DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report Oklahoma City Community Forest Assessment 2016 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Community Forest Assessment 2016 Prepared for: City of Oklahoma City Parks and Recreation Department Oklahoma City Community Foundation Oklahoma Forestry Services Prepared by: Davey Resource Group A Division of the Davey Tree Expert Company Funding provided by: Oklahoma City Community Foundation Oklahoma Forestry Services This report is adapted from the standard i-Tree Ecosystem Analysis report that is generated upon submission of i-Tree Eco data. i-Tree Eco (formerly Urban Forest Effects model) was cooperatively developed by USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station (NRS), the USDA State and Private Forestry's Urban and Community Forestry Program and Northeastern Area, the Davey Tree Expert Company, and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Structure .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Management ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Community ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope & Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Urban Forest Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Species Composition ...................................................................................................................................... 6 DBH Distribution .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Carbon Storage .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Tree Condition ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Relative Performance Index ....................................................................................................................... 11 Species Importance & Leaf Area ............................................................................................................. 14 Replacement Value ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Urban Forest Benefits ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Annual Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................................ 18 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................................................................... 21 Carbon Sequestration .................................................................................................................. 22 Avoided Stormwater Runoff ...................................................................................................... 23 Energy Savings ................................................................................................................................ 25 Aesthetic, Property Value, & Socioeconomic Benefits .................................................... 25 Benefit Investment Ratio ............................................................................................................................ 26 Urban Forest Threats ................................................................................................................................................ 27 Pests & Pathogens ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Forecasting Urban Forest Threats & Opportunities ......................................................................... 28 Projected Outcome ....................................................................................................................... 28 Forecasting Other Scenarios...................................................................................................... 28 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix I. References ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix II. Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Tree Inventory ................................................................................................................................................. 32 Tree Data and Attributes ............................................................................................................. 32 Maintenance Data ......................................................................................................................... 33 i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements ......................................................................................... 35 Definitions and Calculations ...................................................................................................... 35 Appendix III. Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Tables Table 1. Benchmark Values ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Table 2. Species Distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. DBH of Most Common Species .................................................................................................................... 10 Table 4. Relative Performance Index of Most Common Species ...................................................................... 12 Table 5. Underutilized High-Performing Species .................................................................................................... 13 Table 6. Species Importance of Most Common Species ...................................................................................... 15 Table 7. Replacement Value of Most Common Species ...................................................................................... 17 Table 8. Annual Environmental Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 18 Table 9. Urban Forest Management Strategies to Improve Air Quality ......................................................... 19 Table 10. Air Pollution Removal by Most Common Species .............................................................................. 20 Table 11. Annual Carbon Sequestration by Most Common Species .............................................................. 22 Table 12. Stormwater Runoff Avoided by Most Common Species .................................................................. 24 Table 13. Environmental Benefits and Investment ................................................................................................. 26 Table 14. Pest & Pathogen Proximity to Oklahoma City ..................................................................................... 27 Table 15. Forecast Urban Forest Structure ................................................................................................................ 28 Table 16. Forecast Urban Forest Annual Environmental Benefits ..................................................................... 28 Table 17. Benefit Prices ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 18. Botanical and Common Names of Tree Species ................................................................................. 37 Table 19. Park Areas Inventoried (2016) ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FINAL REPORT Pines Vs
    FINAL REPORT Pines vs. Oaks Revisited: Forest Type Conversion Due to High-severity Fire in Madrean Woodlands JFSP PROJECT ID: 15-1-07-22 December 2017 Andrew M. Barton University of Maine at Farmington Helen M. Poulos Wesleyan University Graeme P. Berlyn Yale University The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. ii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................2 Background ......................................................................................................................................3 Materials and Methods .....................................................................................................................4 Study System .............................................................................................................................4 Climate and Fire Patterns in Southeastern Arizona ...................................................................6 Plot Sampling Design ................................................................................................................6 Plot
    [Show full text]
  • Stegophora Ulmea
    EuropeanBlackwell Publishing, Ltd. and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes Data sheets on quarantine pests Fiches informatives sur les organismes de quarantaine Stegophora ulmea widespread from the Great Plains to the Atlantic Ocean. Sydow Identity (1936) reported a foliar disease of Ulmus davidiana caused by Name: Stegophora ulmea (Fries) Sydow & Sydow Stegophora aemula in China stating that the pathogen differs Synonyms: Gnomonia ulmea (Fries) Thümen, Sphaeria ulmea from ‘the closely related Gnomonia ulmea’ by the ‘mode of Fries, Dothidella ulmea (Fries) Ellis & Everhart, Lambro ulmea growth’ on elm. Since, 1999, S. ulmea has repeatedly been (Fries) E. Müller detected in consignments of bonsais from China, in UK and the Taxonomic position: Fungi: Ascomycetes: Diaporthales Netherlands, suggesting that the pathogen probably occurs in Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature: the anamorph is of China. In Europe, there is a doubtful record of ‘G. ulmicolum’ acervular type, containing both macroconidia, of ‘Gloeosporium’ on leaves and fruits of elm in Romania (Georgescu & Petrescu, type, and microconidia, of ‘Cylindrosporella’ type. Various cited by Peace (1962)), which has not been confirmed since. In anamorph names in different form-genera have been the Netherlands, S. ulmea was introduced into a glasshouse in used (‘Gloeosporium’ ulmeum ‘Gloeosporium’ ulmicolum, 2000, on ornamental bonsais, but was successfully eradicated Cylindrosporella ulmea, Asteroma ulmeum),
    [Show full text]
  • Diversifying Tree Choices for a Shadier Future
    Diversifying Tree Choices for a Shadier Future Adam Black Director, Peckerwood Garden Hempstead TX With special cameo appearance by Dr. David Creech Dr. David Creech Who is this guy? • Former horticulturist at Kanapaha Botanial Gardens, Gainesville FL • Managed Forest Pathology and Forest Entomology labs at University of Florida • Former co-owner of Xenoflora LLC (rare plant mail- order nursery) • Current Director of Peckerwood Garden, Hempstead, Texas Tree Diversity in Landscapes Advantages of diverse tree assemblages • Include many plant families attracts biodiversity (pollinators, predators, etc) that all together reduce pest problems • Diversity means loss is minimal if a new disease targets a particular genus. • Generate excitement and improve aesthetics • Use of locally adapted forms over mainstream selections from distant locations • Adaptations for specific conditions (salt, alkalinity, etc) • If mass plantings are necessary, use seed grown plants for genetic diversity rather than clonally propagated selections Disadvantages of diverse tree assmeblages • Hard to find among the standard issue trees available locally • Hard to convince nurseries to try something new • Initial trialing of new material, many failures among the winners • A disadvantage in some cases – non-native counterparts may be superior to natives. Diseases: • Dutch Elm Disease (Ulmus americana) • Emerald Ash Borer (Fraxinus spp.) • Laurel Wilt (Persea, Sassafras, Lindera, etc) • Crepe Myrtle Bark Scale (Lagerstroemia spp.) • Next? Quercus virginiana Quercus fusiformis Quercus fusiformis Weeping form Quercus virginiana ‘Grandview Gold’ Quercus nigra Variegated Quercus tarahumara Quercus crassifolia Quercus sp. San Carlos Mtns Quercus tarahumara Quercus laeta Quercus polymorpha Quercus germana There is one in the auction! Quercus rysophylla Quercus sinuata var. sinuata Quercus imbricaria (southern forms) Quercus glauca Quercus acutus Quercus schottkyana Quercus marlipoensis Lithocarpus edulis ‘Starburst’ Lithocarpus henryi Lithocarpus kawakamii Platanus rzedowski incorrectly offered as P.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Native Hill Country Trees Other Than Oaks
    Some Native Hill Country Trees Other Than Oaks Several weeks ago I wrote about the Hill Country oaks in this column. There are, however a number of common, large, native trees that are not oaks. Here are some of them. Bald cypress ( Taxodium distichum ) is common along the banks of the Guadalupe and its tributaries as well as many other streams in the Hill Country. It is unusual for a conifer (cone-bearing) tree to be deciduous (loses its leaves in the winter) which is why it is called a bald cypress. These trees were highly prized for the durability of the wood for making shingles, which led to the settlement of Kerrville. They are fast growing, and generally the largest trees in the Hill Country. Cedar elm ( Ulmus crassifolia ) is an elm with very small, stiff, rough leaves. It is common throughout the Hill Country where it appears to be equally at home on limestone soils or acidic soils. It flowers and sets seed in late summer, which is unusual, and, because not much is blooming then, it attracts many native bees when flowering. Its leaves turn yellow in the fall. Two other species of elms grow in the Hill Country, although they are not nearly as common as cedar elms. American elm ( Ulmus americana ) and Slippery elm ( Ulmus rubra ) are both large trees with large leaves and are usually found in riparian areas. Escarpment black cherry ( Prunus serotina var. eximia ) is a Hill Country native cherry with thin, soft leaves that turn yellow in the fall. The tiny white flowers are produced on stalks in the spring, followed by tiny cherries for the birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Selected Provenances of Taxodium Distichum For
    EVALUATION OF SELECTED PROVENANCES OF TAXODIUM DISTICHUM FOR DROUGHT, ALKALINITY AND SALINITY TOLERANCE A Dissertation by GEOFFREY CARLILE DENNY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2007 Major Subject: Horticulture EVALUATION OF SELECTED PROVENANCES OF TAXODIUM DISTICHUM FOR DROUGHT, ALKALINITY AND SALINITY TOLERANCE A Dissertation by GEOFFREY CARLILE DENNY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Michael A. Arnold Committee Members, Leonardo Lombardini Wayne A. Mackay W. Todd Watson Head of Department, Tim D. Davis May 2007 Major Subject: Horticulture iii ABSTRACT Evaluation of Selected Provenances of Taxodium distichum for Drought, Alkalinity and Salinity Tolerance. (May 2007) Geoffrey Carlile Denny, B.S., Texas A&M University; M.A., The University of Texas Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Michael A. Arnold Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. is a widely adaptable, long-lived tree species for landscape use. It is tolerant of substantial soil salt levels, but tends to defoliate in periods of extended or severe drought, when leaves come into contact with salty irrigation water, and tends to develop chlorosis on high pH soils. The purpose of this research was to identify provenances which may yield genotypes tolerant of these stresses. The appropriate name for baldcypress is Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. var. distichum, for pondcypress is T. distichum var. imbricarium (Nutt.) Croom, and for Montezuma cypress is T. distichum var.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Big Tree Registry a List of the Largest Trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas a & M Forest Service
    Texas Big Tree Registry A list of the largest trees in Texas Sponsored by Texas A & M Forest Service Native and Naturalized Species of Texas: 320 ( D indicates species naturalized to Texas) Common Name (also known as) Latin Name Remarks Cir. Threshold acacia, Berlandier (guajillo) Senegalia berlandieri Considered a shrub by B. Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, blackbrush Vachellia rigidula Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' acacia, Gregg (catclaw acacia, Gregg catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. greggii Was named A. greggii 55'' or 4.6 ' acacia, Roemer (roundflower catclaw) Senegalia roemeriana 18'' or 1.5 ' acacia, sweet (huisache) Vachellia farnesiana 100'' or 8.3 ' acacia, twisted (huisachillo) Vachellia bravoensis Was named 'A. tortuosa' 9'' or 0.8 ' acacia, Wright (Wright catclaw) Senegalia greggii var. wrightii Was named 'A. wrightii' 70'' or 5.8 ' D ailanthus (tree-of-heaven) Ailanthus altissima 120'' or 10.0 ' alder, hazel Alnus serrulata 18'' or 1.5 ' allthorn (crown-of-thorns) Koeberlinia spinosa Considered a shrub by Simpson 18'' or 1.5 ' anacahuita (anacahuite, Mexican olive) Cordia boissieri 60'' or 5.0 ' anacua (anaqua, knockaway) Ehretia anacua 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Carolina Fraxinus caroliniana 90'' or 7.5 ' ash, Chihuahuan Fraxinus papillosa 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, fragrant Fraxinus cuspidata 18'' or 1.5 ' ash, green Fraxinus pennsylvanica 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Gregg (littleleaf ash) Fraxinus greggii 12'' or 1.0 ' ash, Mexican (Berlandier ash) Fraxinus berlandieriana Was named 'F. berlandierana' 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, Texas Fraxinus texensis 60'' or 5.0 ' ash, velvet (Arizona ash) Fraxinus velutina 120'' or 10.0 ' ash, white Fraxinus americana 100'' or 8.3 ' aspen, quaking Populus tremuloides 25'' or 2.1 ' baccharis, eastern (groundseltree) Baccharis halimifolia Considered a shrub by Simpson 12'' or 1.0 ' baldcypress (bald cypress) Taxodium distichum Was named 'T.
    [Show full text]
  • Oaks of the Wild West Inventory Page 1 Nursery Stock Feb, 2016
    Oaks of the Wild West Inventory Nursery Stock Legend: AZ = Arizona Nursery TX = Texas Nursery Feb, 2016 *Some species are also available in tube sizes Pine Trees Scientific Name 1G 3/5G 10G 15 G Aleppo Pine Pinus halapensis AZ Afghan Pine Pinus elderica AZ Apache Pine Pinus engelmannii AZ Chinese Pine Pinus tabulaeformis AZ Chihuahua Pine Pinus leiophylla Cluster Pine Pinus pinaster AZ Elderica Pine Pinus elderica AZ AZ Italian Stone Pine Pinus pinea AZ Japanese Black Pine Pinus thunbergii Long Leaf Pine Pinus palustris Mexican Pinyon Pine Pinus cembroides AZ Colorado Pinyon Pine Pinus Edulis AZ Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa AZ Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestre AZ Single Leaf Pine Pinus monophylla AZ Texas Pine Pinus remota AZ, TX Common Trees Scientific Name 1G 3/5G 10G 15 G Arizona Sycamore Platanus wrightii ** Ash, Arizona Fraxinus velutina AZ AZ Black Walnut, Arizona Juglans major AZ AZ Black Walnut, Texas Juglans microcarpa TX Black Walnut juglans nigra AZ, TX Big Tooth Maple Acer grandidentatum AZ Carolina Buckthorn Rhamnus caroliniana TX Chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis AZ Crabapple, Blanco Malus ioensis var. texana Cypress, Bald Taxodium distichum AZ Desert Willow Chillopsis linearis AZ AZ Elm, Cedar Ulmus crassifolia TX TX Ginko Ginkgo biloba TX Hackberry, Canyon Celtis reticulata AZ AZ AZ Hackberry, Common Celtis occidentalis TX Maple (Sugar) Acer saccharum AZ AZ Mexican Maple Acer skutchii AZ Mexican Sycamore Platanus mexicana ** Mimosa, fragrant Mimosa borealis Page 1 Oaks of the Wild West Inventory Pistache (Red Push) Pistacia
    [Show full text]
  • Intervascular Pit Membranes with a Torus Was Investigated in Steven Jansen Juvenile Wood Samples of 19 Species of Ulmus and Seven Related Genera
    Research IntervascularBlackwell Publishing, Ltd. pit membranes with a torus in the wood of Ulmus (Ulmaceae) and related genera Steven Jansen1, Brendan Choat2, Stefan Vinckier1, Frederic Lens1, Peter Schols1 and Erik Smets1 1Laboratory of Plant Systematics, K.U.Leuven, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, Kasteelpark Arenberg 31, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium; 2Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Summary Author for correspondence: • The distribution of intervascular pit membranes with a torus was investigated in Steven Jansen juvenile wood samples of 19 species of Ulmus and seven related genera. Tel: +32 16 321539 •A staining solution of safranin and alcian blue (35 : 65) was recommended to Fax: +32 16 321968 Email: [email protected] distinguish torus-bearing pit membranes using light microscopy. • Intervascular pit membranes connecting relatively wide vessel elements resembled Received: 19 January 2004 those of most angiosperms, as they were of uniform thickness. By contrast, bordered Accepted: 15 March 2004 pit pairs with round to oval pit apertures and indistinct pit canals that connected doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01097.x narrow (incomplete) vessel elements or vascular tracheids with distinct helical thick- enings were frequently characterized by a torus in ring-porous wood samples of Ulmus and Zelkova. Tori were lacking in diffuse-porous species of Ampelocera, Aphananthe, Gironniera, Holoptelea, Phyllostylon, Trema and Ulmus. • Our observations suggest that tori are more common in cold temperate climates than in warm (sub)tropical environments. This may indicate that narrow tracheary elements with torus-bearing pit membranes provide an auxiliary conducting system which is of low conductivity, but offers greater resistance to freezing-induced cavitation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Stable Isotopic Investigation of Resource Partitioning Among Neosauropod Dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation
    A stable isotopic investigation of resource partitioning among neosauropod dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation Benjamin T. Breeden, III SID: 110305422 [email protected] GEOL394H University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Geology 29 April 2011 Advisors: Dr. Thomas R. Holtz1, Jr., Dr. Alan Jay Kaufman1, and Dr. Matthew T. Carrano2 1: University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Geology 2: National Museum of Natural History, Department of Paleobiology ABSTRACT For more than a century, morphological studies have been used to attempt to understand the partitioning of resources in the Morrison Fauna, particularly between members of the two major clades of neosauropod (long-necked, megaherbivorous) dinosaurs: Diplodocidae and Macronaria. While it is generally accepted that most macronarians fed 3-5m above the ground, the feeding habits of diplodocids are somewhat more enigmatic; it is not clear whether diplodocids fed higher or lower than macronarians. While many studies exploring sauropod resource portioning have focused on differences in the morphologies of the two groups, few have utilized geochemical evidence. Stable isotope geochemistry has become an increasingly common and reliable means of investigating paleoecological questions, and due to the resistance of tooth enamel to diagenetic alteration, fossil teeth can provide invaluable paleoecological and behavioral data that would be otherwise unobtainable. Studies in the Ituri Rainforest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have shown that stable isotope ratios measured in the teeth of herbivores reflect the heights at which these animals fed in the forest due to isotopic variation in plants with height caused by differences in humidity at the forest floor and the top of the forest exposed to the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Previously Unrecorded Damage to Oak, Quercus Spp., in Southern California by the Goldspotted Oak Borer, Agrilus Coxalis Waterhouse (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) 1 2 TOM W
    THE PAN-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGIST 84(4):288–300, (2008) Previously unrecorded damage to oak, Quercus spp., in southern California by the goldspotted oak borer, Agrilus coxalis Waterhouse (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) 1 2 TOM W. COLEMAN AND STEVEN J. SEYBOLD 1USDA Forest Service-Forest Health Protection, 602 S. Tippecanoe Ave., San Bernardino, California 92408 Corresponding author: e-mail: [email protected] 2USDA Forest Service-Pacific Southwest Research Station, Chemical Ecology of Forest Insects, 720 Olive Dr., Suite D, Davis, California 95616 e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. A new and potentially devastating pest of oaks, Quercus spp., has been discovered in southern California. The goldspotted oak borer, Agrilus coxalis Waterhouse (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), colonizes the sapwood surface and phloem of the main stem and larger branches of at least three species of Quercus in San Diego Co., California. Larval feeding kills patches and strips of the phloem and cambium resulting in crown die back followed by mortality. In a survey of forest stand conditions at three sites in this area, 67% of the Quercus trees were found with external or internal evidence of A. coxalis attack. The literature and known distribution of A. coxalis are reviewed, and similarities in the behavior and impact of this species with other tree-killing Agrilus spp. are discussed. Key Words. Agrilus coxalis, California, flatheaded borer, introduced species, oak mortality, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus kelloggii, range expansion. INTRODUCTION Extensive mortality of coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia Ne´e (Fagaceae), Engelmann oak, Quercus engelmannii Greene, and California black oak, Q. kelloggii Newb., has occurred since 2002 on the Cleveland National Forest (CNF) in San Diego Co., California.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name: Bald Cypress Scientific Name: Taxodium Distichum Order: Arecales Family: Cupressaceae Wetland Plant Status: Oblig
    Common Name: Bald Cypress Scientific Name: Taxodium distichum Order: Arecales Family: Cupressaceae Wetland Plant Status: Obligatory Ecology & Description Bald cypress needs water to thrive. It can be found naturally on the banks of a water body or in the center of the water. When planted, it can survive more upland. The cypress tree grows very slowly and will die if submerged in water. It is a slow growing, long-lived deciduous conifer. The trees frequently get over 100 feet tall with a diameter of 6 feet. The trunk is normally tapered. The leaves are needle-like but appear flattened. The bark is very thin and fibrous with narrow furrows. The bald cypress produces cone fruit and cypress knees. Habitat Bald cypress trees are confined to wet soils were water is almost permanent. It is usually found on flat elevations. Distribution Bald cypress is widely distributed along the Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast, but can be found inland along streams. Native/Invasive Status Bald cypress is native to lower 48 states of the United States. Wildlife Uses Squirrels and many different bird species use the seeds as food. Bald cypress domes also create watering holes for a variety of birds and mammals. Amphibians and reptiles will also use bald cypress domes as breeding grounds. Management & Control Techniques When regenerating cypress, canopy thinning is a must. Overhead thinning will allow for seedlings to grow. The seedling cannot be submerged in water. Seedlings cannot germinate in flooded areas. The seedling must be somewhat taller than the floodwaters for survival. Good seed production occurs about every three years and is dispersed better with flood waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Propagation of Taxodium Mucronatum from Softwood Cuttings
    Propogation of Taxosium mucronatum from Softwood Cuttings Item Type Article Authors St. Hilaire, Rolston Publisher University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Desert Plants Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents. The University of Arizona. Download date 25/09/2021 03:23:49 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555909 Taxodium St. Hilaire 29 Propagation of Taxodium softwood cuttings could be used to propagate Mexican bald cypress. mucronatum from Terminal softwood cuttings were collected on 16 October Softwood Cuttings 1998 and 1999. Cuttings were selected from the lower branches of an 11-year-old tree at New Mexico State University's Fabian Garcia Science Center in Las Cruces Rolston St. Hilaire1 (lat. 32° 16' 48" N; long. 106° 45' 18" W), from all branches Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Box of a 2-year-old tree at an arboretum in Los Lunas, New Mexico (lat. 34° 48' 18" N; long. 106° 43' 42" W), and 30003, New Mexico State University, from all branches of a 2-year-old tree in the display Las Cruces, NM 88003 landscape of a nursery in Los Lunas. Plants of T. mucronatum grow rapidly. The 11-year-old tree was 12m Abstract tall (::::50 main branches), and the 2-year-old trees had Mexican bald cypress (Taxodium mucronatum Ten.) is reached 2 m (:::: 15 main branches). This facilitated the propagated from seed, but procedures have not been reported collection of at least 30 terminal cuttings per tree in each of for the propagation of this ornamental tree by stem cuttings. the two years. All trees were irrigated as necessary, but not This study evaluated the use of softwood cuttings to fertilized.
    [Show full text]