut
end and smaller regenerated roots. is branching
may shorten the root plate fulcrum on the leeward
side and reduce the diameter of the roots at the
perimeter of the root plate, with the possible eect
of rendering urban trees less stable than their forest
counterparts with less-branched, larger roots. How-
ever, no direct research on urban trees is available.
ROOT INJURY
Consequences of Root Severing
Analysis of published data on root spread of trees
concluded that the radius of the root system is
approximately equal to tree height (Day et al.
2010), which is oen greater than the radius of
the branches (drip line). Given the close proxim-
ity of trees to structures, pavements, and utili-
ties in most urban and suburban landscapes, tree
roots can be easily injured by soil excavation.
Root loss from severing can be considered tem-
porary when roots are able to regenerate and even-
tually replace roots that were lost. If the root space is
permanently lost (e.g., resulting from construction
of a structure or pavement in the root zone), then
the root system will not be able to replace itself, and
stress and stability concerns may never be overcome.
Root loss from trenching can aect both tree
health and stability. Trenching through the root zone
of parkway trees was considered to be responsible
for substantial tree dieback and decline over the fol-
lowing 12 years, and was the basis for development
of auguring specications in common use (Morell
1984). While generally accepted, the little research
available has not been completely supportive.
When trenches were dug for installation of new
utilities 0.5 to 3.3 m from hackberry (Celtis occiden-
talis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), sugar
maple (Acer saccharum), and honeylocust (Gleditsia
triacanthos), only on hackberry, where the trench
was only 0.5 m from the trunk (approximately 1.5
times the trunk diameter), was growth-reduced
for all four growing seasons monitored following
trenching. e trenching did not predispose the
trees to readily evident disease or insect infestations
(Miller and Neely 1993). If the trench was three times
the trunk diameter away from the trunk, or more,
no consistent growth reduction was measured. No
growth reduction or dieback was reported when pin
oak (Quercus palustris) trees were trenched on one
or two sides at a distance of three times the trunk
diameter. However, moderate dieback was noted
on trees that were trenched on three sides (Watson
1998). Street or sidewalk construction at a distance
of ve to seven times the trunk diameter from the
tree resulted in only a 4% increase in mortality and a
5% decrease in condition rating (Hauer et al. 1994).
Root loss reduces the capacity of the root system
to absorb water, most of which is transpired through
the leaves. Compensatory pruning along with severe
trenching reduced dieback from stress but was most
benecial aer the most severe root loss (Watson
1998). ese trees did not receive any irrigation
or special care, which could possibly have reduced
dieback development even without pruning.
Hamilton (1988) suggested that some species
may be more prone to uprooting aer root pruning,
based on observation. Stability of trees aer the roots
have been severed is a concern that has not been
fully addressed by research. When trenches were cut
alongside trees, tree anchorage was compromised by
trenches only when closer than 2.5 times the diam-
eter of the trunk on the tension side (Bader 2000;
Smiley 2008b; Ghani et al. 2009). e surprisingly
high anchorage of the trees with such severe root loss
was thought to be because rooting depth close to the
trunk was a major component of anchorage. Cut-
ting roots on both sides of the tree reduced the force
required to cause tree failure by two-thirds when
trees were trenched simultaneously at ve times the
trunk diameter on the tension side and about half
that distance on the compression side (approximate
location of the root plate hinge point) (O’Sullivan and
Ritchie 1993). Trees with asymmetrical or restricted
root systems may be less stable aer root severing.
ese studies suggest that vigorous trees less than
30 cm diameter may be able to tolerate roots being
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
251
severed on one side as close as three times the trunk
diameter without a major loss in stability or crown
decline. Larger trees, such as those on which the
specications were based, may be less tolerant. As
surprising as it might seem that root severing did
not kill any trees or cause severe dieback in these
studies, consider that when roots are cut to form
a root ball to transplant a tree, roots are cut on all
sides at a distance of three to ve times the diam-
eter of the trunk (Anonymous 2004; Anonymous
2010). e trees are stressed, but even very large
trees recover if cared for properly. Comparison of
trenched trees in the established landscape to trans-
planted trees may be fairly realistic (Hamilton 1988).
Root Decay
Principles of Compartmentalization of Decay
in Trees (CODIT, Shigo 1977) apply to roots as
well as stems, although roots have not been stud-
ied as extensively (Shigo 1972; Shigo 1979a; Tip-
pett and Shigo 1980; Tippett and Shigo 1981;
White and Kile 1993; Robinson and Morrison
2001). Because root injuries are common and in-
juries serve as infection courts for root-rotting or-
ganisms (Tippett et al. 1982), roots have evolved
to be strong compartmentalizers (Shigo 1986).
Average values of longitudinal extension of decay
columns in roots of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis),
white r (Abies concolor), and Norway spruce
(Picea abies) aer articial inoculation have been
reported from 10 to 53 cm per year, (Morrison and
Redfern 1994; Garbelotto et al. 1997; Piri 1998).
Decay introduced experimentally through root
wounds within a meter of the trunk can extend into
the trunk (Redmond 1957; Garbelotto et al. 1997).
In contrast, the natural infection of landscape tree
roots 3 to 22 cm in diameter aer severing has not
led to extensive decay development. Five to seven
years aer severing, decay extended no more than
10 cm from the severed end of roots of 7-year-old
sweetgum (Liquidambar orientalis × L. styraciua)
and plane hybrids (Platanus occidentalis × P. orien-
talis) (Santamour 1985), or 40-year-old honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis), pin oak (Quercus
palustris), tulip-tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) trees (Watson
2008). Trunk wood decay was observed only when
the root cambium had died back to, or above, the soil
surface and may have been the result of trunk injury
(cambial death) rather than the root wounding
(Santamour 1985). Although the number of research
studies is limited, these results suggest that decay
development as a result of severing roots is not an
immediate threat to the health or stability of a tree.
Santamour (1985) also reported dierences
between species in their ability to resist trunk decay
and discoloration aer root severance. Four years
aer severing roots within 0.5 m of the trunk, there
was no discoloration or decay in trunk tissues in red
maples (Acer rubrum), and 6 cm maximum in the
roots. Discoloration and decay was present in trunk
tissues of 2 of 10 black oaks (Quercus velutina) and 4
of 10 white oaks (Q. alba ) aer similar root severance.
Root size and proximity to the trunk has been
reported to aect decay development rate. Root
decay increased as root size increased on hard-
woods (Whitney 1967; Santamour 1985; Balder
et al. 1995; Balder 1999) and conifers (Piri 1998;
Tian and Ostrofsky 2007). Injury to roots close
to the trunk resulted in more extensive decay
on hardwoods (Shigo 1979b; Balder et al. 1995;
Balder 1999). Other studies do not support
these conclusions (Shigo 1991; Watson 2008).
Injury of roots in the dormant season may lead
to poorer compartmentalization and increased
decay development, but reports are inconsistent
(Santamour 1985; Balder et al. 1995; Balder 1999).
Stressing and limiting the development of roots,
particularly constriction of root diameter growth,
as results from certain root defects, predispose the
roots to Armillaria infection (Livingston 1990). e
increased success of infection by Armillaria sp. as a
result of root severance appears to be associated with
changes in the nutrient status of the roots aer they
have been damaged, rather than simply an increase
in sites for penetration (Popoola and Fox 1996).
Trees that fail due to root decay under non-
stormy conditions oen have extensive decay in
the root are (roots forming the curvature between
vertical trunk and the angled structural roots, also
known as buttress roots). Decay can develop on
the lower side of major are roots, where it can
remain undetected. Drilling is recommended to
determine the amount of sound wood. Major are
roots are considered signicantly decayed if the
thickness of the sound wood on the root is less
than 0.15 times the tree diameter (Fraedrich and
Smiley 2002). ermography can be eective in
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
252
approximating the decayed areas of the root col-
lar (Cellerino and Nicolotti 1998; Catena 2003).
Locating Roots
Locating roots prior to construction to avoid dam-
aging them is time-consuming and expensive if
done with hand digging. Introduction of air ex-
cavation tools has made the task considerably
more ecient (Nadezhdina and Cermak 2003).
Non-destructive, ground-penetrating radar can
be used to map larger roots. Roots 1.0 cm diam-
eter and larger, and as deep as 2 m, can be detected
(Hruska et al. 1999; Cermak et al. 2000; Butnor et
al. 2001; Butnor et al. 2003; Nadezhdina and Cer-
mak 2003; Barton and Montagu 2004). Vertical
roots and roots with less than 20% water content
could not be detected by ground-penetrating radar
(Stokes et al. 2002; Hirano et al. 2009). Two roots
located closely together cannot be individually dis-
tinguished (Hirano et al. 2009; Bassuk et al. 2011).
Resolution of roots may be best in sandy, well-
drained soils, whereas soils with high soil water
and clay contents may seriously degrade resolu-
tion and observation depth (Butnor et al. 2001).
Interference from other objects present in the
soil was sometimes found to be a problem in
early ground-penetrating radar studies (Cellerino
and Nicolotti 1998; Hruska et al. 1999). Ground-
penetrating radar was eective in structural soil,
which is 80% stone (Bassuk et al. 2011). Roots
could be mapped under concrete and asphalt
(Nadezhdina and Cermak 2003; Bassuk et al.
2011). Development of soware to reconstruct 3D
images of root system architecture from raw data
may still need improvement (Stokes et al. 2002).
Root Regeneration
Root severing can increase the rate of root growth
on one-year-old seedlings or rooted cuttings, but
the more rapid root production merely compensates
for the roots removed (Abod and Webster 1990).
e potential for water uptake is proportional to
the number of new roots produced (Carlson 1986).
When woody roots are severed, numerous new
roots are initiated at, or just behind, the cut (Wil-
cox 1955; Carlson 1974; Watson and Himelick
1982a; Gilman et al. 2010). However, a portion of
regenerated roots can originate from at least 10
cm behind the cut, depending on species (Gilman
and Yeager 1988). The ability of damaged roots to
form new roots decreased with increasing diam-
eter (Balder et al. 1995; Balder 1999). When a root
is severed, new roots that formed nearest to the cut
surface will elongate in the same direction as the
original root. New roots forming slightly behind
the cut surface tend to grow at more perpendic-
ular angles to the original root (Horsley 1971).
Initiation of new roots from severed palm
roots varies with species and distance from the
base of the trunk (Broschat and Donselman
1984). Less than one percent of all cut cabbage
palm (Sabal palmetto) roots regenerated root tips,
whereas coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) regener-
ated root tips about 50% of the time regardless
of root stub length. For other species of palms,
such as queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana),
royal palm (Roystonea regia), Mexican fan palm
(Washingtonia robusta), and Senegal date palm
(Phoenix reclinata) the percentage of roots sur-
viving increases with stub length (Broschat and
Donselman 1984; Broschat and Donselman
1990a). Cutting palm roots at least 30 cm from
the trunk will ensure better survival of exist-
ing roots (Broschat and Donselman 1990a).
Auxins are commonly used to promote rooting
in stem cuttings and can increase the number of
new roots initiated near the cut ends of roots.
Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), indole-3-acetic acid
and naphthaleneacetic acid applied to roots
resulted in increased root initiation (Gossard
1942; Verzilov 1970; Lumis 1982; Magley and
Struve 1983; Prager and Lumis 1983; Struve and
Moser 1984; Fuchs 1986; Watson 1987; Al-Mana
and Beattie 1996; Percival and Gerritsen 1998;
Percival and Barnes 2004), but may reduce root
elongation (Struve and Moser 1984; Percival
and Barnes 2004). Addition of 5% sucrose to
the auxin solution enhanced the results (Fuchs
1986). Verzilov (1970) reported increased root
growth into the third season after application
but was unsure if it was a residual effect of the
auxin application or resulted from greater tree
vigor after the initial increase in root growth.
IBA treatment did not increase root initiation
of palms (Broschat and Donselman 1990b).
e rate of new root initiation is aected by
the environment. At near-optimum soil tempera-
tures, new root growth was detected in 4 to 43
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
253
days depending on species (Howland and Grith
1961; Arnold and Struve 1989). Intact root tips
began to elongate before new roots were initiated
(Arnold and Struve 1989). Total new root length
was positively correlated with soil temperature
with signicantly more new root growth at 20ºC
(Andersen et al. 1986). Tree ne-root growth
was slowed by approximately half when soil tem-
peratures dropped from 20ºC to 10ºC (Tyron and
Chapin 1983). When roots are severed late in
autumn, aer soils have cooled, substantial new
root growth may not occur until the soils have
warmed again in the spring. In warmer regions,
active root growth may continue all winter. Plants
that were slightly drought-stressed prior to sev-
ering roots had greater root regeneration (Abod
and Sandi 1983), but decreased soil moisture aer
severing signicantly reduced root regeneration
(Witherspoon and Lumis 1986). Plants supplied
with adequate (non-decient) nutrients before
transplanting had a high capacity to regener-
ate roots following root severing (Abod 1990).
Annual root extension depends on species and
annual soil temperature regime. In the upper Mid-
western United States (USDA Hardiness Zone 5),
with its moderate summers and frozen soils in win-
ter, roots grow at an average annual rate of approxi-
mately 50 cm (Watson 1985; Watson 2004). In one
season under nursery conditions in Hardiness Zone
6, red oak (Quercus rubra) roots grew 53–61 cm
(Starbuck et al. 2005) and birch (Betula pendula)
roots grew 89 cm (Soleld and Pedersen 2006).
In the subtropical climate of north central Florida
(Hardiness Zone 9), where the growing season is
nearly year-round, annual root growth is up to 2 m
or more for some oak (Quercus) and citrus species
that have been studied (Castle 1983; Gilman 1990;
Gilman and Beeson 1996). As the roots continue to
increase in length, ne roots continue to increase in
density for up to ve years (Hutchings et al. 2006).
Root growth for some species will be higher or
lower than average gures. For example, black maple
(Acer nigrum) roots grew 39 cm in a season in the
midwestern United States, which is near the expected
average. Under the same conditions, green ash (Frax-
inus pennsylvanica) grew nearly twice as much, 67
cm (Watson 2004). In general, it may require many
years to replace the roots lost when they are severed.
Fine-Root Desiccation
ere is sometimes concern that ne roots subject
to drying by excavation will be damaged. Desicca-
tion of little-leaf linden (Tilia cordata), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sugar maple (Acer
saccharum) ne roots had no eect on root regen-
eration (Witherspoon and Lumis 1986; Watson
2009), though moisture content was reduced by
as much as 80% (Watson 2009). In contrast, root
growth of wild cherry (Prunus avium) and cherry
plum (P. cerasifera), and of noble r (Abies procera)
seedlings, was reduced aer desiccation treat-
ment (Symeonidou and Buckley 1997; Bronnum
2005). Susceptibility of ne roots to damage
from desiccation may be species dependent.
ALTERATION OF ROOT STRUCTURE
Root structure and tree growth rate are closely
related. For conifers (Picea sp., Abies sp., Pinus
taeda) and hardwoods (Quercus sp., Liquidambar
styraciua, Juglans nigra) studied, when one-year-
old seedlings are sorted by root morphology, indi-
viduals with a high number of laterals consistent-
ly have greater growth aer planting (Kormanik
1986; Ruehle and Kormanik 1986; Kormanik 1988;
Kormanik et al. 1989; Schultz and ompson 1997;
Kormanik et al. 1998; Gilman 1990; Ponder 2000).
Little information is available on how long this
increased growth persists, but large forest trees that
have out-competed their weaker neighbors over
a lifetime typically have many visible are roots.
Structural Root Depth
e large woody roots giving characteristic form to
the root system are commonly referred to as struc-
tural roots (Sutton and Tinus 1983). ese roots
can be too deep for many reasons. Roots of young
trees can be too deep because nursery production
systems can increase structural root depth. Prun-
ing the primary (tap) root of seedlings early in the
production of eld-grown nursery stock produces
adventitious roots at the cut end of the primary root
that grow rapidly (Johnson et al. 1984; Harris et al.
2001; Hewitt and Watson 2009). Up to 60% of the
natural lateral roots that would normally develop
into are roots located above the regenerated roots
may be lost (Hewitt and Watson 2009). e vigor-
ously growing adventitious roots at the cut end,
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
254
and loss of natural lateral roots above them, oen
replace the natural root are (swelling where roots
join the trunk also known as the trunk are) with
an “adventitious root are” deeper in the soil. e
depth of the adventitious root are is determined
by the length of the primary root aer pruning
(root shank). Even if the tree is planted at the origi-
nal depth with the gra union visible aboveground,
the adventitious root are can be 30 cm or more
below the soil surface. Other practices, such as
burying the gra union below the soil surface and
certain cultivation practices, can also contribute to
root depth. Young trees can be more susceptible
to being blown over by high winds when depth
to the rst root is excessive (Lyons et al. 1982).
e structural roots can also be too deep in con-
tainer-grown nursery stock if trees are not planted
carefully at each repotting. A dense mat of roots can
ll the soil above the woody roots that form the root
are (Fare 2006; Gilman and Harchick 2008; Gil-
man et al. 2010b), and make it impossible to plant
the woody roots at the correct depth without cutting
away a substantial portion of the roots in the ball.
Though trees may grow well enough in the
well-drained substrate of the container or high-
quality soil of the nursery field, they may struggle
to survive when planted on difficult urban sites
with heavy soils and poor drainage (Switzer 1960;
McClure 1991; Day and Harris 2008). The conse-
quences may not be seen immediately. Regener-
ated roots can grow back to the surface (Day and
Harris 2008), but the root collar will always be
too deep. Dramatic improvements in tree condi-
tion have been attributed to root collar excavation
in practice (Smiley 2006). In the only published
research study, street trees failed to show any
influence of root collar excavation on tree growth
over a four-year period (Rathjens et al. 2009).
Root systems of established trees can become
deeper when fill soil is added over them. Research
has not been able to consistently show detrimen-
tal effects on trees, though reports from prac-
tice attribute poor performance and Armillaria
and Phytophthora infections to deep roots and
soil against the trunk (Smiley 2006). After three
years, there was no consistent effect of 20 cm of C
horizon fill on overall root density, growth, or soil
respiration. Fill did disrupt normal soil moisture
patterns (Day et al. 2001). After approximately ten
years, the fill still had no effect on trunk diameter
growth. Bark of some oak trees appeared to be
decaying, but bark biopsies revealed only sapro-
phytic fungi (Day et al. 2006). A “collar rot” caused
by a Phytophthora sp. and a “basal canker” caused
by Fusarium spp. were associated with buttress
roots of planted maples that were deeper than roots
of natural, woodland maples (Drilias et al. 1982).
Installation of subterranean piping systems
or core venting systems to counter the adverse
impact of fills is sometimes recommended (Har-
ris et al. 1999). Studies of aeration pipes installed
prior to addition of fill have been inconclusive.
With or without pavement-like surface cover,
conditions under fill were not severe enough for
any “improved” effect to be measured from the
use of an aeration system. Greater trunk growth
in plots with aeration pipes was attributed to
increased soil moisture in the plot with aera-
tion pipes (MacDonald et al. 2004; Townsend et
al. 1997). These results underscore the need for
further quantitative studies of conditions cre-
ated by various fill and paving procedures to
better ascertain the usefulness of elaborate and
expensive aeration systems. Other factors asso-
ciated with raising the grade, such as soil traf-
ficking and root severance, may be responsible
for much of the tree decline attributed to fill.
A layer of crushed rock over existing soil
before lling with clay soil increased oxygen (per-
cent) and reduced carbon dioxide in the soil
beneath it compared to a comparable area where
no crushed rock was used before clay ll was
placed over the soil surface (Yelenosky 1964).
Circling Roots
Growing trees in nursery containers alters natural
root structure (Halter et al. 1993). Reports are rare
of adventitious roots developing above the circling,
kinked, or twisted form found within the container
root ball aer planting (Gilman and Kane 1990).
Circling roots on the surface of the container
root ball are widely recognized as a defect and it is
common practice to disrupt these by making sev-
eral vertical cuts, or “slashes,” on the outside of the
root ball before planting (Ellyard 1984; Blessing
and Dana 1987; Arnold 1996; Gilman et al. 1996).
Methods that disrupt circling roots do not elimi-
nate descending, ascending, and kinked roots. Con-
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
255
tainers designed to prevent circling oen direct
roots contacting the wall down to the bottom or
up to the surface. Root deformities oen become
a permanent part of the root system (Grene 1978).
Root ball “shaving” is cutting o the outer surface
of the root ball to remove all roots on the root ball
surface. It results in a root system with roots grow-
ing more radially from the trunk (Burdett 1981; Gil-
man et al. 2010). Root growth aer planting trees
from containers without shaving was one-quarter
of that of eld-grown trees and resulted in reduced
tree stability (Gilman and Masters 2010). Growing
plants in CuCO3-treated containers resulted in the
reduced defects aer planting in the landscape (Bur-
dett 1978; Arnold and Struve 1989; Arnold 1996).
Girdling Roots
Girdling roots have a dierent origin than circling
roots caused by production containers and can be a
signicant problem for at least some species of trees
planted as eld-grown stock. Norway maples (Acer
platanoides) frequently had severely girdling roots as
mature trees (Watson et al. 1990; Wells et al. 2006).
All 50-year-old Norway maples (Acer platanoides)
had one to nine girdling roots. ere was no graing
between girdling roots and trunks (Tate 1980). Gir-
dling roots and potentially girdling roots were more
common on sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and red
maple (Acer rubrum) than on green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos),
littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata), and Yoshino cherry
(Prunus × yedoensis) trees, 2 to 10 years aer planting.
e majority of the girdling roots can be either
small, existing laterals when transplanted, or new
laterals initiated during the rst year aer trans-
planting. Lateral roots at perpendicular angles,
close to the base of the trunk, are naturally posi-
tioned to develop into girdling roots. Growth of
these lateral roots is oen slow while the root ter-
minal is intact, but can be stimulated when the ter-
minal is severed as the tree is dug from the nursery.
Further evidence that girdling roots result from
transplanting is provided by the low incidence of
girdling roots found in nature (Watson et al. 1990).
Girdling roots have been associated with exces-
sive soil over the root system (dAmbrosio 1990; Gib-
lin et al. 2005; Wells et al. 2006), though not always
(Watson et al. 1990). One report hypothesized
through observation that girdling roots are associ-
ated with low dense crowns creating cool and moist
conditions at the base of the tree (dAmbrosio 1990).
Cross-sectional area of vessels in stem xylem
aected by the girdle was only 10% that of unaected
wood. Rays in stem wood were skewed and contained
few pits. Bark on girdled stems was compressed
from a normal thickness. e oending roots sus-
tained slight compression of cells where in contact
with the stem and appeared to remain functional.
us, girdling roots apparently cause tree decline
by reducing stem conductivity and radial commu-
nication between tissues (Hudler and Beale 1981).
Girdling roots do not always cause rapid decline
or death of trees. Aboveground decline symptoms of
girdling roots include gradual shortening of termi-
nal growth, small leaves, early autumn color, dieback
of branches in sections of the canopy, and partial or
total absence of a root are (Gouin 1983; Holmes
1984). A survey of 416 urban Norway maples (Acer
platanoides) found that although 336 had girdling
roots, most girdling was minor and did not lead to
visible decline of the trees (Tate 1981). Red (Acer
rubrum) and sugar maples (Acer saccharum) arti-
cially girdled with angle iron to simulate a girdling
root on one side, remained alive for seven to eight
years, but Norway maples engulfed the girdling
devices and were alive aer 17 years (Holmes 1984).
Treatments consisting of cutting girdling roots,
fertilizing, and pruning foliage were evaluated
aer two years and did not alleviate aboveground
symptoms (Tate 1980). Removal of potential gir-
dling roots resulted in a detrimental eect on
twig extension (Rathjens et al. 2009). Removal
of girdling roots as an early corrective treatment
on young Norway maple trees did not eliminate
them. Multiple roots reformed from the wound
site where a single girdling root had been removed.
Despite this lack of validation by research, girdling
root removal continues to be a common prac-
tice. e best hope for eliminating girdling root
problems may be to develop root stock from trees
without girdling roots (Watson and Clark 1993).
Girdling by wires of the wire baskets used to
support root balls during shipping and handling
is a similar situation. Studies with wires girdling
stems of young trees showed no detrimental eect
of girdling (Goodwin and Lumis 1992). Examina-
tion of roots contacting wires 11 years aer plant-
ing found that root tissues reunited aer closing
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
256
around the wire and there was complete union of
vascular tissue beyond the wire (Lumis and Struger
1988). e small diameter of the wires may pose less
of a threat than larger roots similarly positioned.
Root Grafts
Root graing can be benecial or detrimental to
trees, depending on the circumstances. When root
gras between individuals of the same species
occur, the gras allow passage of solutes through
the connecting xylem (Graham and Bormann 1966;
Jane 1969). Girdled trees with no transport of car-
bohydrates from the crown to the root system can
survive for years if their roots are supported through
gras to roots of neighboring trees (Stone 1974).
Root gras among groups of elms were considered
responsible for more than 50% of Dutch elm disease
disease transmission when the disease was at its peak
in U.S. cities (Cuthbert et al. 1975). Oak wilt is also
commonly transmitted through root gras (Gibbs
and French 1980; Appel 1994). In both situations,
disrupting root gras is an important method of dis-
ease control. Both mechanical and chemical methods
of severing roots have a long history (Himelick and
Fox 1961; Neely and Himelick 1966), with more
recent variations tested (Wilson and Lester 2002).
INFRASTRUCTURE–ROOT CONFLICTS
Pavement Conflicts
When pavements are laid on a compacted soil base,
roots oen grow in the gap between the pavement
and the compacted soil under it. Moisture is high
because the pavement prevents evaporation, and
condensation can form beneath the pavement as
it cools (Kopinga 1994a; Kopinga 1994b; Wagar
and Franklin 1994). Aeration can be adequate,
especially under narrow pedestrian sidewalks
(Kopinga 1994a; DAmato 2002a). Roots enlarge
and can eventually li and crack the pavement.
Species that have a small number larger roots
could cause considerably more damage than if the
same biomass were allocated between larger num-
bers of smaller roots (Nicoll and Coutts 1997).
Potential for conicts between trees and pave-
ment is high when one or more of the following
factors are present: tree species that are large at
maturity, fast growing trees, shallow rooting habit,
trees planted in restricted soil volumes, shallow
topsoil (hardpan underneath topsoil), limited or
no base materials underneath the sidewalk, shal-
low irrigation, distances between the tree and
sidewalk of less than two to three meters, or trees
greater than 15 to 20 years old (Wong et al. 1988;
Randrup et al. 2003). Large trees in restricted
planting spaces is most commonly associated
with pavement damage (Barker 1983; Wagar and
Barker 1983; Wong et al. 1988; Francis et al. 1996;
Achinelli et al. 1997; McPherson 2000; D’Amato
et al. 2002b; Reichwein 2002; Reichwein 2003).
Research has challenged the common assump-
tion that sidewalk pavement cracks near roots are
always caused by the roots. Sidewalk damage can
result from soil conditions and age of pavement as
well as from tree roots. Older sidewalks failed more
oen. Sidewalks did not fail at higher rates where
trees were present (Sydnor et al. 2000). With no
roots present, 61% of all pavement expansion joints
were also cracked (D’Amato et al. 2002a). Roots
were more likely to be found under a cracked expan-
sion joint in the sidewalk than under an uncracked
joint, but the cracks may actually be contribut-
ing to roots growing under sidewalk pavements.
Sidewalks that fail may allow more root growth
beneath the cracks due to increased oxygen in
the soil (Sydnor et al. 2000; DAmato et al. 2002a).
Barriers are sometimes installed to prevent
root growth under pavement. Barriers have been
constructed from plastic, metal screening, and
geotextile impregnated with herbicide. Most
are eective at blocking roots between the sur-
face and the bottom of the barrier if installed
correctly. Dierences in products have some-
times been reported in the rst few years, but
may not persist with time (Smiley et al. 2009).
Installation of root barriers reduces the num-
ber and diameter of roots and causes them to grow
deeper for a limited distance on the far side. is
has been reported consistently, and in both poorly
drained (Wagar 1985) and well-drained and well-
aerated soils (Gilman 1996; Costello et al. 1997;
Nicoll and Coutts 1998; Peper 1998; Peper and
Mori 1999; Smiley 2005; Pittenger and Hodel 2009;
Smiley et al. 2009). Aer they grow under the bar-
rier, roots do grow back toward the surface within
a short distance from the barrier, but may remain
deeper long enough to reduce pavement damage.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
257
e eectiveness of barriers may not be permanent,
since pavement damage by 30-year-old sweet cherry
(Prunus avium) roots was associated with large
roots as deep as 40 cm below the pavement (Nicoll
and Armstrong 1997; Nicoll and Armstrong 1998).
Depth and installation of the barrier is impor-
tant. A 45 cm deep barrier reduced roots under
the pavement (Smiley 2008a) while a 30 cm barrier
of similar design did not (Gilman 2006). Barriers
need to be installed with the uppermost edge above
grade. If roots are able to grow over the top of the
barrier because of incorrect installation, deteriora-
tion of the exposed barrier material, or mulching
over the barrier, can result in signicant damage to
pavements (Smiley 2008a; Tworkoski et al. 1996).
Barriers can reduce overall root development
of trees (Wagar and Barker 1993; Barker 1995a;
Gilman 1996; Smiley et al. 2009), but in most
studies, no eect on trunk diameter growth was
reported (Barker 1995a; Barker 1995b; Tworkoski
et al. 1996; Costello et al. 1997; Peper 1998; Peper
and Mori 1999; Gilman 2006; Smiley 2008a).
ere is no evidence that root barriers will
decrease stability. Slightly more force was required
to pull over trees within root barriers. e increased
stability was attributed to deeper roots (Smiley et
al. 2000). e situation may be dierent if roots are
not able to grow under the barrier, such as on sites
with very poor soil aeration or very deep barriers.
In such a situation, the limited root system on one
or more sides could result in increased instability.
Other alternatives to root barriers have proven
to be eective in preventing roots from grow-
ing beneath pavements and causing crack-
ing and liing. Extruded polystyrene foam 10
cm thick installed directly under poured con-
crete forced roots to grow under the foam.
e expanding roots crushed the foam instead
of heaving the pavement (Smiley 2008a).
When pavements were laid on a base of coarse
gravel or brick rubble, the coarse material was
apparently not a suitable environment for root
growth between the stones, and the roots grew in
the soil underneath it. icknesses of 15 cm and
30 cm were somewhat more eective than 10 cm
(Kopinga 1994a; Gilman 2006; Smiley 2008a).
A 10 cm thick layer of structural soil beneath
the pavement is not the intended use of structural
soil, but has been used in place of gravel in prac-
tice (Smiley 2008a). Whereas the use of gravel dis-
couraged root growth, a similar 10 cm deep layer
of structural soil allowed vigorous root growth in
the soil between the coarse stones, as it is designed
to do. Roots in the stone layer resulted in extensive
pavement cracking and liing. When structural
soils are used with a minimum depth of 60 cm, or
a preferred depth of 90 cm, roots grew to the full
depth of the structural soil and were not found
exclusively at the surface (Grabosky et. al. 2001).
Certain root barrier products that are impregnated
with herbicides to reduce root growth can be eec-
tive as root barriers, but raise concerns that mycor-
rhizae could be aected. Sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciua, endomycorrhizal) and pin oak (Quercus
palustris, ectomycorrhizal) root mycorrhizae col-
lected from within 1 cm of a chemically impreg-
nated barrier were unaected in the only reported
study (Jacobs et al. 2000). (For an extensive review
of root barrier research, see Morgenroth 2008.)
Just as disease resistance is the preferred way
to control a tree disease, developing trees with
deeper root systems would be the best way to
reduce pavement damage. Research has shown
that root systems of certain tree species that oen
cause sidewalk damage [e.g., shamel ash (Fraxinus
uhdei), zelkova (Zelkova serrata), Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)] can be selected for deep rooting
patterns. Unfortunately, when these trees were
propagated by rooting cuttings; the propa-
gated trees did not exhibit the same deep-root-
ing characteristic (Burger and Prager 2008).
Sewer Pipe Intrusion
Tree root intrusion into sewer systems can be a sub-
stantial problem. Tree roots rarely damage pipes,
but Mattheck and Bethge (2000) hypothesize that
when a tree root encircles a pipe, wind loading
may result in enough movement to break the pipe,
especially when this occurs near material defects.
Roots can enter pipes in breaks and loose joints
and then proliferate rapidly once inside the moist,
nutrient-rich environment. Older pipes have more
root intrusions because of age and materials used.
Clay and concrete pipes without rubber gaskets in
the joints resist root intrusion the least. e most
intrusions have been into the smaller dimension
pipes, 22.5–40 cm, possibly because the larger pipes
are usually deeper in the soil and the roots may not
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
258
reach them as easily. Sandy soils are more easily
penetrated by roots reaching pipes. In poor growing
conditions, the roots seek their way into the pipes
relatively quickly, while in good growing conditions
the process is considerably slower. In general terms,
full-grown trees that have a large crown volume
and thus a high requirement for water during the
growing season have the greatest potential to cause
large-scale damage to sewage systems by root intru-
sion. Certain tree species, such as poplar (Populus),
willow (Salix), Melaleuca (Melaleuca), and Eucalyp-
tus (Eucalyptus) are more likely to cause root intru-
sion. Tree size and proximity to the sewer pipe are
also factors (Stål 1992; Lidstrom 1994; Rolf and Stål
1994; Stål 1995; Pohls et al. 2004; Ridgers et al. 2006).
Herbicides have been used to control root growth
in sewer pipes. Metam-sodium and dichlobenil in
combination is the most common. Metam-sodium is
non-systemic and does not move throughout the root
system, killing the whole plant. Dichlobenil is used
with metam-sodium because it is an eective growth
inhibitor. Air-aqueous foam is more eective than
an aqueous mixture. e amount of chemical used
in the foam application is small. Rapid breakdown
of the metam-sodium and dilution of the product
in the wastewater minimize environmental impacts,
but use is still restricted in many areas (Ahrens et
al. 1970; Leonard and Townley 1971; Leonard et al.
1974; Prasad and Moody 1974; Pohls et al. 2004).
Strategies to combat root intrusion are lim-
ited. Tree roots are less likely to grow into sewer
pipes if planted 6 m or more from existing
pipes. Slower-growing species with less aggres-
sive root systems are best. Pipe construction
can reduce intrusion by using longer pipe seg-
ments with fewer joints and proper installa-
tion (Rolf et al. 1995; Stål 1998; Randrup 2000).
Foundation Damage
Tree roots have been associated with interference
with building foundations but rarely cause direct
damage. Force from roots increasing in diameter
is small, and damage only occurs to lightly loaded
structures (Day 1991; Macleod and Cram 1996).
Roots in the vicinity of shallow foundations on
soils with a high shrink-swell capacity can con-
tribute to soil moisture depletion during drought,
causing the soil to shrink and the building foun-
dation to settle and crack (Day 1991). Records
in England show that the incidence of failure of
foundations on shrinkable clay soils is greater by
a factor of ten than on other soils (Pryke 1979).
Tree genera vary in the amount their root sys-
tems can spread and contribute to building subsid-
ence. [Roots cannot be reliably identied to species
through anatomical features (Cutler et al. 1987).]
e distance between damaged foundations and
the tree with roots contributing to the damage was
recorded for over 11,000 trees in the Kew Tree Root
Survey. e average distance at which foundation
damage was recorded varied from 2.5 m for cypress
(Cupressus) to 11 m for poplar (Populus) with dam-
age from most species occurring between 5 m and
7 m (Cutler and Richardson 1989). Depth of water
extraction by roots may be restricted by soil condi-
tions. Sharp changes in water and air permeability
retarded rooting and water extraction beyond the
upper 0.5 m of soil (Misra and Sands 1993). Species
such as ash (Fraxinus), with relatively poor stomatal
control of water loss, may accelerate soil drying,
and therefore shrinkage (Stewart and Sands 1996).
Coutts (1979) suggests that since roots will
grow where conditions are most favorable,
and urban landscapes oen have pavements
and other features that restrict root growth in
areas away from buildings, the most favorable
soil may be between the tree and the building.
Control of roots with barriers is not considered an
acceptable solution. Roots can grow under or over
the barrier if not properly installed (as previously
stated), or through cracks that may develop over
time (Marshall et al. 1997). When roots are deected
laterally, there is a tendency to resume the original
direction of growth once past the barrier (Wilson
1967), unless the barrier is long (Riedacker 1978).
Pruning is ineective in controlling water use.
Crown thinning did not reduce total tree water use
or soil drying. A crown reduction of over 70% by vol-
ume aected water use for only a single season (Hipps
2004). e only way to ensure that there will not be
a recurrence of the subsidence event aer repair is
to remove the tree (O’Callaghan and Kelly 2005).
Two solutions to the problem are to plant the
tree well away from the structure or to use deep-
ened perimeter footings to restrict roots from
gaining access beneath the foundation (Day 1991).
A combination of these is employed in the Brit-
ish National House Building Council guidelines,
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
259
which provide recommendations based on shrink-
ability of the soils, the depth of the foundation,
and the water demand and mature height of the
tree. On a highly shrinkable soil, if a high water
demand tree is located a distance equal to its height
away from the foundation, the foundation should
be 1.5 m deep. At half of that distance, a 2.5 m
deep foundation is recommended (Biddle 1998).
ROOT SPACE REQUIREMENTS
When trees are planted in paved areas, the limited
root space available in planting pits will ultimately
limit the size and longevity of the tree (Fluckiger and
Braun 1999). Average tree life expectancy in a side-
walk pit can be as little as ten years (Kopinga 1991;
Nowak et al. 2004). Root restriction can reduce shoot
elongation and decrease root dry weight:leaf area
ratio. Imbalanced root:shoot ratios caused the devel-
opment of internal water stress and plant senescence
(Tschaplinski and Blake 1985; Vrecenak et al. 1989;
Rieger and Marra 1994; Ismail and Noor 1996).
Crown spread and trunk diameter of trees grow-
ing in parking lots is reduced as surface area of non-
paved surfaces is reduced (Grabosky and Gilman
2004). Ninety-six percent of parking lot trees with at
least 28 m3 of soil were in good condition, compared
to only 60% in less than 14 m3 of soil. However,
over 80% of the trees had been planted in the last
12 years (Kent et al. 2006), and condition of trees
is likely to deteriorate as the trees grow and reach
the limits of even the most generous root space.
Soil Volume and Quality
Variables to consider when determining how much
root space is needed includes the quality of the
soil present (water and nutrient storage capacity),
how much evaporation and transpiration is ex-
pected, and how oen the tree will receive rainfall
or irrigation. As a general guideline for temperate
climates, if above- and belowground environmen-
tal extremes are not severe, the root space recom-
mendations vary from 0.15 to 0.7 m3 of soil for
each square meter of crown projection area of the
expected mature size of the tree (Kopinga 1985;
Lindsey and Bassuk 1991; Lindsey and Bassuk 1992;
Urban 1992; Urban 2008). Similar estimates have
not been developed for arid and semi-arid climates.
A computer model has been developed that
uses climatological data to estimate the soil vol-
ume necessary to provide moisture in growing
conditions likely to be encountered for an area.
e example used is New York City, New York,
U.S., with a 6 m crown diameter tree and 17 m3
of soil, as recommended by Lindsey and Bassuk
(1991). e tree, without irrigation, would face
a water decit every other year. With 27.4 m3 of
soil the tree would face a decit only once in 10
years, but with only 4.3 m3 of root space soil, the
tree would need irrigation every h day to face
a decit only once in 10 years (DeGaetano 2000).
Using a dierent method, Blunt (2008) calculated
that under UK weather conditions, a mature tree
(size and species not specied) would require at
least 50 m3 of high-quality soil with soil moisture
recharged by rainfall or irrigation ten times dur-
ing the growing season to avoid drought stress.
When soil volume is restricted, soil quality
becomes very important. High-quality soil and
intensive maintenance can compensate for limited
root space volume to a limited extent. When soil
was amended with organic matter to 60 cm depth,
root development was greater than when just the
upper 15 cm was amended (Smith et al. 2010).
It is generally accepted that when soil volumes
are combined and shared by several trees, the per-
formance of the trees seems to be better than when
trees are in several smaller, individual planting
pits of the same total volume. Research to sup-
port this observation is limited. Condition of live
oaks (Quercus virginiana) was better in shared
planting spaces but not lacebark elm (Ulmus
parvifolia) or red maple (Acer rubrum). Maples
performed poorly in all root spaces, and other
factors may have been more limiting than shared
root space. e elms performed well even in very
limited, non-shared root spaces and may be less
sensitive to small root spaces (Kent et al. 2006).
Expanding Root Space
Soils under pavements can be very dicult for
root growth. e pavement itself can have mixed
eects on the root environment beneath it. Soil
moisture can be greater under pavement than
surrounding unpaved areas because of reduced
evaporation (Hodge and Boswell 1993; Arnold
and McDonald 2009). Maximum summer soil
temperatures under pavement exposed to sun
can be up to 10ºC warmer than nearby unpaved
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
260
areas and exceed levels that injure tree roots
(Halverson and Heisler 1981; Graves and Dana
1987). e soil compaction necessary to support
stable pavement oen restricts root growth. Sev-
eral approaches have been used to provide suit-
able conditions for root growth under pavements
without compromising stability of the pavement.
Pervious Paving
It has been suggested that pervious paving materials
could improve the soil environment beneath pave-
ments for better tree growth, but research has not yet
shown this to be consistently true. Soil oxygen was
insucient for root growth (less than 12% oxygen)
for prolonged periods beneath two of ve pervious
paving products tested on park footpaths (Couen-
berg 2009). Dierences in soil oxygen and moisture
between impervious and pervious concrete pave-
ments are inconsistent (Morgenroth and Buchan
2009; Viswanathan et al. 2011). Pervious concrete
plots had greater soil moisture in deeper layers in
some seasons, but not in summer when it would be
most benecial, and there was no dierence in tree
growth rates, leaf water potential, or gas exchange
(Volder et al. 2009). e narrow pavements (less
than 1.5 m wide) used in these studies may allow
water and oxygen to diuse under the pavement
from the edges of the solid pavement, just as eec-
tively as through the pores of the pervious pavement.
To function correctly, pervious concrete pavement
systems must have underlying soil that percolates
well, which should also be benecial for roots. If soil
beneath the porous pavement is too compacted, the
resulting poor soil aeration and penetration resis-
tance are more likely to factor in limiting tree perfor-
mance than the pavement (Viswanathan et al. 2011).
Structural Soils
Soils designed to support pavement without settling
are oen called load-bearing, skeletal, or structural
soils. To expand root space under pavement in this
way, the soil must provide a favorable environment
for root growth while supporting the pavement.
e rst soil of this type developed was called
Amsterdam Tree Soil. Specications call for 91%–
94% medium coarse sand, 4%–5% organic matter,
and 2%–4% clay (by weight). Phosphorous and
potassium are added as necessary. e organic mat-
ter provides a source of nitrogen (Couenberg 1993).
e soil mix is carefully compacted to a 70%–80%
Proctor density when installed, and aeration is pro-
vided through spaces in the pavers placed over the
soil. Callery pear (Py rus calleryana) trees grew almost
twice as rapidly in Amsterdam Tree Soil compared
to standard pavement construction, and 50% faster
than those grown in grass (Rahman et al. 2011).
Stone–soil mix structural soils create a network
of interconnected spaces between the stones
that can be lled with soil for root growth.
When mixed and installed properly, structural
stone-soil mixes compacted to 1.85 g cm-3, and
greater, and did not reduce macropore space or
restrict root penetration in the soil between the
stones (Grabosky and Bassuk 1996; Grabosky
et al. 2009). In a container study, structural soil
held 7%–11% moisture by volume, similar to a
loamy sand, and had high inltration and good
drainage and aeration (Grabosky et al. 2009),
but no eld measurements have been reported.
Early tests of structural soil mixes in containers
showed that stone–soil mixes could support better
root and top growth than compacted soils or typical
road base materials (Grabosky and Bassuk 1995;
Kristoersen 1999). Growth was limited by net
soil volume rather than the total volume of the
stone–soil mix (Loh et al. 2003). e root:crown
ratio was greater in stone mixes than topsoil alone,
indicating a larger root system was needed for
absorption of water and nutrients when the soil
was spread out in the mix (Kristoersen 1999).
Results of eld studies have been mixed. At
three and ten years aer installation, growth (DBH,
height, canopy width) of trees planted in structural
soil under pavement was equal to trees planted
at the same time in a lawn adjacent to the side-
walk (Grabosky et al. 2002; Grabosky and Bassuk
2008). However, the trees planted in structural soil
were within a few feet of an adjacent open-lawn
area and the possibility that their roots may have
grown into that soil volume was not addressed in
the report. Other reports show that trees planted
in non-compacted soils in open planters (Bühler
et al. 2007) or covered by suspended pavement
(Smiley et al. 2006) will outperform structural soil
mixes. Stone–soil mixes can be a useful compromise
in situations where high quality non-compacted
soils cannot be used, but will not produce the
same results in an equal volume of quality soil.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
261
Structural soils may increase tree anchorage. Trees
were more stable in structural soils than traditional
tree pits due to greater root length in gravel-based
skeletal soil (Bartens et al. 2010). is is supported by
a computer model in which a 20% soil to 80% gran-
ite chip mix was optimum for withstanding wind
forces required to uproot trees (Rahardjo et al. 2009).
Suspended Pavement
If the pavement is suspended above the soil, the soil
does not have to be compacted to support it. Sus-
pended pavements range from elaborate designs con-
structed on-site to simpler and smaller precast con-
crete structures. Trees grew better in non-compacted
soils under suspended pavement than in compacted
soil or two structural soil types (Smiley et al. 2006).
e study design did not include non-compacted
soil without pavement over it, though experience has
shown that trees will grow even better in open soil.
Root Paths
Root paths are narrow trenches installed in a com-
pacted subgrade under pavement to provide a path
for roots to grow from restricted planting pits to
open spaces on the other side of the pavement.
Commercially available strip-drain material is usu-
ally installed in the trench and then backlled with
loam soil (Costello and Jones 2003; Urban 2008). It
could take several years for roots to grow through
the root path and access the soil beyond. ere is
not yet any research to show that roots are able to
eectively take advantage of the paths to access
the soil beyond the pavement and improve tree
growth and longevity, or that if roots do utilize
the paths that they will not li the pavement.
Soil conditions suitable for root growth under
pavements also provide some level of stormwater
storage (Day and Dickinson 2008). If signi-
cant, this could be additional justication for
the higher cost of the expanded root space.
ENHANCING ROOT DEVELOPMENT
Irrigation
Trees are not irrigated in their natural environment.
Healthy, established urban trees with adequate root
space of quality soil are not typically dependent
on irrigation if they are adapted to the climate in
which they are growing. Little research is available
on irrigation needs of established urban trees. A
greenhouse study of ponderosa pine (Pinus pon-
derosa) showed that when water stress occurred
during active root growth, the root:shoot ratio was
reduced. When water stress occurred during active
shoot growth, the root:shoot ratio was increased
(McMillin and Wagner 1985; Silva et al. 2012).
Transpiration rates and pan evaporation are
strongly correlated for woody species. Transpira-
tion of larger trees is approximately 20% of pan
evaporation (Knox 1989; Lindsey and Bassuk 1991).
Because of more direct sunlight on the south side
of the tree there may be greater water stress on the
south side of the tree (Watson and Himelick 1982b;
von der Heide-Spravka and Watson 1990). Increased
irrigation may be appropriate on the south side of
larger trees to compensate. Trickle irrigation can
concentrate root development within the wet zones
near the emitters (Levin et al. 1979; Mitchell and
Chalmers 1983; Fernandez et al. 1991; Watson et
al. 2006; Sokalska et al. 2009). Less frequent irri-
gation with the same amount of water can result
in a wider distribution of roots (Levin et al. 1979).
In the summer, soils moist from irrigation and
drainage changes can be a major cause of oak (Quer-
cus) mortality in Mediterranean climates (Costello
et al. 2011). e moisture and warm soil tempera-
tures create conditions favorable to the develop-
ment of root and crown rot diseases (Swiecki 1990).
Controlled studies of irrigation needs of large
trees subject to root severing and loss are dicult
to conduct, but studies on irrigation of transplanted
trees with substantial root loss can provide informa-
tion. Newly planted trees have reduced growth if
subjected to water stress aer transplanting (Haase
and Rose 1993). Applying excessive irrigation may
reduce root growth and increase the time needed
for the tree to develop enough of a root system to
survive without irrigation (Gilman et al. 2009).
Proper irrigation can reduce secondary stress-
related problems, such as bark cracks, sunscald,
and injury from borers (Roppolo and Miller 2001).
Fertilization
Total tree root system development is greater when
soil nutrients are low (Kodrik and Kodrik 2002).
Fertilization may not stimulate root growth unless
low levels are already limiting root growth (Philip-
son and Coutts 1977). An increase in soil fertility
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
262
is commonly associated with a reduction in the
root:shoot ratio; that is, shoot growth increases
more than root growth (Ingestad 1960; Philip-
son and Coutts 1977; Coutts and Philipson 1980;
Nambiar 1980; Yeager and Wright 1981; Glea-
son et al. 1990; Warren 1993; Lloret et al. 1999;
Jose et al. 2003; Qu et al. 2003; Rytter et al. 2003).
Fertility can alter the distribution of roots. Fine
roots will grow preferentially in pockets of nitro-
gen rich soil (Wahlenberg 1929), by stimulat-
ing the growth of lateral roots (May et al. 1964;
Hackett 1972; Eissenstat and Caldwell 1988; Witt
1997). Root growth may be increased even more
when nitrogen availability is low outside the
pocket (Krasowski et al. 1999). Application of
nitrogen to a part of the root system has a strictly
localized eect and does not increase overall root
growth or alter the shoot:root ratio (Smith 1965;
Drew et al. 1973; Drew and Saker 1975; Coutts and
Philipson 1976; Carlson 1981; Carlson and Pre-
sig 1981; Friend et al. 1990; Sheri and Nambiar
1995). Enhanced growth of one part of the root
system can reduce growth in the other (Weller
1966; Phillipson and Coutts 1977). Severe soil
compaction reduced nitrogen fertilizer uptake
and was presumably related to the reduced uptake
by a smaller root system (Jordan et al. 2003).
Fertilization may be necessary to maintain
appropriate vigor and growth rates of urban trees if
natural nutrient cycling is interrupted through the
removal of fallen leaves and branches. In an Eastern
deciduous hardwood forest, nitrogen in fallen litter
was measured at 0.27–0.46 kg N/100 m2/yr (Wells
et al. 1972; Larcher 1975). Arboricultural best man-
agement practices (Smiley et al. 2007; ANSI 2011)
recommend 0.96–1.44 kg N/100 m2, but allow up
to 2.88 kg N/100m2. ese rates far exceed nutri-
ents lost through litter removal and may not be
appropriate for slower growing mature trees. Lawn
fertilization alone may more than replace nutrients
lost by removal of litter (Osmond and Hardy 2004).
Root Stimulants
Paclobutrazol, uniconazole, and flurprimidol are
gibberellin-inhibiting growth regulators used pri-
marily to reduce shoot growth of trees, but can
also increase root growth under certain circum-
stances (Numbere et al. 1992). Paclobutrazol may
promote root initiation (Davis et al. 1985). Pin
oak (Quercus palustris) and white oak (Quercus
alba) fine-root densities were increased signifi-
cantly throughout the root system by a basal soil
drench of paclobutrazol. The treatment may be
effective in stabilizing slowly declining trees
with insufficient fine-root development (Wat-
son 1996; Watson and Himelick 2004). Fine-root
density was not affected by paclobutrazol treat-
ment in a high quality soil environment from
long-term mulched application where root den-
sity may have been high initially, limiting the
ability of paclobutrazol to increase them further
(Watson 2006). Species may differ in their
response to paclobutrazol. Growth of green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) roots was unaffected
by paclobutrazol treatment (Watson 2004).
e ability of paclobutrazol to increase root growth
may depend on root–leaf area ratio. Paclobutrazol
applied at planting doubled root growth on black
maple (Acer nigrum) in the rst season before
crown growth was reduced by the paclobutrazol
treatment, but not the second when crown growth
was greatly reduced (Watson 2004). e large reduc-
tion in top growth may have been responsible for
the lack of root stimulation in the second year.
Gilman (2004) also reported that paclobutrazol
had no eect on root growth of transplanted live
oaks (Quercus virginiana) at a rate that reduced
top growth. Root pruning can enhance the growth
regulation eects of paclobutrazol treatment and
slow root growth (Martinez-Trinidad et al. 2011).
Soil applications of sugar solutions have been
tested to increase root growth. Root growth is
oen but not always increased and may depend
on tree species, kinds of sugars, and application
rates included in the trials (Percival 2004; Percival
et al. 2004; Percival and Fraser 2005; Percival
and Barnes 2007; Martinez-Trinidad et al.
2009). Measurable increases in tree vitality are
uncommon, even on small experimental plants.
ere is extensive published research from a
broad spectrum of plant sciences that can be applied
to the prevention and mitigation of human impacts
on urban tree root systems. e majority of litera-
ture available on structural soils, tree root archi-
tecture, root locating methods, and root defects
has been produced in the last 25 years. At the same
time, advances have been made in understanding
topics such as infrastructure conicts and fertiliza-
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
263
tion practices, but these advances are still not fully
understood. Arboricultural science is young and
growing. ere is hardly a topic that would not ben-
et from extensive additional research. e wide
variety of species and environmental circumstances
in urban landscapes makes it especially challenging.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank the International
Society of Arboriculture and the ISA Science and Research Com-
mittee for funding this literature review.
LITERATURE CITED
Abod, S.A. 1990. Eects of nutrients deciencies on the root regen-
erating potential and growth of Pinus caribaea and Pinus kesiya
seedlings. Pertanika 13:145–150.
Abod, S.A., and A.D. Webster. 1990. Shoot and root pruning eects
on the growth and water relations of young Malus, Tilia , and
Betula transplants. Journal of Horticultural Science 65:451–459.
Abod, S.A., and S. Sandi. 1983. Eect of restricted watering and its
combination with root pruning on root growth capacity, water
status and food reserves of Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis seed-
lings. Plant and Soil 71:123–129.
Achinelli, F.G., J.L. Marquina, and R.M. Marlats. 1997. Exploratory
study of the relationships between tree growth, site conditions,
and maintenance practices in street plantings of Fraxinus penn-
sylvanica Marshall of La Plata City, Argentina. Arboricultural
Journal 21:305–315.
Ahrens, J.F., O.A. Leonard, and N.R. Townley. 1970. Chemical con-
trol of tree roots in sewer lines. Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion 42:1643–1655.
Al-Mana, F.A., and D.J. Beattie. 1996. Eects of hormone-charged
hydrophilic polymer on root regeneration in red oak and black
gum transplants. Acta Horticulturae 429:459–466.
American National Standard Institute. 2011. American National
Standard for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other
Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices (Soil Manage-
ment - a. Modication, b. Fertilization, and c. Drainage) (A300,
Part 2). Tree Care Industry Association, Manchester, New
Hampshire, U.S. 20 pp.
Andersen, C.P., E.I. Suco, and R.K. Dixon. 1986. Eects of root
zone temperature on root initiation and elongation in red pine
seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16:696–700.
Anonymous. 2004. American Standards for Nursery Stock, ANSI
Z60.1. American Association of Nurserymen, Washington, D.C.
113 pp. Accessed 05/21/2013. <www.anla.org/docs/About%20
ANLA/Industry%20Resources/ANLAStandard2004.pdf>
Anonymous. 2010. European Technical & Quality Standards for
Nurserystock. Accessed 05/21/2013. <www.enaplants.eu>
Appel, D.N. 1994. Identication and control of oak wilt in Texas
urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 20:250–258.
Arnold, M.A. 1996. Mechanical correction and chemical avoid-
ance of circling roots dierentially aect post-transplant root
regeneration and eld establishment of container-grown Shu-
mard oak. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science
121:258–263.
Arnold, M.A., and D.K. Struve. 1989. Green ash establishment fol-
lowing transplant. Journal of American Society of Horticultural
Science 114:591–595.
Arnold, M.A., and G.V. McDonald. 2009. Groundcovers, organic
and inorganic mulches, and masonry surfaces dierentially
aect establishment and root zone characteristics of urban trees.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35:232–240.
Bader, C. 2000. Untersuchungen über den statisch wirksamen Wur-
zelraum. [Investigations on the stability relevant root zone]
Fachhochschule. [University of Applied Sciences] Nürtingen,
Ge r many.
Balder, H. 1999. Mechanical root injuries: Compartmentalization,
pruning, and wound dressing. Acta Horticulturae 496:239–244.
Balder, H., D. Dujesieen, T. Kowol, and E. Schmitz-Felten. 1995.
Zur Wirkung von Wundbehandlungen an Wurzeln bei Eiche
und Linde [Aspects of wound treatments of oak and basswood
roots]. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Panzenschutzdienstes
47:28–35.
Barker, P.A. 1983. Some urban trees of California: Maintenance
problems and genetic improvement possibilities. pp. 47–54. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Metropolitan Tree
Improvement Alliance.
Barker, P.A. 1995a. Managed development of tree roots. I. Ultra-
deep root ball and root barrier eects on European hackberry.
Journal of Arboriculture 21:202–208.
Barker, P.A. 1995b. Managed development of tree roots. II. Ultra-
deep root ball and root barrier eects on Southwestern black
cherry. Journal of Arboriculture 21:251–258.
Bartens, J., P.E. Wiseman, and E.T. Smiley. 2010. Stability of land-
scape trees in engineered and conventional urban soil mixes.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9:333–338.
Barton, C.V.M., and K.D. Montagu. 2004. Detection of tree roots
and determination of root diameters by ground penetrating
radar under optimal conditions. Tree Physiology 24:1323–1331.
Bassuk, N., J. Grabosky, A. Mucciardi, and G. Rael. 2011. Ground-
penetrating radar accurately locates tree roots in two soil media
under pavement. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37:160–166.
Biddle, P.G. 1998. Tree Root Damage to Buildings. Volume I:
Causes, Diagnosis and Remedy. Willowmead Publishing, Ltd.
Wantage, UK. 376 pp.
Blackwell, P.G., K. Rennolls, and M. Coutts. 1990. A root anchorage
model for shallowly rooted Sitka spruce. Forestry 63:73–91.
Blessing, S.C., and M.N. Dana. 1987. Post-transplant root system
expansion in Juniperus chinensis L. as inuenced by production
system, mechanical root disruption and soil type. Journal of
Environmental Horticulture 5:155–158.
Blunt, S.M. 2008. Trees and pavements - are they compatible? Arbo-
ricultural Journal 31:73-80.
Bronnum, P. 2005. Preplanting indicators of survival and growth of
desiccated Abies procera bare root planting stock. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research 20:36-46.
Broschat, T.K., and H. Donselman. 1990a. Regeneration of severed
roots in Washingonia robusta and Phoenix reclinata. Principes
34:96–97.
Broschat, T.K., and H. Donselman. 1990b. IBA, plant maturity, and
regeneration of palm root systems. HortScience 25:232.
Broschat, T.K., and H.M. Donselman. 1984. Regrowth of severed
palm roots. Journal of Arboriculture 10:238–240.
Bühler, O., P. Kristoersen, and S.U. Larsen. 2007. Growth of street
trees in Copenhagen with emphasis on the eect of dierent estab-
lishment concepts. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33:330–337.
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
264
Burdett, A.N. 1978. Control of root morphogenesis for improving
mechanical stability in container-grown lodgepole pine. Cana-
dian Journal of Forest Research 8:483–486.
Burdett, A.N. 1981. Box-pruning the roots of container grown tree
seedlings. pp 203–206 In: J.B. Scarratt, C. Glerum, and C.A.
Plexman (Eds.). Proceedings of the Canadian containerized tree
seedling symposium. Canadian Forestry Service, Great Lakes
Forest Research Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.
Burger, D.W., and T.E. Prager. 2008. Deep-rooted trees for urban
environments: selection and propagation. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry 34:184–190.
Butnor, J.R., J. A. Doolittle, K.H. Johnsen, L. Samuelson, T. Stokes,
and L. Kress. 2003. Utility of ground-penetrating radar as a root
biomass survey tool in forest systems. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 67:1607–1615.
Butnor, J.R., J.A. Doolittle, L. Kress, S. Cohen, and K.H. Johnsen.
2001. Use of ground-penetrating radar to study tree roots in the
southeastern United States. Tree Physiology 21:1269–1278.
Carlson, W.C. 1974. Root initiation induced by root pruning in
northern red oak. Forest Research Review, Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio. pp. 14–16.
Carlson, W.C. 1981. Eects of controlled-release fertilizers on shoot
and root development of out-planted western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla RAF. SARG) Seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 11:752–757.
Carlson, W.C. 1986. Root system considerations in the quality of
loblolly pine seedlings. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
10:87–92.
Carlson, W.C., and C.L. Preisig. 1981. Eects of controlled-release
fertilizers on the shoot and root development of Douglas-r
seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 11:230–242.
Castle, W.S. 1983. Antitranspirant and root canopy pruning eects
on mechanically transplanted eight-year-old Murcott citrus
trees. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science
108:981–985.
Catena, A. 2003. ermography reveals hidden tree decay. Arbori-
cultural Journal 27:27–42.
Cellerino, G.P., and G. Nicolotti. 1998. Which techniques should
be used to diagnose urban tree root rot? Informatore Fitopato-
logico 48:45–50.
Cermak, J., J. Hruska, M. Martinkova, and A. Prax. 2000. Urban
tree root systems and their survival near houses analyzed using
ground-penetrating radar and sap ow techniques. Plant and
Soil 219:103–116.
Costello, L.R., and K.S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Dam-
age by Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. WCISA, Co-
hasset, CA. 119 pp.
Costello, L.R., B.W. Hagen, and K.S. Jones. 2011. Oaks in the Urban
Landscape: Selection, Care, and Preservation. University of
California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication
3518. 265 pp.
Costello, L.R., C.L. Elmore, and S. Steinmaus. 1997. Tree root
response to circling root barriers. Journal of Arboriculture
23:211–218.
Couenberg, E.A.M. 1993. Amsterdam tree soil. pp. 24–33. In: G.
Watson and D. Neely (Eds.). e Landscape Below Ground.
International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Illinois, U.S.
Couenberg, E.A.M. 2009. A preliminary study evaluating oxygen
status beneath dierent surface-hardening materials for park
use. pp. 189–202. In: G.W. Watson and D. Neely (Eds.). e
Landscape Below Ground III. International Society of Arbori-
culture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.
Coutts, M.P. 1979. e physiological characteristics of trees, and
damage to buildings by root activity. Arboricultural Journal
3:413–419.
Coutts, M.P. 1983. Root architecture and tree stability. Plant and
Soil 71:171–188.
Coutts, M.P. 1986. Components of tree stability in Sitka spruce on
peaty gley soil. Forestry 59:173–197.
Coutts, M.P., and J.J. Philipson. 1976. e inuence of mineral nu-
trition on the root development of trees: I. e growth of Sitka
spruce with divided root systems. Journal of Experimental
Botany 27:1102–1111.
Coutts, M.P., and J.J. Philipson. 1980. Mineral nutrition and tree
growth. pp. 123-26. In: D. Atkinson, J.E. Jackson, R.O. Sharpies,
and W.M. Waller (Eds.). Mineral Nutrition of Fruit Trees.
Butterworths, London, England.
Cuthbert, R.A., W.N. Cannon Jr., and J.W. Peacock. 1975. Rela-
tive Importance of Root Gras and Bark Beetles to the Spread
of Dutch Elm Disease. USDA Forest Service Research Paper
NE-206. 4 pp.
Cutler, D.F., and I.B.K. Richardson. 1989. Tree roots and buildings.
Longman Scientic & Technical, Harlow, Essex, England. 71 pp.
Cutler, D.F., P.J. Rudall, P.E. Gasson, and R.M.O. Gale. 1987. Root
Identication Manual of Trees and Shrubs: A Guide to the
Anatomy of Roots of Trees and Shrubs Hardy in Britain and
Northern Europe. Chapman and Hall, London, England. 245 pp.
D’Amato, N.E., T.D. Sydnor, M. Knee, R. Hunt, and B. Bishop.
2002a. Which comes rst, the root or the crack? Journal of
Arboriculture 28:277–282.
D’Amato, N.E., T.D., Sydnor, R. Hunt, and B. Bishop. 2002b. Root
growth beneath sidewalks near trees of four genera. Journal of
Arboriculture 28:283–290.
d’Ambrosio, R.P. 1990. Crown density and its correlation to girdling
root syndrome. Journal of Arboriculture 16:153–157.
Davis, T.D., N. Sankhla, R.H. Walser, and A. Upadhyaya. 1985.
Promotion of adventitious root formation on cuttings by
paclobutrazol. HortScience 20:883–885.
Day, R.W. 1991. Damage of structures due to tree roots. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 5:200–207.
Day, S.D., and J.R. Harris. 2008. Growth, survival, and root system
morphology of deeply planted Corylus colurna 7 years aer
transplanting and the eects of root collar excavation. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 7:119–128.
Day, S.D., and S.B. Dickinson (Eds.). 2008. Managing Stormwater
for Urban Sustainability Using Trees and Structural Soils. Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, U.S. 63 pp.
Day, S.D., J.R. Harris, and R.J. Stipes. 2006. Buried trunks: How
deep planting aects trunk tissue, adventitious rooting, and tree
growth. pp. 45–48. In: Trees and Planting: Getting the Roots
Right, e Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, U.S. Accessed
05/21/2013. <www.mortonarb.org/deeptreeroots/pdf/GRR_
Proceedings.pdf#TOC>
Day, S.D., J.R. Seiler, R. Kreh, and D.W. Smith. 2001. Overlaying
compacted or uncompacted construction ll has no negative
impact on white oak and sweetgum growth and physiology.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:100–109.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
265
Day, S.D., P.E. Wiseman, S.B. Dickinson, and J.R. Harris. 2010.
Contemporary concepts of root system architecture or urban
trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36:149–159.
DeGaetano, A.T. 2000. Specication of soil volume and irrigation
frequency for urban tree containers using climate data. Journal
of Arboriculture 26:142–150.
Drew, M.C, L.R. Saker, and T.W. Ashley. 1973. Nutrient supply
and the growth of the seminal root system in barley. Journal of
Experimental Botany 24:1189–1202.
Drew, M.C., and L.R. Saker. 1975. Nutrient supply and the growth
of the seminal root system in barley: II. Localized, compensa-
tory increases in lateral root growth and rates of nitrate uptake
when nitrate supply is restricted to only part of the root system.
Journal of Experimental Botany 26:79–90.
Drilias, M.J., J.E. Kuntz, and G.L. Worf. 1982. Collar rot and basal
canker of sugar maple. Journal of Arboriculture 8:29–33.
Eissenstat, D.M., and M.M. Caldwell. 1988. Seasonal timing of root
growth in favorable microsites. Ecology 69:870–873.
Ellyard, R.K. 1984. Eect of root pruning at time of planting on sub-
sequent root development of two species of eucalyptus. Journal
of Arboriculture 10:241–216.
Fare, D.C. 2006. Should potting depth be a concern with container-
grown trees? pp. 25–29. In: Proceedings of Trees and Planting: Get-
ting the Roots Right, Lisle, Illinois. Accessed 05/21/2013. <www.
mortonarb.org/deeptreeroots/pdf/GRR_Proceedings.pdf#TOC>
Fernandez, J.E., F. Moreno, F. Cabrera, J.L. Arrue, and J. Martinan-
dra. 1991. Drip irrigation, soil characteristics and the root distri-
bution and root activity of oil trees. Plant and Soil 133:239-251.
Fluckiger, W., and S. Braun. 1999. Stress factors of urban trees
and their relevance for vigour and predisposition for parasite
attacks. Acta Horticulturae 496:325–334.
Fourcaud, T., J.N. Ji, Z.Q. Zhang, and A. Stokes. 2008. Understand-
ing the impact of root morphology on overturning mechanisms:
A modeling approach. Annals of Botany 101:1267–1280.
Fraedrich, B.R., and E.T. Smiley. 2002. Assessing the failure poten-
tial of tree roots. pp. 159–163. In: E.T. Smiley and K.D. Coder
(Eds.). Tree Structure and Mechanics Conference Proceedings:
How Trees Stand Up and Fall Down. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.
Francis, J.K., B.R. Parresol, and J.M. de Patino. 1996. Probability
of damage to sidewalks and curbs by street trees in the tropics.
Journal of Arboriculture 22:193–197.
Friend, A.L., M.R. Eide, and T.M. Hinckley. 1990. Nitrogen stress
alters root proliferation in Douglas-r seedlings. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 20:1524–1529.
Fuchs, H.W.M. 1986. Root regeneration of rose plants as inuenced
by applied auxins. Acta Horticulturae 189:101–107.
Garbelotto, M., G. Slaughter, T. Popenuck, F.W. Cobb, and T.D.
Bruns. 1997. Secondary spread of Heterobasidion annosum
in white r root-disease centers. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 27:766–773.
Ghani, M.A., A. Stokes, and T. Fourcaud. 2009. e eect of root
architecture and root loss through trenching on the anchorage
of tropical urban trees (Eugenia grandis Wight). Trees: Structure
and Function 23:197–209.
Gibbs, J.N., and D.W. French. 1980. e Transmission of Oak Wilt.
USDA. Forest Service Research Paper NC-185.
Giblin, C., J. Gilman, D. Hanson, G. Johnson, and P. Weicherding.
2005. e eects of soil depth on the long-term health and
frequency of storm damage to trees in the upper Midwest. pp.
33–39. In: Proceedings of Trees and Planting: Getting the Roots
Right. Accessed 05/21/2013. <www.mortonarb.org/deeptree-
roots/pdf/GRR_Proceedings.pdf#TOC>
Gilman, E.F. 1990. Tree root growth and development. II. Response
to culture, management and planting. Journal of Environmental
Horticulture 8:220–227.
Gilman, E.F. 1996. Root barriers aect root distribution. Journal of
Arboriculture 22:151–154.
Gilman, E.F. 2004. Eects of amendments, soil additives, and
irrigation on tree survival and growth. Journal of Arboriculture
30:301–310.
Gilman, E.F. 2006. Deecting roots near sidewalks. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry 32:18–22.
Gilman, E.F., and C. Harchick. 2008. Planting depth in containers
aects root form and tree quality. Journal of Environmental
Horticulture 26:129–134.
Gilman, E.F., and F.J. Masters. 2010. Eect of tree size, root pruning,
and production method on root growth and lateral stability of
Quercus virginiana. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 36:281–291.
Gilman, E.F., and M.E. Kane. 1990. Root growth of red maple
following planting from containers. Hortscience 25:527–528.
Gilman, E.F., and R.C. Beeson. 1996. Production method aects
tree establishment in the landscape. Journal of Environmental
Horticulture 14:81–87.
Gilman, E.F., and T.H. Yeager. 1988. Root initiation in root-pruned
hardwoods. HortScience 23:351.
Gilman, E.F., C.L. Wiese, M. Paz, A.L. Shober, S.M. Scheiber, K.A.
Moore, and M. Brennan. 2009. Eects of irrigation volume and
frequency on shrub establishment in Florida. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Horticulture 27:149–154.
Gilman, E.F., M. Paz, and C. Harchick. 2010. Root ball shaving
improves root systems on seven species in containers. Journal
of Environmental Horticulture 28:13–18.
Gilman, E.F., T.H. Yeager, and D. Weigle. 1996. Fertilizer, irrigation
and root ball slicing aects Burford holly growth aer planting.
Journal of Environmental Horticulture 14:105–110.
Gleason, J.F., M. Duryea, R. Rose, and M. Atkinson. 1990. Nursery
and eld fertilization of 2+0 ponderosa pine seedlings: e
eect on morphology, physiology, and eld performance. Cana-
dian Journal of Forest Research 20:1766–1772.
Goodwin, C., and G. Lumis. 1992. Embedded wire in tree roots
implications for tree growth and root function. Journal of Arbo-
riculture 18:115–123.
Gossard, A.C. 1942. Root and shoot production by young pecan
trees treated with indole-butyric acid at the time of transplant-
ing. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural
Science 41:161–166.
Gouin, F.R. 1983. Girdling roots, fact or ction. International Plant
Propagators Society 33:428–432.
Grabosky, J., and E. Gilman. 2004. Measurement and prediction of
tree growth reduction from tree planting space design in estab-
lished parking lots. Journal of Arboriculture 30:154–164.
Grabosky, J., and N. Bassuk. 1995. A new urban tree soil to safely
increase rooting volumes under sidewalks. Journal of Arbori-
culture 21:187–201.
Grabosky, J., and N. Bassuk. 1996. Testing of structural urban tree
soil materials for use under pavement to increase street tree
rooting volumes. Journal of Arboriculture 22:255–263.
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
266
Grabosky, J., and N. Bassuk. 2008. Sixth- and tenth-year growth
measurements for three tree species in a load-bearing stone-soil
blend under pavement and a tree lawn in Brooklyn, New York,
U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:265–266.
Grabosky, J., E. Haner, and N. Bassuk. 2009. Plant available moisture
in stone-soil media for use under pavement while allowing urban
tree root growth. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35:271–278.
Grabosky, J., N. Bassuk, and B.Z. Marranca. 2002. Preliminary nd-
ings from measuring street tree shoot growth in two skeletal soil
installations compared to tree lawn plantings. Journal of Arbo-
riculture 28:106–108.
Grabosky, J., N. Bassuk, L. Irwin, and H. Van Es. 2001. Shoot and
root growth of three tree species in sidewalks. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Horticulture 19:206–211.
Graham, B.F., and F.H. Bormann. 1966. Natural root gras. Botani-
cal Review 32:255–292.
Graves, W.R., and M.N. Dana. 1987. Root-zone temperature moni-
tored at urban sites. HortScience 22:613–614.
Grene, S. 1978. Root deformations reduce root growth and stability.
pp. 150–155. In: E. Van Eerden and J.M. Kinghorn (Eds.). Pro-
ceedings of the Root Form of Planted Trees Symposium. British
Columbia Ministry of Forests/Canadian Forest Service Joint
Report No. 8, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Haase, D.I., and R. Rose. 1993. Soil moisture stress induces trans-
plant shock in stored and unstored 2+0 Douglas-r seedlings of
varying root volume. Forest Science 39:275–294.
Hackett, C. 1972. A method of applying nutrients locally to roots
under controlled conditions, and some morphological eects of
locally applied nitrate on the branching of wheat roots. Austra-
lian Journal of Biological Sciences 25:1169–1180.
Halter, M.R., C.P. Chanway, and G.J. Harper. 1993. Growth reduc-
tion and root deformation of containerized lodgepole pine sap-
lings 11 years aer planting. Forest Ecology and Management
56:131–146.
Halverson, H.G., and G.M. Heisler. 1981. Soil Temperatures Under
Urban Trees and Asphalt. USDA Forest Service Research Paper
NE-481.
Hamilton, W.D. 1988. Signicance of root severance on perfor-
mance of established trees. Journal of Arboriculture 14:288–292.
Harris, J.R., J.K. Fanelli, A.X. Niemiera, and R.D. Wright. 2001. Root
pruning pin oak liners aects growth and root morphology.
HortTechnology 11:49–52.
Harris, R.W., J. Clark, and N.M. Matheny. 1999. Arboriculture: the
Integrated Management of Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. ird Edi-
tion. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, New Jersey, U.S.
Hauer, R.J., R.W. Miller, and D.M. Ouimet. 1994. Street tree decline
and construction damage. Journal of Arboriculture 20:94–97.
Hewitt, A., and G. Watson. 2009. Bare root liner production can
alter tree root architecture. Journal of Environmental Horticul-
ture 27:99–104.
Himelick, E.B., and H.W Fox. 1961. Experimental studies on control
of oak wilt disease. Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Technical Bulletin 680.
Hipps, N. 2004. Controlling Water Use of Trees to Alleviate Subsid-
ence Risk. Horticulture LINK Project 212, Final Report Execu-
tive Summary. University of Cambridge, UK. 114 pp.
Hirano, Y., M. Dannoura, K. Aono, T. Igarashi, M. Ishii, K. Yamase,
N. Makita, and Y. Kanazawa. 2009. Limiting factors in the
detection of tree roots using ground-penetrating radar. Plant
and Soil 319:15–24.
Hodge, S.J., and R. Boswell. 1993. A study of the relationship
between site conditions and urban tree growth. Journal of
Arboriculture 19:358–367.
Holmes, F.W. 1984. Eects on maples of prolonged exposure by
articial girdling roots. Journal of Arboriculture 10:40–44.
Horsley, S.B. 1971. Root tip injury and development of the paper
birch root system. Forest Science 17:341–348.
Howland, P., and A.L. Grith. 1961. e root development of
transplants aer planting in the eld. Empire Forestry Review
40:66–70.
Hruska, J., J. Cermak, and S. Sustek. 1999. Mapping of tree root sys-
tems by means of the ground-penetrating radar. Tree Physiology
19:125–130.
Hudler, G.W., and M.A. Beale. 1981. Anatomical features of girdling
root injury. Arboricultural Journal 5:131–136.
Hutchings, R.R., D. Sinnett, A.J. Peace, and A.J. Moat. 2006. e
eect of woodland growth on a containment landll site in Hert-
fordshire, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5:169–176.
Ingestad, T. 1960. Studies on the nutrition of forest trees seedlings.
III. Mineral nutrition of pine. Physiologia Plantarum 13:513–533.
Ingestad, T., and A-B. Lund. 1979. Nitrogen stress in birch seed-
lings I. Growth technique and growth. Physiologia Plantarum
45:137–48.
Ismail, M.R., and K.M. Noor. 1996. Growth, water relations and
physiological processes of starfruit (Averrhoa carambola L.)
plants under root growth restriction. Scientia Horticulturae
66:51–58.
Jacobs, K., B. Rao, B. Jeers, and D. Danielson. 2000. e eect of
Biobarrier® on mycorrhizae in oak and sweetgum. Journal of
Arboriculture 26:92–96.
Jane, G.T. 1969. e signicance of natural root graing in forestry.
Journal of the Oxford Forest Society 6:14–16.
Johnson, P.S., S.L. Novinger, and W.G. Mares. 1984. Root, shoot,
and leaf area growth potentials of northern red oak planting
stock. Forest Science 30:1017–1026.
Jordan, D., F.J. Ponder, and V.C. Hubbard. 2003. Eects of soil
compaction, forest leaf litter, and nitrogen fertilizer on two oak
species and microbial activity. Applied Soil Ecology 23:33–41.
Jose, S., S. Merritt, and C.L. Ramsey. 2003. Growth, nutrition,
photosynthesis and transpiration responses of longleaf pine
seedlings to light, water, and nitrogen. Forest Ecology and Man-
agement 180:335–344.
Kent, D., S. Shultz, T. Wyatt, and D. Halcrow. 2006. Soil Volume and
Tree Condition in Walt Disney World Parking Lots. Landscape
Journal 25:94–107.
Knox, G.W. 1989. Water use and average growth index of ve
species of container grown woody landscape plants. Journal of
Environmental Horticulture 7:136–139.
Kodrik, J., and M. Kodrik. 2002. Root biomass of beech as a factor
inuencing the wind tree stability. Journal of Forest Science
48:549–564.
Kopinga, J. 1985. Research on street tree planting practices in the
Netherlands. pp. 72–84. In: L.J. Kuhns and J.C. Patterson (Eds.).
METRIA:5 Proceedings. Pennsylvania State University, Univer-
sity Park, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Kopinga, J. 1991. e eects of restricted volumes of soil on the
growth and development of street trees. Journal of Arboricul-
ture 17:57–63.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
267
Kopinga, J. 1994a. Aspects of the damage to asphalt road pavings
caused by tree roots. pp. 165–178. In: G. Watson and D. Neely
(Eds.). e Landscape Below Ground. International Society of
Arboriculture, Savoy, Illinois, U.S.
Kopinga, J. 1994b. Some aspects of the damage to asphalt road
pavings caused by tree roots, including some preventive control
methods. pp. 10.1–10.23. In: Proceedings from the 10th Osna-
brucker Baumpegetage.
Kormanik, P.P. 1986. Lateral root morphology as an expression of
sweetgum seedling quality. Forest Science 32:595–604.
Kormanik, P.P. 1988. Frequency distribution of rst-order lateral
roots in forest tree seedlings: Silvicultural implications. pp.
101–105. In: Proceedings 5th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Re-
search Conference. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-74.
Kormanik, P.P., J.L. Ruehle, and H.D. Muse. 1989. Frequency Distri-
bution of Lateral Roots of 1-0 Bare-root White Oak Seedlings.
USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station
Research Note SE-353.
Kormanik, P.P., S.S. Sung, D.J. Kass, and S. Schlarbaum. 1998. Eect
of seedling size and rst-order-lateral roots on early develop-
ment of northern red oak on mesic sites. pp. 247–252. In: T.A.
Waldrop (Ed.). Proceedings, 9th Biennial Southern Silvicultural
Research Conference. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research
Station General Technical Report SRS-20.
Krasowski, M.J., J.N. Owens, L.E. Tackaberry, and H.B. Massicotte.
1999. Above- and below-ground growth of white spruce seed-
lings with roots divided into dierent substrates with or without
controlled-release fertilizer. Plant and Soil 217:131–143.
Kristoersen, P. 1999. Growing trees in road foundation materials.
Arboricultural Journal 23:57–76.
Larcher W. 1975. Physiological Plant Ecology. Springer-Verlag,
New York, U.S. 252 pp.
Leonard, O.A., and N.R. Townley. 1971. Control of tree roots in
sewers and drains California Agriculture 25(11):13.
Leonard, O.A., D.E. Bayer, and R.K. Glenn. 1974. Control of tree
roots. Weed Science 22:516–520.
Levin, I., R. Assaf, and B. Bravdo. 1979. Soil moisture and root
distribution in an apple orchard irrigated by tricklers. Plant and
Soil 52:31–40.
Lidstrom, V. 1994. Change in structural condition in sewer pipes.
Proceedings NODIG 94, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lindsey, P., and N. Bassuk. 1991. Specifying soil volumes to meet
the water needs of mature urban street trees and trees in con-
tainers. Journal of Arboriculture 17:141–149.
Lindsey, P., and N. Bassuk. 1992. Redesigning the urban forest from
the ground below: A new approach to specifying adequate soil
volumes for street trees. Arboricultural Journal 16:25–39.
Livingston, W.H. 1990. Armillaria ostoyae in young spruce planta-
tions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:1773–1778.
Lloret, F., C. Casanovas, and J. Penuelas. 1999. Seedling survival of
Mediterranean shrubland species in relation to root, shoot ratio,
seed size, and water and nitrogen use. Functional Ecology
13:210–216.
Loh, F.C.W., J.C. Grabosky, and N.L. Bassuk. 2003. Growth re-
sponse of Ficus benjamina to limited soil volume and soil dilu-
tion in a skeletal soils container study. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 2:53–62.
Lumis, G.P., and S.A. Struger. 1988. Root tissue development
around wire-basket transplant containers. HortScience 23:401.
Lumis, G.P. 1982. Stimulating root regeneration of landscape-size red
oak with auxin root sprays. Journal of Arboriculture 8:325–326.
Lyons, C.G., K.S. Yoder, and R.E. Byers. 1982. Poor anchorage and
growth of spur Red Delicious apple-trees with deep crown
roots. Scientia Horticulturae 18:45–47.
MacDonald, J.D., L.R. Costello, J.M. Lichter, and D. Quickert. 2004.
Fill soil eects on soil aeration and tree growth. Journal of
Arboriculture 30:19–27.
Macleod, R.D., and W.J. Cram 1996. Forces exerted by tree roots. Ar-
boriculture Research and Information Note J34/96/EXT. Arbori-
cultural Advisory and Information Service, Farnham, England.
Magley, S.B., and D.K. Struve. 1983. Eects of three transplant
methods on survival, growth and root regeneration of caliper
pin oaks. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 1:59–62.
Marshall, D., D. Patch, and M. Dobson. 1997. Root Barriers and
Building Subsidence. Arboricultural Practice Notes APN 4, 8 pp.
Martinez-Trinidad, T., W.T. Watson, and R.K. Book. 2011. Impact
of paclobutrazol on root-pruned live oak. HortTechnology
21:46–50.
Martinez-Trinidad, T., W.T. Watson, M.A. Arnold, and L. Lombar-
dini. 2009. Investigations of exogenous applications of carbohy-
drates on the growth and vitality of live oaks. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening 8:41–48.
Mattheck, C., and K. Bethge. 2000. Biomechanical study on the
interactions of roots with gas and water pipelines for the evalua-
tion of tree sites. Arboricultural Journal 23:343–377.
May, L.H., F.H. Chapman, and D. Aspinall. 1964. Quantitative stud-
ies of root development. I. e inuence of nutrient concentra-
tion. Australian Journal of BioIogical Sciences 18:25–35.
McClure, S. 1991. Fatal aws (overlooking critical practices for
planting B&B material may prove deadly). American Nursery-
man 174(8):58–61.
McMillin, J.D., and M.R. Wagner. 1995. Eects of water stress
on biomass partitioning of Ponderosa pine seedlings during
primary root growth and shoot growth periods. Forest Science
41:594–610.
McPherson, E.G. 2000. Expenditures associated with conicts
between street tree root growth and hardscape in California,
United States. Journal of Arboriculture 26:289–297.
Miller, F.D., and D. Neely. 1993. e eect of trenching on growth
and plant health of selected species of shade tree. Journal of
Arboriculture 19:226–229.
Misra, R.K., and R. Sands. 1993. Water extraction by isolated trees
and its possible impact on building foundations on clay soils.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 31:25–37.
Mitchell, P.D., and D.J. Chalmers. 1983. A comparison of microjet
and point emitter (trickle) irrigation in the establishment of a
high-density peach orchard. HortScience 18:472–474.
Morell, J.D. 1984. Parkway tree auguring specications. Journal of
Arboriculture 10:129–132.
Morgenroth, J. 2008. A review of root barrier research. Arboricul-
ture & Urban Forestry 34:84–88.
Morgenroth, J., and G.D. Buchan. 2009. Soil moisture and aeration
beneath pervious and impervious pavements. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry 35:135–141.
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
268
Morrison, D.J., and D.B. Redfern. 1994. Long-term development of
Heterobasition annosum in basidiospore-infected Sitka spruce
stumps. Plant Pathology 43:897–906.
Nadezhdina, N., and J. Cermak. 2003. Instrumental methods for
studies of structure and function of root systems of large trees.
Journal of Experimental Botany 54:1511–1521.
Nambiar, E.K. 1980. Root conguration and root regeneration in
Pinus radiata seedlings. New Zealand Journal of Forest Science
10:249–263.
Neely, D., and E.B. Himelick. 1966. Eects of SMDC on elm roots.
Plant Disease Reporter 50:473–476.
Nicoll, B.C., and A. Armstrong. 1997. Street tree root architecture
and pavement damage. Arboriculture Research and Information
Note138/97/SILN Arboricultural Advisory and Information
Service, Farnham, Surrey, England.
Nicoll, B.C., and A. Armstrong. 1998. Development of Prunus root
systems in a city street: Pavement damage and root architecture.
Arboricultural Journal 22:259–270.
Nicoll, B.C., and M.P. Coutts. 1997. Direct Damage by Urban Tree
Roots: Paving the way for less damaging street trees. pp. 77–84.
In: J. Claridge (Ed.). Arboricultural Practice Present and Future
Research for Amenity Trees No. 6. HMSO, England.
Nicoll, B.C., and M.P. Coutts. 1998. Deection of Tree Roots by
Rigid Barriers. Arboriculture Research and Information Note
143/98/SILN. 5 pp.
Nowak, D.J., M. Kuroda, and D.E. Crane. 2004. Tree mortality rates
and tree population projection in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2:139–148.
Numbere, T.E., F.D. Morrison, and R.W. Campbell. 1992. Eects of
uniconazole, paclobutrazol, and urprimidol on the control of
young apple tree (Malus domestica) growth. Plant Growth Reg-
ulator Society of America Quarterly 20:65–75.
O’Callaghan, D.P., and O. Kelly. 2005. Tree-related subsidence: Prun-
ing is not the answer. Journal of Building Approval 1:113–129.
Osmond, D.L., and D.H. Hardy. 2004. Characterization of turf
practices in ve North Carolina Communities. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Quality 33:565–575.
O’Sullivan, M.F., and R.M. Ritchie. 1993. Tree stability in relation to
cyclic loading. Forestry 66:69–82.
Peper, P.J. 1998. Comparison of root barriers installed at two depths
for reduction of white mulberry roots in the soil surface. pp.
82–93. In: G. Watson and D. Neely (Eds.). e Landscape Below
Ground II. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign,
Illinois, U.S.
Peper, P.J., and S. Mori. 1999. Root barrier and extension casing
eects on Chinese hackberry. Journal of Arboriculture 25:1–7.
Percival, G., and J. Gerritsen. 1998. e inuence of plant growth
regulators on root and shoot growth of containerized trees
following root removal. Journal of Horticultural Science &
Biotechnology 73:353–359.
Percival, G.C. 2004. Sugar feeding enhances root vigor of young
trees following containerization. Journal of Arboriculture
30:357–364.
Percival, G.C., and G.A. Fraser. 2005. Use of sugars to improve root
growth and increase transplant success of birch (Betula pendula
Roth.). Journal of Arboriculture 31:66–78.
Percival, G.C., and S. Barnes. 2004. Auxins and water-retaining
polymer root dips aect survival and growth of newly trans-
planted bare-rooted European beech and silver birch. Journal of
Environmental Horticulture 22:183–188.
Percival, G.C., and S. Barnes. 2007. e inuence of carbohydrates,
nitrogen fertilizers and water-retaining polymer root dips on
survival and growth of newly transplanted bare-rooted silver
birch (Betula pendula Roth.) and European beech (Fagus
sylvatica L.). Arboricultural Journal 30:223–244.
Percival, G.C., G.A. Fraser, and S. Barnes. 2004. Soil injections of
carbohydrates improve ne root growth of established urban
trees. Arboricultural Journal 28:95–101.
Philipson, J.J., and M.P. Coutts. 1977. e inuence of mineral
nutrition on the root development of trees II. e eect of spe-
cic nutrient elements on the growth of individual roots of Sitka
spruce. Journal of Experimental Botany 28:864–871.
Piri, T. 1998. Eects of vitality fertilization on the growth or Hetero-
basidion annosum in Norway spruce roots. European Journal of
Forest Pathology 28:391–397.
Pittenger, D., and D. Hodel. 2009. Six-year evaluation of circular
root barriers on two tree species. Arboriculture & Urban For-
estry 35:41–46.
Pohls, O., N.G. Bailey, and P.B. May. 2004. Study of root invasion of
sewer pipes and potential ameliorative techniques. Acta Horti-
culturae 643:113–121.
Ponder, F. Jr. 2000. Survival and growth of planted hardwoods in
harvested openings with rst-order lateral root dierences,
root-dipping, and tree shelters. Northern Journal of Applied
Forestry 17:45–50.
Popoola, T.O.S., and R.T.V. Fox. 1996. Eect of root damage on
honey fungus. Arboricultural Journal 20:329-337.
Prager, C.M., and G.P. Lumis. 1983. IBA and some IBA-synergist
increases of root regeneration of landscape-sized trees. Journal
of Arboriculture 9:117–123.
Prasad, R., and P.R. Moody. 1974. A preliminary study on the
chemical control of maple roots (Acer saccharinum L.) with
herbicides. Report, Chemical Control Research Institute. 10 pp.
Pryke, J.F.S. 1979. Trees and buildings. Arboricultural Journal
3:388–396.
Qu, L., A.M. Quoreshi, and T. Koike. 2003. Root growth character-
istics, biomass, and nutrient dynamics of seedlings of two larch
species raised under dierent fertilization regimes. Plant and
Soil 255:293–302.
Rahardjo, H., F.R. Harnas, E.C. Leong, P.Y. Tan, Y.K. Fong, and E.K.
Sim. 2009. Tree stability in an improved soil to withstand wind
loading. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 8:237–247.
Rahman, M.A., J.G. Smith, P. Stringer, and A.R. Ennos. 2011. Eect
of rooting conditions on the growth and cooling ability of Pyrus
calleryana. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10:185–192.
Randrup, T. 2000. Occurrence of tree roots in Danish municipal
sewer systems. Arboricultural Journal 24:283–306.
Randrup, T.B., E.G. McPherson, and L.R. Costello. 2003. A review
of tree root conicts with sidewalks, curbs, and roads. Urban
Ecosystems 5:209–225.
Rathjens, R.G., T.D. Sydnor, and D.S. Gardner. 2009. Evaluating
root crown excavation as a treatment for deeply-planted land-
scape trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35:287–293
Redmond, D.R. 1957. Infection courts of butt-rotting fungi in bal-
sam r. Forest Science 3:15–21.
Reichwein, S. 2003. Root growth under pavements - results of a eld
study. pp. 132–137. In: H. Balder, K. Strauch, and G.F. Bach-
haus (Eds.). Second International Symposium on Plant Health
in Urban Horticulture. Senate for Urban Development, Berlin,
Germany.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
269
Reichwein, S., 2002. Baumwurzeln unter Verkehrsächen. Unter-
suchungen zu Schäden an Verkehrsächen und Ansätze zur
Schadensbehebung und Schadensvermeidung. Institut für
Grünplanung und Gartenarchitektur. Beiträge zur räumlichen
Planung He 66. Schrienreihe des Fachbereichs Landschas-
architektur und Umweltentwicklung. Hannover, Germany.
Ridgers, D., K. Rolf, and Ö. Stål. 2006. Management and planning so-
lutions to lack of resistance to root penetration by modern PVC
and concrete sewer pipes. Arboricultural Journal 29:269–270.
Riedacker, A. 1978. Etude de la déviation des racines horizontales
ou obliques issues de boutures de peuplier qui rencontrent un
obstacle: Applications pour la conception de conteneurs. An-
nales des Sciences Forestieres 35:1–18.
Rieger, M., and F. Marra. 1994. Responses of young peach trees to
root connement. Journal of the American Society for Horticul-
tural Science 119:223–228.
Robinson, R.M., and D.J. Morrison. 2001. Lesion formation and
host response to infection by Armilaria ostoyae in the roots of
western larch and Douglas-r. Forest Pathology 31:371–385.
Rolf, K., and Ö. Stål. 1994. Tree roots in sewer systems in Malmo,
Sweden. Journal of Arboriculture 20:329–335.
Rolf, K., Ö. Stål, and H. Schroeder. 1995. Tree roots and sewer
systems. pp. 68–71. In: Trees and Building Sites. International
Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.
Roppolo, D.J., Jr., and R.W. Miller. 2001. Factors predisposing urban
trees to sunscald. Journal of Arboriculture 27:246–254.
Ruehle, J.L., and P.P. Kormanik. 1986. Lateral Root Morphology: A
Potential Indicator of Seedling Quality in Northern Red Oak.
USDA Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station
Research Note SE-334.
Rytter, L., T. Ericsson, and R.M. Rytter. 2003. Eects of demand-
driven fertilization on nutrient use, root:plant ratio and eld
performance of Betula pendula and Picea abies. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research 18:401–415.
Santamour, F.S., Jr. 1985. Trunk wood discoloration and decay fol-
lowing root wounding. Journal of Arboriculture 11:257–262.
Schultz, R.C., and J.R. ompson. 1997. Eect of density control
and undercutting on root morphology of 1+0 bare root hard-
wood seedlings: ve-year eld performance of rootgraded stock
in the central USA. New Forests 13:301–314.
Sheri, D.W., and E.K.S. Nambiar. 1995. Eect of subsoil compac-
tion and three densities of simulated root channels in the sub-
soil on growth, carbon gain, and water uptake of Pinus radiata.
Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 22:1001–1013.
Shigo, A.L. 1972. Successions of microorganisms and patterns of
discoloration and decay aer wounding in red oak and white
oak. Phytopathology 62:256–259.
Shigo, A.L. 1977. Compartmentalization of Decay in Trees. USDA
Forest Service Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 405.
70 pp.
Shigo, A.L. 1979a. Compartmentalization of decay associated with
Heterobasidion annosum in roots of Pinus resinosa. European
Journal of Forest Pathology 9:341–347.
Shigo, A.L. 1979b. Tree Decay: An Expanded Concept. USDA For-
est Service Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 419. 72 pp.
Shigo, A.L. 1986. A New Tree Biology Dictionary. Shigo and Trees
Associates, Durham, New Hampshire, U.S. 132 pp.
Shigo, A.L. 1991. Modern Arboriculture. Shigo and Trees Associ-
ates, Durham, New Hampshire, U.S. 424 pp.
Silva, D.D., M.E. Kane, and R.C. Beeson, Jr. 2012. Changes in Root
and Shoot Growth and Biomass Partition Resulting from Dier-
ent Irrigation Intervals for Ligustrum japonicum unb. Hort-
science 47:1634–1640.
Smiley, E.T, S.J. Lilly, and P. Kelsey. 2007. Best Management Prac-
tices: Tree and shrub fertilization. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.
Smiley, E.T. 2005. Root growth near vertical root barriers. Journal
of Arboriculture 31:150–152.
Smiley, E.T. 2006. Root collar excavation for urban landscape trees.
pp. 49–50. In: Trees and Planting: Getting the Roots Right, e
Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL. Accessed 05/21/2013. <www.mor-
tonarb.org/deeptreeroots/pdf/GRR_Proceedings.pdf#TOC>
Smiley, E.T. 2008a. Comparison of methods to reduce sidewalk
damage from tree roots. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
34:179–183.
Smiley, E.T. 2008b. Root pruning and stability of young willow oak.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:123–128.
Smiley, E.T., A. Key, and C. Greco. 2000. Root barriers and
windthrow potential. Journal of Arboriculture 26:213–217.
Smiley, E.T., L. Calfee, B.R. Fraedrich, and E.J. Smiley. 2006. Com-
parison of structural and noncompacted soils for trees surround-
ed by pavement. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:164–169.
Smiley, E.T., L. Wilkinson, and B.R. Fraedrich. 2009. Root growth
near vertical root barriers aer seven years. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry 35:23–26.
Smith, K., P. May, and R. White. 2010. Above and belowground
growth of Corymbia maculata in a constructed soil: e eect
of prole design and organic amendment. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry 36:11–17.
Smith, P.F. 1965. Eect of nitrogen source and placement on the
root development of Valencia orange trees. Proceedings of the
Florida State Horticultural Society 78:55–59.
Sokalska, D.I., D.Z. Haman, A. Szewczuk, J. Sobota, and D. Deren.
2009. Spatial root distribution of mature apple trees under drip
irrigation system. Agricultural Water Management 96:917–924.
Soleld, I., and P.A. Pedersen. 2006. Growth of Betula pendula
Roth. the rst season aer transplanting at two phenological
stages. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5:101–106.
Stål, Ö. 1992. Trädrötter och ledningar (Roots and pipes). Svenska
vatten-och avloppsverksföreningen, VAV. Report 1992-14.
Stål, Ö. 1995. Trädrötter och avloppsledningar. En fordjupad under-
sokning av rotproblem i nya avloppsledningar. Svenska Vatten
och Avloppsverksföreningen. VA-FORSK Rapport Nr. 1995-11.
Stål, Ö. 1998. e interaction of tree roots and sewers: e Swedish
experience. Arboricultural Journal 22:359–367.
Starbuck, C., D.K. Struve, and H. Mathers. 2005. Bareroot and
balled-and-burlapped red oak and green ash can be summer
transplanted using the Missouri gravel bed system. HortTech-
nology 15:122–127.
Stewart, M., and R. Sands. 1996. Comparative water relations of
trees in clay soils and the potential for building damage. Arbori-
cultural Journal 20:313–328.
Stokes, A., T. Fourcaud, J. Hruska, J. Cermak, N. Nadezhdina, V.
Nadezhdin, and L. Praus. 2002. An evaluation of dierent meth-
ods to investigate root system architecture of urban trees in situ.
I. Ground-penetrating radar. Journal of Arboriculture 28:2–10.
Stone, E.L. 1974. e communal root system of red pine: Growth of
girdled trees. Forest Science 20:294–305.
Watson et al.: Management of Tree Root Systems in Urban and Suburban Settings
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
270
Struve, D.K., and B.C. Moser. 1984. Auxin eects on root regenera-
tion of scarlet oak seedlings. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science 109:91–95.
Sundstrom, E., and M. Keane. 1999. Root architecture, early de-
velopment and basal sweep in containerized and bare-rooted
Douglas r (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Plant and Soil 217:65–78.
Sutton, R.F., and R.W. Tinus. 1983. Root and root system terminol-
ogy. Forest Science 29(4):supplement (Monograph 24).
Swiecki, T.J. 1990. A delicate balance: Impacts of diseases and in-
sects on the health of California oaks. Fremontia 18:58–63.
Switzer, G.L. 1960. Exposure and planting depth eects on loblolly
pine planting stock on poorly drained sites. Journal of Forestry
58:390–391.
Sydnor, T.D., D. Gamstetter, J. Nichols, B. Bishop, J. Favorite, C.
Blazer, and L. Turpin. 2000. Trees are not the root of sidewalk
problems. Journal of Arboriculture 26:20–29.
Symeonidou, M.V., and P.G. Buckley. 1997. e eect of preplanting
desiccation on survival and growth of Prunus cerasifera seed-
lings and the relationship of physiological indicators at planting
with eld performance and survival. Russian Journal of Plant
Physiology 44:514–517.
Tamasi, E., A. Stokes, B. Lasserre, F. Danjon, S. Berthier, T. Four-
caud, and D. Chiatante. 2005. Inuence of wind loading on root
system development and architecture in oak (Quercus robur L.)
seedlings. Trees 19:374–384.
Tate, R.L. 1980. Detection, description and treatment of girdling
roots on urban Norway maple tree. pp. 83–87. In: D.F. Karnosky
(Ed.). METRIA:3 Proceedings.
Tate, R.L. 1981. Characteristics of girdling roots on urban Norway
maples. Journal of Arboriculture 7:268–270.
Tian, S., and W.D. Ostrofsky. 2007. Butt and root decay in pre-
commercially thinned spruce-r stands. Northern Journal of
Applied Forestry 24:129–133.
Tippett, J.T., A.L. Bogle, and A.L. Shigo. 1982. Response of balsam
r and hemlock roots to injuries. European Journal of Forest
Pathology 12:357–364.
Tippett, J.T., and A.L. Shigo. 1980. Barrier zone anatomy in red pine
roots invaded by Heterobasidion annosum. Canadian Journal of
Forestry Research 10:224–232.
Tippett, J.T., and A.L. Shigo. 1981. Barriers to decay in conifer roots.
European Journal of Forest Pathology 11:51–59.
Townsend, K., D. Ham, A. Miller, and T. Chesnut. 1997. Soil Aera-
tion Systems: Do they really improve tree root zone conditions
under ll and paving? Accessed 05/21/2013. <www.clemson.
edu/cas/departments/horticulture/research/ornamental/land-
scape/soil_aeration_systems.html>
Tryon, P.R., and F.S. Chapin III. 1983. Temperature control over
root growth and root biomass in taiga forest trees. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 13:827–833.
Tschaplinski, T.J., and T.J. Blake. 1985. Eects of root restriction on
growth correlations, water relations, and senescence of alder
seedlings. Physiologia Plantarum 64:167–176.
Tworkoski, T.J., M.E. Engle, and P.T. Kujawski. 1996. Growth regu-
latory eects and soil concentration of controlled-release Tri-
uralin applied to roots of yellow poplar and red oak. Journal
of the American Society of Horticultural Science 121:461–465.
Urban, J. 1992. Bringing order to the technical dysfunction within
the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18:85–90.
Urban, J. 2008. Up by Roots: Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built
Environment. International Society of Arboriculture, Cham-
paign, Illinois, U.S. 479 pp.
Verzilov, V. 1970. Treatment of trees with growth regulators during
transplanting. Soviet Science Review 1:157–161.
Viswanathan, B., A. Volder, W.T. Watson, and J.A. Aitkenhead-
Peterson. 2011. Impervious and pervious pavements increase
soil CO2 concentrations and reduce root production of American
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua). Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 10:133–139.
Volder, A., T. Watson, and B. Viswanathan. 2009. Potential use of
pervious concrete for maintaining existing mature trees during
and aer urban development. Urban Forestry & Urban Green-
ing 8:249–256.
von der Heide-Spravka, K.G., and G.W. Watson. 1990. Directional
variation in growth of trees. Journal of Arboriculture 16:169–173.
Vrecenak, A.J., M.C. Vodak, and L.E. Fleming. 1989. e inuence
of site factors on the growth of urban trees. Journal of Arbori-
culture 15:206–209.
Wagar, J.A. 1985. Reducing surface rooting of trees with control
planters and wells. Journal of Arboriculture 11:165–171.
Wagar, J.A., and A.L. Franklin. 1994. Sidewalk eects on soil mois-
ture and temperature. Journal of Arboriculture 20:237–238.
Wagar, J.A., and P.A. Barker. 1983. Tree root damage to sidewalks
and curbs. Journal of Arboriculture 6:95–105.
Wahlenberg, W.G. 1929. Modication of western yellow pine root
systems by fertilizing the soil at dierent depths in the nursery.
Journal of Agricultural Research 39:137–146.
Warren, S.L. 1993. Growth and nutrient concentration in owering
dogwood aer nitrogen fertilization and dormant root pruning.
Journal of Arboriculture 19:57–63.
Watson, G. 1985. Tree size aects root regeneration and top growth
aer transplanting. Journal of Arboriculture 11:37–40.
Watson, G. 2004. Eect of transplanting and paclobutrazol on root
growth of ‘Green Column’ black maple and ‘Summit’ green ash.
Journal of Environmental Horticulture 22:209–212.
Watson, G. 2008. Discoloration and decay in severed tree roots.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:260–264.
Watson, G.W. 1987. Are auxins practical for B&B trees? American
Nurseryman 166:183–184.
Watson, G.W. 1996. Tree root system enhancement with pa-
clobutrazol. Journal of Arboriculture 22:211–217.
Watson, G.W. 1998. Tree growth aer trenching and compensatory
crown pruning. Journal of Arboriculture 24:47–53.
Watson, G.W. 2006. e eect of paclobutrazol treatment on starch
content, mycorrhizal colonization, and ne root density of
white oaks (Quercus alba L.). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
32:114–117.
Watson, G.W. 2009. Desiccation tolerance of green ash and sugar
maple ne roots. Journal of Environmental Horticulture
27:229–233.
Watson, G.W., and E.B. Himelick. 1982a. Seasonal variation in root
regeneration of transplanted trees. Journal of Arboriculture
8:305–310.
Watson, G.W., and E.B. Himelick. 1982b. Root distribution of nurs-
ery trees and its relationship to transplanting success. Journal of
Arboriculture 8:225–229.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014
©2014 International Society of Arboriculture
271
Watson, G.W., and E.B. Himelick. 2004. Eects of soil pH, root den-
sity, and tree growth regulator treatments on pin oak chlorosis.
Journal of Arboriculture 30:172–177.
Watson, G.W., and S. Clark. 1993. Regeneration of girdling roots
aer removal. Journal of Arboriculture 19:278–280.
Watson, G.W., S. Clark, and K. Johnson. 1990. Formation of gir-
dling roots. Journal of Arboriculture 16:197–202.
Watson, W.T., D.N. Appel, M.A. Arnold, and C.M. Kenerley. 2006.
Spatial distribution of Malus root systems in irrigated, trellised
orchards. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology
81:745–753.
Weller, F. 1966. Horizontal distribution of absorbing roots and the
utilization of fertilizers in apple orchards. Erwobstbsobstbau
8:181–184.
Wells, C., K. Townsend, J. Caldwell, D. Ham, E.T. Smiley, and M.
Sherwood. 2006. Eects of planting depth on landscape tree
survival and girdling root formation. Arboriculture & Urban
Forestry 32:305–311.
Wells, C.A., D. Whigham, and H. Lieuth. 1972. Investigation of
mineral nutrient cycling in an upland piedmont forest. Journal
of the Elisha Mitchell Scientic Society 88:66–78.
White, D.A., and G.A. Kile. 1993. Discoloration and decay from
articial wounds in 20-year-old Eucalyptus regnans. European
Journal of Forest Pathology 23:431–440.
Whitney, R.D. 1967. Comparative susceptibility of large and small
spruce roots to Polyporous tomentosus. Canadian Journal of
Botany 45:2227–2229.
Wilcox, H. 1955. Regeneration of injured root systems in Noble r.
Botanical Gazette 116:221–234.
Wilson, A.D., and D.G. Lester. 2002. Trench inserts as long-term
barriers to root transmission for control of oak wilt. Plant
disease 86:1067–1074.
Wilson, B.F. 1967. Root growth around barriers. Botanical Gazette
128:79–82.
Witherspoon, W.R., and G.P. Lumis. 1986. Root regeneration of
Tilia cordata cultivars aer transplanting in response to root
exposure and soil moisture levels. Journal of Arboriculture
12:165–168.
Witt, H.H. 1997. Root growth of trees as inuenced by physical and
chemical soil factors. Acta Horticulturae 450:205–214.
Wong, T.W., J.E.G. Good, and M.P. Denne. 1988. Tree root damage
to pavements and kerbs in the city of Manchester. Arboricul-
tural Journal 12:17–34.
Yeager, T.H., and R.D. Wright. 1981. Inuence of nitrogen and
phosphorus on shoot:root ratio of Ilex crenata unb. ‘Helleri.
HortScience 16:564–565.
Yelenosky, G. 1964. Tolerance of trees to deciencies of soil aera-
tion. Proceedings of the International Shade Tree Conference
40:27–147.
Gary W. Watson (corresponding author)
e Morton Arboretum
4100 Illinois Route 53
Lisle, Illinois 60532, U.S.
gwatson@mortonarb.org
Angela M. Hewitt
e Morton Arboretum
4100 Illinois Route 53
Lisle, Illinois 60532, U.S.
Melissa Custic
e Morton Arboretum
4100 Illinois Route 53
Lisle, Illinois 60532, U.S.
Marvin Lo
e Morton Arboretum
4100 Illinois Route 53
Lisle, Illinois 60532, U.S.
Zusammenfassung. Das Wurzelsystem von nahezu allen Bäu-
men in bebauten Bereichen ist den Einüssen von menschlichen
Aktivitäten ausgesetzt, welche die Baumgesundheit beeinussen
und die Langlebigkeit reduzieren. Diese Einüsse sind von der
Frühphase der Baumschulentwicklung bis durch das ganze Leben
der Bäume präsent. Durch Baumaßnahmen oder Wurzelverlust re-
duzierte Wurzelsysteme können die Stabilität beeinussen und den
Stress vergrößern. Natürliche Infektionen von Wurzeln bei Straßen-
bäumen durch Abtrennen führten nachweislich nicht zu extensiver
Fäulnis. Wurzeln geraten wegen ihrer Nähe zur Infrastruktur in
Konikt mit der urbanen Umgebung. Strategien zur Bereitstellung
von Wurzelraum unter den Pasterächen und zur Reduzierung
von angehobenen Pasterächen wurden entwickelt, aber die Strat-
egien zum Schutz von Fundament- und Abwasserrohrschäden sind
begrenzt auf wachsende Separation oder verbesserte Konstruktion.
Resumen. Los sistemas de raíces de casi todos los árboles en el
entorno construido están sujetos a los impactos de las actividades
humanas que pueden afectar su salud y reducir su longevidad. Estas
inuencias están presentes desde las primeras etapas de desarrollo
en viveros y luego durante toda la vida del árbol. Sistemas de raíces
reducidos, pérdida o constricción de las mismas pueden disminuir
la estabilidad del árbol y aumentar el estrés. La infección natural
de las raíces de los árboles urbanos después de su ruptura no se ha
demostrado que conduzca a un extensivo decaimiento. Las raíces
a menudo entran en conicto con la infraestructura en las zonas
urbanas debido a la proximidad. Se han desarrollado alternativas
para proporcionar espacio para las raíces bajo las aceras y reducir la
aglomeración, pero las estrategias para la prevención de daños por
pavimentación y tubería de alcantarillado se limitan a aumentar la
separación o la mejora de la construcción.
... Given the small diameter of the roots at 1 m, it is likely that this zone was located closer to the trunk and remained unaltered by our trenching treatments. The small root diameter could be related to planting practices that often involve root severing that favors branching [26]. Root branching close to the trunk has a major impact on their stiffness since it is a function of the diameter raised to the fourth power [14]. ...
... However, if decay enters the severed roots, the stability could decrease over time. According to Watson et al. (2014), root decay would not be a major problem after such damage if we adhere to the best practices which recommend clean cuts to reduce the exposed surface for invasive decay organisms [38]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Trees growing in urban environments are often impacted by maintenance or construction work involving the cutting of roots. Tree protection zones have been proposed to avoid critical damage to the tree. However, despite incorporating quantitative information, they heavily rely on expert judgement that remains to be validated. In a study conducted across six parks in Quebec City, Canada, two commonly found tree species, Acer platanoides L. and Tilia cordata Mill., presumed to be different in terms of vulnerability to root damage, were subjected to a range of trenching treatments. The trees were between 23 and 40 cm diameter at breast height (DBH). A safety factor was calculated relating the turning moment the tree can withstand to the turning moment imposed by high winds likely to occur. The safety factor against uprooting was assessed for each tree before and after root trenching using a non-destructive pulling approach. The effects of tree species, distance to the trench, and their combined interaction were tested on tree stability. The relationship between tree stability and soil texture, tree characteristics, and the number of damaged roots were also tested. Safety factors were initially variable, ranging from 0.5 to 4.5. T. cordata safety factors were lower than those of A. platanoides and influenced by soil texture. Trenching treatments had no effect on the safety factor, even when two perpendicular trenches were dug at 1 m from the stem. No index of the amount of root damaged was significantly related to the safety factor. Root trenching treatments that encroached closer to the tree trunk than the recommended tree protection zones did not affect the stability of both species. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that other ecophysiological processes might still be influenced, and long-term monitoring is crucial. Both should be taken into account when determining these zones.
... Cutting often leads to the emergence of multiple roots, resulting in a coppice of new root growth (Wajja-Musukwe et al. 2008). Additionally, research has shown that larger woody roots are less likely to produce new roots than smaller ones when damaged (Watson et al. 2014). ...
... Our inability to predict the presence or absence of root regrowth was somewhat surprising. In their comprehensive literature review of urban tree root management, Watson et al. (2014) noted that larger roots are less likely to regrow new roots when cut. Additionally, Balder et al. (1999), stated that root regeneration "depends on the age and thickness of the root, an old root is not able to form new roots." ...
Article
Full-text available
Background As long-lived organisms, urban trees often encounter development and redevelopment activities during their lifespans. These activities can damage tree roots, often through methods like root severing during trenching or excavation. Methods In 2017, we simulated trenching damage on mature Quercus virginiana Mill. trees at 3 different distances from the base (3, 6, or 12 times the stem diameter). After 5 years, we revisited these trees to assess root regrowth based on the cut root’s cross-sectional area (CSA) and distance from the base. Results We observed regrowth in all but 38 (6.7%) of the 557 cut roots revisited. The lack of regrowth in some roots was not associated with our original treatments, the CSA of the roots at the time of trenching, or distance between the cut root end and the trunk (minimum P -value = 0.841). On average, the observed CSA of the regrowth was 22.2% of the original root’s CSA. Only our initial trenching treatments ( P -value = 0.024) and the distance between the trunk and the cut root end ( P -value = 0.002) significantly predicted the level of regrowth observed 5 years after pruning. Conclusions In summary, our findings indicate that root systems require many years to recover from trenching damage. Increasing the distance between trenching activities and trees may have a minor effect on root regrowth.
... There are no significant differences if professionals or trained non-professionals plant trees. Site conditions may impact tree mortality, but species selection, production method, stock quality, planting process, and post-planting tree care are of greater significance [8,[12][13][14]. The influence of nursery production systems on urban tree survival has already been studied, especially by Whitcomb [15], Day et al. [16], and Allen et al. [17], indicating numerous connections between nursery production, planting practices, and post-transplant tree survival. ...
Article
Full-text available
Trees in urban conditions struggle with many factors that reduce their growth. In many cases, newly planted trees do not survive to maturity. The trees are produced using various methods, the most popular of which are balled and burlapped (B&B) and container production. Different production methods have their cons, but in many cases, the most common problem is the root system condition—it is often poorly developed, with girdle roots, or the rootball is covered with excess soil. Deep structural roots, as this is the name of the problem related to the roots being located too deep in the soil during production or trees being placed too deep in the planting pith, have been noticed for several decades; nevertheless, they are still poorly understood. In many cases, the excess soil above the rootball is over 10 cm—such covering the rootball may lead to infection, weakening, or tree death. The problem of deep structural roots seems to be one of the most serious problems we face in the case of urban plantings. However, many other factors remain disputed—such as cutting the crowns of planted trees, removing burlap from a rootball, or planting smaller rather than larger trees. All these issues have not been resolved despite many years of study, and still require further investigation.
... Much of the process in developing a plan for tree protection during construction focuses on soil conservation for the benefit of the tree root system (Matheny et al. 2023). Often root location and contribution to total damage in tree protection is a concern for tree mechanical stability (Smiley 2008), or protection for whole plant biological support (Watson et al. 2014). Tree care professionals often seek to understand how many roots are impacted as a portion of the entire root system, or a dose of root impact. ...
Article
Full-text available
When considering the establishment of tree protection zones in construction, or in assessing relative damage to a tree for risk or penalty, it would be useful to have a method to predict total root area at some distance from the tree. With such a method, the arborist can assess the level of damage in comparison to some estimate of the total rather than from a loss of possible root zone space based on land area. We used a modification of the pipe model approach to estimate the root cross-sectional area at different distances from the tree as defined by the edge and center of the trunk. We discuss two early studies. The first considers root systems excavated from a limited set of 9 trees over 50 years post-establishment across 3 species. Trees were excavated and roots harvested, cataloged, and imaged for measurement at 1, 2 and 3 meters from the trunk edge of the respective tree. The second study considered 29 digitally mapped root systems of Fraxinus pennsylvanica ‘Patmore’ 9 years post-transplant by developing code for a virtual dissection at specific distances from the tree trunk. The second study observed variability across a tightly defined set of trees. There was a weak relationship between root area at set distances by species, and we found 3 m was a useful distance in the first study. We have a long way to go in development before having a method as a tool for practice, but the approach may be useful with additional observation and study.
... Urban factors such as building development and compacted soil may impact the health of street trees in dense metropolitan areas (Lu et al. 2010). The presence of buildings and pavements can restrict root systems (Watson et al. 2014b). In addition, urban soils limit tree growth. ...
Article
Full-text available
Street trees are valuable to urban environments, providing environmental, aesthetic, and social benefits. However, local authorities and municipalities are under pressure to cut down street trees because of concerns about fallen trees and broken branches. The problem is that this risk assessment can be done only by agronomists (experts) in some places, which is limiting. The idea is to train the local municipality’s gardeners (non-experts) to conduct risk assessments for street trees using a criteria-defined protocol developed by the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture. In our case study, we compare a risk assessment on street trees done by gardeners to a risk assessment done by an agronomist. The findings showed that most non-experts agreed with every criterion in the protocol. The strength of the relationship between the expert score and the non-experts’ average score was high and significant. Most criteria had a high or complete agreement between the gardeners and the agronomist. The visible risks criterion has a medium agreement, while the height–diameter ratio criterion has the lowest agreement between the gardeners and the agronomist. Local authorities and municipalities have room to rely on their gardeners (after a short training) to assess the risks of street trees falling when a criterion-defining assessment protocol is used.
... Understanding rooting patterns has important implications for wildland [1,2] and urban [3] forest management, ecosystem restoration [4], and climate change mitigation [5]. In particular, the morphological traits (i.e., volume, length, diameter, and number) of tree coarse roots (≥ 1 cm diameter) can inform researchers about plant development processes in response to biotic and abiotic factors, such as biomass and carbon allocation. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Understanding how trees develop their root systems is crucial for the comprehension of how wildland and urban forest ecosystems plastically respond to disturbances such as harvest, fire, and climate change. The interplay between the endogenously determined root traits and the response to environmental stimuli results in tree adaptations to biotic and abiotic factors, influencing stability, carbon allocation, and nutrient uptake. Combining the three-dimensional structure of the root system, with root morphological trait information promotes a robust understanding of root function and adaptation plasticity. Low Magnetic Field Digitization coupled with AMAPmod (botAnique et Modelisation de l’Architecture des Plantes) software has been the best-performing method for describing root system architecture and providing reliable measurements of coarse root traits, but the pace and scale of data collection remain difficult. Instrumentation and applications related to Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) have advanced appreciably, and when coupled with Quantitative Structure Models (QSM), have shown some potential toward robust measurements of tree root systems. Here we compare, we believe for the first time, these two methodologies by analyzing the root system of 32-year-old Pinus ponderosa trees. Results In general, at the total root system level and by root-order class, both methods yielded comparable values for the root traits volume, length, and number. QSM for each root trait was highly sensitive to the root size (i.e., input parameter PatchDiam) and models were optimized when discrete PatchDiam ranges were specified for each trait. When examining roots in the four cardinal direction sectors, we observed differences between methodologies for length and number depending on root order but not volume. Conclusions We believe that TLS and QSM could facilitate rapid data collection, perhaps in situ, while providing quantitative accuracy, especially at the total root system level. If more detailed measures of root system architecture are desired, a TLS method would benefit from additional scans at differing perspectives, avoiding gravitational displacement to the extent possible, while subsampling roots by hand to calibrate and validate QSM models. Despite some unresolved logistical challenges, our results suggest that future use of TLS may hold promise for quantifying tree root system architecture in a rapid, replicable manner.
... In each quadrat, all aboveground shrub parts were cut, collected, and placed into separate labeled envelopes. To assess the belowground biomass, we employed the comprehensive excavation method, which involves retrieving the entire root system from the soil [23]. The roots and the aboveground shrub parts were washed and oven-dried at 65 • C for 24 h to a constant weight for the determination of biomass. ...
Article
Full-text available
Shrub patches have an impact on soil fertility and vegetation, influencing species composition and diversity. The unique context of the Eastern Qilian Mountains provides insights into alpine ecosystems’ responses to environmental challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the physical characteristics and soil nutrient contents of shrub patches for four different shrub species (Salix oritrepha (SO), Spiraea alpina (SA), Rhododendron capitatum (RC), and Potentilla fruticosa (PF)). We assessed their patch characteristics and soil nutrients at different depths within three patch microsites (the center (CS), the edge (ES), and the midpoint between the center and the edge of the shrub patch (BC)). Soil samples were collected and analyzed for organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content. Statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate differences among shrub species and locations within the shrub patches. Our results showed that the shrub species exhibited variations in patch characteristics and soil nutrient distribution. Soil nutrient content varied by depth and location within the shrub patches, with higher concentrations at the center. The relative interaction intensity (RII) revealed nutrient aggregation or dispersion trends. The study highlighted the complex interactions between shrub characteristics and soil nutrients, emphasizing their influence on nutrient cycling, vegetation dynamics, and soil properties. These findings contribute to our understanding of alpine ecosystem dynamics and inform conservation, sustainability, and management strategies.
... Site factors such as reduced space for root development, shallow, compacted, or poor soil, cause tree decline in urban areas (27). Limited space for root growth of these first magnitude species, such as London Plane trees, and second magnitude like Mulberry trees, is compounded by impermeabilized irrigation ditches of Mendoza. ...
Article
Full-text available
Urban forests significantly benefit cities and people´s wellbeing. However, under suboptimal growth conditions, they can pose risks. The tree risk and tree hazard assessments in public spaces bring together several protocols for preventing damage to people and property. This article aims to strengthen the database on forest resources at the urban scale and to identify key characteristics of relevant species of street trees in Mendoza-Argentina. In terms of methodology, trees of Platanus hispanica (London Plane tree) and Morus alba (Mulberry tree) were evaluated in situ by indicators related to the probability of failure such as defects, injuries and stress signals. The results show deterioration of part of the urban forest, as well as the greater resilience of P. hispanica when compared to M. alba. We conclude that systematically implementing these assessments will provide guidelines for the sustainable management of urban trees, improving forest infrastructure under sustainable development guidelines. Highlights : Trees growing in cities are conditioned by certain variables compromising their performance. Risk assessment of urban trees considers several measurement protocols, including the rapid visual method. The main problems identified in P. hispanica were cankers with decay, combined with poor branch architecture. M. alba showed more hazardous defects, with an "imminent" likelihood of failure and presence of cankers combined with decay.
... Sewer pipe blockages are typically managed reactively, especially when pipes have a low risk of failure (DeSilva et al. 2011). Reactive strategies include the mechanical removal of tree root blockages from pipes (Randrup et al. 2001), herbicides and inhibitors of root growth (Eslamiamirabadi et al. 2020, Groninger et al. 1997, Pohls et al. 2004, root pruning, soil trenching and root barriers (Benson et al. 2019, Morgenroth 2008, Watson et al. 2014, or tree removal as the ultimate option. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Urban trees are commonly impacted by construction activities. Often, damage occurs below ground, as trenching, grading, and excavation activities disrupt tree root systems. Methods In this study, 30 Acer rubrum L. were intentionally damaged by simulated trenching treatments. Treatments were randomly assigned at 1× ( n = 10), 3× ( n = 10), or 5× ( n = 10) stem diameter away from the base of the tree. Root systems and severed roots were excavated, cleaned, and digitized using photogrammetry to assess losses in root volume. This measure, as well as changes in bending stress, were compared among the 3 treatments. Results The 1× and 3× treatments exhibited the highest bending stress loss (%), correlating with the highest observed root loss. A positive relationship was noted between root volume loss and bending stress reduction ( r ² = 0.5466). Conclusions These results support previous studies that utilized similar trenching treatments on different tree species.
Article
Full-text available
Higher N rates applied to Ilex crenata ‘ Helleri’ holly liners grown in the greenhouse increased shoot growth but-decreased root growth resulting in a greater shoot:root ratio. Higher N rates reduced the time required for a shoot growth flush to occur. Ρ at 85-500 ppm had no effect on shoot or root growth. Continued growth of liners at 50 ppm N lowered the shoot:root ratio due to stimulation of root growth while 300 ppm N caused the shoot:root ratio to increase due to increased shoot growth.
Article
Full-text available
Root-zone temperature (RZT) of 15 landscape planting sites in a metropolitan area was monitored from 13 June to 5 Sept. 1985. RZT was highest at urban sites associated with city surface materials, such as asphalt and concrete. The RZT was significantly lower at suburban and woodland sites. Temperature was uniform throughout the root zone at sites along urban streets; it decreased with increasing depth at all other sites. High temperature extremes may contribute to the decline of landscape plants at urban sites.
Article
Full-text available
Wire baskets are an integral part of transplanting landscape trees and are designed for many types and sizes of mechanical tree spades. The wire basket functions as support for the root ball and as a means of lifting the tree (3). Most baskets are made from galvanized wire and are left intact at planting (P. Braun, personal communication), although some specifications require their removal (1). The potential longevity of the wire in the soil has led to concern and speculation about adverse effects of the basket on tree growth (4). Root girdling, tree instability, reduced shoot growth, and premature decline have been suggested as possible effects on trees planted in intact wire baskets (2, 5).
Article
Full-text available
Dipping root systems of scarlet oak seedlings ( Quercus coccinea Juench.) in 3-indolebutyric acid potassium salt (K-IBA), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), 2,4,5-trichloropropanoic acid (2,4,5-TP), β-naphtoxy acetic acid (NOAA), or naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) induced a 6-fold increase in adventitious root regeneration, as compared to control seedlings. Time to first root initiation was increased and root elongation rate was decreased for auxin-treated seedlings relative to untreated controls. Under field conditions, one-year-old seedlings treated with NAA at 3000 mg/liter or K-IBA at 1000 or 3000 mg/liter regenerated more roots and developed greater root length than did control plants. Toothpicks impregnated with a 1000 mg/liter K-IBA solution and inserted into tap roots stimulated a 16-fold increase in roots and an 18-fold increase in root length as compared to control seedlings.
Article
Two types of trunk symptoms are associated with urban maple decline in Wisconsin. One is a "basal canker," caused by Fusarium spp., and the other is a "collar rot" caused by a Phytophthora sp. Phytophthora collar rot appears to be more destructive. Trunk girdling by these diseases, both occasionally observed on the same tree, was greatest on trees with severe decline (Class V) and least on trees with initial decline (Class II). Incipient cankers were found on trees still healthy in outward appearance (Class I). Buttress roots of planted trees were deeper than the roots of naturally seeded, woodland trees. Moreover, woodland trees exhibited no similar cankers. We believe that the fungi and the diseases they incide are causes of urban maple decline in Wisconsin. They may be associated with maple tree production in nurseries or with planting practices in urban situations.
Article
Girdling roots were examined on 336 street-side mature Norway maple trees [Acer platanoides) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Most ot the girdled trees were girdled by multiple, shallow, subsurface roots. There was no association between girdled trees and narrow tree lawns. Most of the trees were not girdled severely. There did not appear to be any significant effects on crown characteristics attributable to root girdling.
Article
New telephone lines were installed in trenches throughout the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign in the spring of 1987. The trenches were in close proximity to tree trunks. Annual growth and mortality data were taken on Celtis occidentalis, Liquidambar styraciflua, Acer saccharum and Gleditsia triacanthos through 1991. Only 7 of 98 trees died during the trial period. Trenching distances of 0.5 to 3.3 m did not predispose the trees to readily evident disease or insect infestations. Only on Celtis was there statistically different growth between trenched and control trees for all growing seasons.
Article
Quercus robur seedlings were grown in compacted stone-soil mixes known to meet engineering standards for pavement base compaction and strength. Root penetration into these materials was greatly increased in comparison to an equally compacted clay loam, which was also a component of the test material. Oak root penetration in the clay loam decreased 50%, from 6 to 3 g dry root weight, as the bulk density increased from 1.24 to 1.55 Mg/m3. Severe root impedance was observed when clay loam bulk densities exceeded 1.5 Mg/m3 (90% standard AASHTO peak density),a situation produced after 20% of the standard compaction effort was imposed on the soil profile. At the standard AASHTO peak density for the clay loam (1.67 Mg/m3), which would be the norm in a sidewalk installation, root growth was entirely stopped. In contrast, structured stone-soil mixes compacted to 100% of their respective standard AASHTO peak densities (between 1.85 and 2.07 Mg/m3) did not restrict root penetration with mean root dry weights between 4 and 6 g and demonstrated satisfactory bearing strength (California bearing ratios between 40 and 80).
Article
Paclobutrazol 2SC (PBZ) was injected into the soil at the base of the trunk at 2 g a.i. per inch dbh. Surface fine root densities near the base of the trees were naturally higher than in the rest of the root system and were adequate to absorb the compound. PBZ treatment was effective in stimulating fine root development in pin oaks {Quercus palustris) and white oaks {Quercus alba). Pin oak fine root densities were increased significantly in high-quality topsoil. White oak fine root densities were increased significantly by PBZ alone and in combination with high-organic replacement soils. The treatment may be effective in stabilizing declining trees with insufficient fine root development.