HORTSCIENCE 57(7):806–810. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI16627-22 or pine or hardwood timber.

A downturn in
timber prices coinciding with an increase in
Planting Site Effects on Early Growth pecan prices from 2009 to 2018 led to the
clearing of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.)
and slash pine (Pinus elliotti Engelm) planta-
of Pecan Tree Transplants tions for the planting of pecan. Anecdotal
observation suggests that orchards planted to
Lenny Wells land converted from cultivated row crop fields
Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, 4604 tend to result in better tree growth and survival
Research Way, Tifton, GA 31793 than those on land recently converted from tim-
Andrew Sawyer ber plantations or wooded areas (L. Wells,
University of Georgia, Southeast District Extension Center, 5539 Forest personal observation). Pecan trees grown im-
mediately following the clearing of timber often
Drive, Statesboro, GA 30458
exhibit a high degree of marginal leaf scorch-
Additional index words. Carya illinoinensis, leaf nutrient concentration, site history, ing, early defoliation, stunted growth, and tree
soil pH, tree establishment loss. These issues are especially notable on sites
Abstract. Site selection is key to successful establishment of fruit and nut trees. The upland with poorly drained soil. Additionally, wooded
soils on which pecan [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch] trees are commonly planted sites where hardwood species such as hickory
in the southeastern United States consist of sites that have recently been in row crop culti- (Carya spp.) or walnut (Juglans spp.) are
vation or pine or hardwood timber. Anecdotal observation suggests that orchards planted present may also harbor population of pecan
to land converted from cultivated row crop fields tends to result in better tree growth and root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne partityla
survival than those on land recently converted from timber plantations or wooded areas. Kleynhans) and other plant pathogenic nemato-
The objective of this experiment was to compare growth of first- through third-leaf pecan des, which may infect pecan (Starr et al., 1996).
trees planted on sites with varying land-use history [row crop cultivation or pine (Pinus
Root-feeding pests such as the Prionus root
spp.) tree production up to the year before planting] and to determine the effects of supple-
mental addition of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and zinc (Zn) at planting on the two borer may also be present on such sites where
sites. These results suggest that the soil conditions of sites recently in pine timber produc- alternative hosts have been recently removed.
tion limit the growth and development of pecan trees planted to those sites. These limita- The objective of this experiment was to
tions result from soil acidity and an exhaustion of soil nutrients and loss of organic matter compare growth of first- through third-leaf
on pine sites, making the uptake of nitrogen (N), P, K, and calcium (Ca) challenging during pecan trees planted on sites with varying
the establishment phase unless soils are improved before planting. land-use history (row crop cultivation or pine

Site selection is key to successful establish- Table 1. Mean leaf N, leaf P, leaf K, and leaf Zn concentrations of ‘Oconee’ pecan trees planted in
ment of fruit and nut trees. Pecan trees are row-crop fields and in recently cleared pine land receiving P, K, and Zn and control treatments
relatively nonprecocious, requiring 5–6 years during the first (2019), second (2020), and third (2021) growing seasons following transplant.
before commercial harvest is possible and Leaf nutrient concn
8–10 years before trees reach mature produc-
tion. The loamy bottomland ridges to which Yr Site Treatment N (%) P (%) K (%) Ca (%) Zn (ppm)
pecans are adapted in their native range along 2019 Cultivation P 3.25 az 0.17 a 1.42 a 1.43 a 121 a
K 3.41 a 0.17 a 1.28 a 1.31 a 49 b
the Mississippi River Valley and its tributaries
Zn 2.73 a 0.19 a 0.98 a 1.11 a 22 b
along with streams in Oklahoma, Texas, and Nontreated control 2.99 a 0.18 a 1.31 a 1.18 a 35 b
Mexico, typically consist of deep, well-drained Pines P 2.99 az 0.16 a 1.34 a 1.13 a 112 ab
soils high in organic matter and natural fertility K 2.78 a 0.16 a 1.38 a 1.22 a 127 a
(Sparks, 2005). Upland soils of the southeastern Zn 2.93 a 0.17 a 1.36 a 1.17 a 48 b
U.S. Coastal Plain, by contrast, are highly Nontreated control 2.83 a 0.16 a 1.21 a 1.19 a 76 b
acidic, have relatively low cation exchange P value Site 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.31 0.008
Fertilizer 0.12 0.53 0.30 0.16 0.06
capacity, and are naturally low in various mac-
Site × fertilizer 0.10 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.01
ronutrients and micronutrients required for 2020 Cultivation P 2.99 az 0.15 a 0.95 a 1.95 a 116 a
pecan growth and production (Skinner et al., K 3.00 a 0.15 a 1.06 a 1.53 a 44 b
1938). Southeastern soils do, however, respond Zn 2.59 a 0.15 a 0.92 a 1.82 a 43 b
well to management in the form of liming, Nontreated control 2.99 a 0.17 a 0.99 a 1.82 a 44 b
fertilization, and the addition of organic matter Pines P 2.72 az 0.14 a 0.84 a 1.50 a 62 b
(Blackmon and Ruprecht, 1934; Fowler et al., K 2.71 a 0.13 a 0.88 a 1.48 a 143 a
Zn 2.75 a 0.14 a 0.93 a 1.54 a 76 b
1933).
Nontreated control 2.73 a 0.14 a 0.81 a 1.62 a 90 ab
The upland soils on which pecan trees are P value Site 0.03 0.001 0.02 <0.001 0.007
commonly planted in Georgia consist of sites Fertilizer 0.18 0.23 0.61 0.06 0.08
that have recently been in row crop cultivation Site × fertilizer 0.09 0.44 0.39 0.17 <0.001
z
2021 Cultivation P 2.91 a 0.16 a 1.18 a 2.22 a 111 a
K 2.62 a 0.14 a 0.99 a 2.16 a 44 b
Received for publication 28 Mar. 2022. Accepted
Zn 2.95 a 0.17 a 1.09 a 2.71 a 33 b
for publication 22 Apr. 2022.
Nontreated control 2.67 a 0.15 a 1.16 a 2.70 a 35 b
Published online 13 June 2022.
Pines P 2.66 az 0.16 a 0.78 a 2.29 a 66 b
We thank the Georgia Agricultural Commodity
K 2.77 a 0.14 a 0.74 a 1.84 a 116 a
Commission for Pecans for funding this research
Zn 2.67 a 0.13 a 0.71 a 2.08 a 88 ab
and Ellis Brothers Pecans for the use of the or-
Nontreated control 2.64 a 0.14 a 0.71 a 2.19 a 45 b
chard in which this experiment was conducted.
P value Site 0.09 0.02 <0.001 0.02 0.009
L.W. is the corresponding author. E-mail: lwells@
Fertilizer 0.21 0.81 0.79 0.13 0.002
uga.edu.
Site × fertilizer 0.10 0.03 0.86 0.31 <0.001
This is an open access article distributed under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.
z
Means followed by the same letter within each year and planting site are not different at P < 0.05
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test.

806 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 57(7) JULY 2022

 A tree production up to the year before planting)
3.2 and to determine the effects of supplemental

Leaf N concentraon (%)

3 addition of P, K, and Zn at planting on the two
sites.
2.8

2.6 Materials and Methods

2.4
The experiment was conducted from 2019
2.2
2019 2020 2021
to 2021 in a commercial pecan orchard located
Culvated Pines
in Dooly County, GA, on Tifton loamy sand
(fine-loamy, silicieous, thermic Plinthic Paleu-
B 0.2
dult). The orchard was located at lat. 32
090 N
and long. 83
680 W. All trees were irrigated
Leaf P concentraon (%)

0.15 with microsprinklers at a rate of 56.8 L·h1.

Microsprinklers were placed 0.3 m from the
0.1
tree trunk. Trees were irrigated 4–6 h every
0.05 other day in the absence of rain from April to
September. Trunks were protected with corru-
0 gated tree guards (A.M. Leonard, Piqua, OH).
2019 2020 2021 The orchard was managed under commercial
Culvated Pines conditions according to University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension recommendations (Wells,
C 1.5 2007). A 3.7-m-wide, vegetation-free strip
Leaf K concentraon (%)

was maintained with the herbicide glyphosate

1 along the tree row in all plots. Row middles
consisted of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon
0.5 L.) sod.
Bare-root ‘Oconee’ pecan trees grafted to
0 ‘Elliott’ rootstock were planted from nursery
2019 2020 2021 stock in Jan. 2019 at a spacing of 10.6 m ×
Culvated Pines 10.6 m. Treatments were arranged in a split-
plot design with site history as the main effect
D and fertilizer supplement as the split effect.
3 Main plot effects were arranged within a
Leaf Ca concentraon (%)

2.5 single orchard row, with 16 trees planted in

2 the area under loblolly pine production for
1.5 the previous 35 years and 16 trees planted
1 in the area under row-crop cultivation [cotton
0.5 (Gossypium hirsutum L.)/peanut (Arachis
0 hypogea L.)/corn (Zea mays L.) rotation] for
2019 2020 2021 the previous 35 years. At planting, one of the
Culvated Pines following fertilizer treatments was mixed into
the backfill soil of the planting hole of pecan
E trees planted within each of the two sites: 1)
120
0.91 kg monoammonium phosphate (11N–
Leaf Zn concentraon

100 52P–0K), 2) 0.91 kg muriate of potash

80 (0N–0P–52K), 3) 0.91 kg zinc sulfate (35.5%
(ppm)

60 Zn), and 4) nontreated control. Split-plot

40 effects were arranged so that each fertilizer
20 treatment was replicated four times in each
0 planting site. Measurements were taken from
2019 2020 2021 each tree within each plot.
Culvated Pines After planting, all nutrients were applied
uniformly throughout the fertigation system
Fig. 1. Pecan leaf concentrations of (A) nitrogen (N), (B) phosphorus (P), (C) potassium (K), (D) calci- in April, June, and August of each year of the
um (Ca), and (E) zinc (Zn) during 2019, 2020, and 2021 on sites previously under row-crop cultiva-
study. Nitrogen was applied at 8.7 kg·ha1 in
tion and on sites previously under pine timber.
April and August and at 11.6 kg·ha1 in
June. Phosphorus was applied at 0.13 kg·ha1
with each fertigation, and K was applied at
120
0.23 kg·ha1 with each fertigation. Boron (B)
Leaf Zn Concentraon

100 and copper (Cu) were each applied at 0.04

80 kg·ha1 with each fertigation. Iron (Fe),
(ppm)

60 manganese (Mn), and Zn were each applied

40 at 0.12 kg·ha1 with each fertigation.
20
Stem diameter at 72.6 cm above the soil
surface was measured on 5 Mar. 2019,
0
Phosphorus Potassium Zn Sulfate Control
17 Oct. 2019, 28 Sept. 2020, and 20 Oct.
At-Planng Ferlizer Treatment
2021. Foliage was sampled in late July each
year by collecting one leaflet pair from
Fig. 2. Effect of at-planting fertilizer treatments of phosphorus, potassium, zinc sulfate, and untreated 20 compound leaves per tree. All leaflet
control on pecan leaf Zinc (Zn) concentration in 2021. samples were taken from the middle leaf of

HORTSCIENCE VOL. 57(7) JULY 2022 807

Table 2. Synopsis of soil elemental analysis and pH taken in 2019 and 2021 for orchard sites
previously cultivated or in pine timber.
Soil analysisz (lbs/acre)
Yr Site P K Mg Ca Zn Mn Fe Cu ph CEC
2019 Cultivation 45 a 128 a 93 a 667 a 1.7 a 6.8 a – – 6.5 a 3.3 b
Pines 21 b 142 a 137 a 1003 a 1.3 a 15 a – – 6.1 a 5.3 a
2021 Cultivation 61 a 63 a 98 a 825 a 2.0 a 2.5 a 48 a 0.4 a 6.4 a 4.2 a
Pines 10 b 49 a 88 a 701 a 1.1 b 5.0 a 97 a 0.4 a 5.7 b 5.3 a
z
Means followed by the same letter within each year and planting site are not different at P < 0.05
by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test.
sun-exposed terminals. Leaflet samples were Soil was dried and analyzed for pH, P, K, Ca,
washed in a dilute phosphate-free detergent Mg, Mn, Fe, and S. Soil pH was determined
solution (0.1% detergent) followed by rinsing in a 0.01 M calcium chloride (CaCl2) solution
with deionized water. Leaves were then dried using a LabFit AS-3000 (Labfit, Perth, Aus-
to a constant weight at 65
C and ground in a tralia) dual pH analyzer. Soil P, K, Ca, Mg,
Wiley mill (Wiley, Philadelphia, PA) to pass Mn, Fe, and S were determined by inductive-
a 1-mm screen. Leaves for nutrient analysis ly coupled plasma spectrophotometry.
were ground with a mortar and pestle. Leaf area, leaf length, and leaf width were
Samples were analyzed for N by combustion measured on 2 Aug. 2019, 28 Sept. 2020, and
using a Leco FP528 protein/N determinator 27 Sept. 2021 using a portable leaf area meter
(Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI). Samples were (LI-3000C; LI-COR Technologies, Lincoln,
analyzed for K, P, and Zn by an inductively NE). Five leaves per tree were measured at
coupled plasma spectrophotometer coupled each sampling date. All leaves measured were
to a Digiblock 3000 (SCP Science, Baie fully expanded and selected from one pair of
D’Urfe, Quebec, Canada). middle leaflets of compound leaves.
Soil samples at 0- to 20.3-cm depth with Statistical analyses of data were performed
the surface 2.54 cm removed were taken with SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary,
from both the pine and row-crop planting NC). Two-way analysis of variance was used
sites on 5 Mar. 2019 and on 23 Oct. 2021. to compare site and fertilizer treatment effects.
Four composite samples consisting of four Means were separated using Tukey’s least
cores each at each depth were taken per site. significant difference test (P < 0.05).
Results and Discussion
Planting site had a significant effect on
leaf N, P, K, Ca, and Zn during the study
(Table 1). Pecan leaf N was significantly
(P < 0.05) higher on the cultivated site than on
the pine site in 2019, 2020, and 2021 (Fig. 1A).
Pecan leaf P was significantly (P < 0.05)
higher on the cultivated site than on the pine
site in 2019, 2020, and 2021 (Fig. 1B). There
was a significant site × fertilizer treatment
interaction for leaf P in 2021, in which leaf P
concentration was higher in the at-planting Zn
fertilizer treatment on the cultivated site than on
the pine site (Table 1).
Pecan leaf K was significantly (P < 0.05)
higher on cultivated site than on the pine site
in 2020 and 2021 (Fig. 1C). Pecan leaf Ca
was significantly higher (P < 0.05) on the
cultivated site than on the pine site in 2020
and 2021 (Fig. 1D). Pecan leaf Zn was signif-
icantly higher on the former pine site than on
the cultivated site in 2019, 2020, and 2021
(Fig. 1E). There was a significant fertilizer
treatment effect on pecan leaf Zn in 2021, in
which at-planting P and K increased leaf Zn
over that of the control and the at-planting Zn
application (Fig. 2). This is puzzling because
P can be antagonistic to Zn uptake by the
tree. There was also a significant site × fertil-
izer interaction for leaf Zn in 2021. On the
pine site, leaf Zn was significantly (P < 0.05)
higher in the at-planting Zn and K treatments,

Table 3. Mean trunk diameter growth, mean leaf area, mean leaf width, maximum leaf width, and mean leaf length for ‘Oconee’ pecan trees as affected
by planting site and fertilizer treatment in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
Mean trunk Mean leaf Mean leaf Max leaf Mean leaf
Yr Site Treatment diam (mm) area (mm2) width(mm) width (mm) length (mm)
2019 Cultivation P 4.7 a 22.3 a 3.2 a 4.6 a 10.8 a
K 3.2 a 21.4 a 3.0 a 4.5 a 10.6 a
Zn 4.8 a 21.6 a 3.1 a 4.6 a 10.7 a
Nontreated control 4.7 a 20.3 a 3.0 a 4.5 a 10.3 a
Pines P 1.8 a 14.4 a 2.7 a 3.6 a 7.7 a
K 1.8 a 14.6 a 2.6 a 3.9 a 7.8 a
Zn 3.3 a 14.8 a 2.6 a 3.6 a 8.2 a
Nontreated control 1.3 a 12.3 a 2.4 a 3.5 a 7.3 a
P value Site 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Fertilizer 0.61 0.59 0.75 0.74 0.54
Site × fertilizer 0.78 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.94
2020 Cultivation P 22.0 a 29.9 b 2.6 b 3.6 b 11.5 a
K 21.0 ab 39.8 a 3.1 a 4.5 a 12.3 a
Zn 23.1 a 38.0 a 3.0 a 4.3 a 12.5 a
Nontreated control 15.4 b 28.6 b 2.5 b 3.6 b 11.5 a
Pines P 12.7 a 26.9 a 2.4 a 3.5 a 10.7 a
K 13.5 a 25.2 a 2.3 a 3.2 a 10.6 a
Zn 13.6 a 18.9 a 1.9 a 3.1 a 9.7 a
Nontreated control 19.8 a 26.3 a 2.5 a 3.5 a 9.8 a
P value Site 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001
Fertilizer 0.97 0.49 0.59 0.60 0.744
Site × fertilizer 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.58
2021 Cultivation P 23.7 a 38.8 a 3.2 a 4.6 a 11.9 a
K 28.5 a 40.5 a 3.1 a 4.6 a 12.5 a
Zn 26.2 a 38.1 ab 3.0 a 4.5 ab 12.5 a
Nontreated control 22.9 a 33.8 b 2.9 b 4.2 b 11.4 a
Pines P 23.5 a 38.9 a 3.3 a 4.6 a 24.6 a
K 13.9 a 31.7 a 2.9 ab 4.2 a 12.9 a
Zn 25.0 a 25.5 b 2.8 ab 3.9 b 9.0 a
Nontreated control 21.7 a 28.4 b 2.6 b 3.9 b 10.5 a
P value Site 0.04 0.004 0.18 0.04 0.61
Fertilizer 0.36 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.32
Site × fertilizer 0.07 0.22 0.59 0.55 0.29
z
Means followed by the same letter within each year and planting site are not different at P # 0.05 by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test.

808 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 57(7) JULY 2022

 A of Zn is likely explained by increased macro-
30 nutrient availability on the cultivated site as a

Trunk diameter growth

25 result of higher soil pH. The tendency for a
20 lower soil pH on the pine site would
favor enhanced tree uptake of Zn and explains

(mm)
15
10
higher leaf Zn concentrations on the pine site.
Higher leaf P on the cultivated site than on
5
the pine site can also be partially attributed to
0
higher soil P concentration on the cultivated
2019 2020 2021
site throughout the study (Table 2). Coastal
Culvated Pines Plain soils are generally low in P as a result
B of inherently low mineral P in the soil parent
material, the soil’s advanced stage of weath-
50 ering, and the tendency of orthophosphate to
Mean Leaf Area (mm2)

40 adsorb on hydrous metal oxides or become

30
occluded in the secondary mineral structure
(Scott and Bliss, 2012). As a result, many
20 pine stands throughout the southeastern United
10 States are chronically low in P (Albaugh et al.,
0
1998), whereas land cultivated for row crops
2019 2020 2021 generally receives generous annual applica-
tions of P to enhance crop production.
Culvated Pines
With the exception of soil P, soil macro-
C nutrient concentrations were similar for both
5 sites in 2019 and in 2021 (Table 2),
Maximum leaf width (mm)

4
suggesting that soil pH was the major
factor in availability of soil macronutrients.
3 Although soil pH was similar in 2019 for
2 both sites, pH was higher on the cultivated
1 site than on the pine site during the final year
of study. This rapid change in soil chemistry
0
2019 2020 2021
is also evident in the effect of site on pecan
leaf K concentration. In the year of planting
Culvated Pines
(2019), there was no difference in leaf K
between sites. Leaf K was significantly
D
higher on the cultivated site after the initial
year of planting (Fig. 1C). Soil availability of
3
many nutrients, including N, K, and Ca,
following timber harvest is often initially
Mean Leaf Width (mm)

2.5
high because the soil disturbance by equip-
2 ment and burning provides suitable condi-
1.5
tions for rapid decomposition and the release
of nutrients from the accumulated forest floor
1 and slash material (Vitousek and Matson,
1985). This pulse of nutrients is relatively
0.5
short lived, and the effect of soil disturbance
0 and organic matter removal disrupts the soil
2019 2020 2021 air/water balance and depletes soil fertility
Culvated Pines (Burger and Kelting, 1998).
The effect of these disturbances by the
E timber harvest on soil nutrient availability is
20 also reflected in our observations of pecan
Mean leaf length (mm)

tree growth. Planting site had a significant

15
10
5 and mean leaf length were influenced by
0 (Table 3). Mean trunk diameter growth was
2019 2020 2021
Culvated Cleared Pines
Fig. 3. Effect of planting site on (A) trunk diameter growth, (B) leaf area, (C) mean leaf width,
(D) maximum leaf width, and (E) leaf length in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
whereas on the cultivated site, leaf Zn was pine site (Fig. 1). Leaf Ca was higher on the
higher (P < 0.05) in the at-planting P cultivated site than on the pine site in 2020
treatment (Table 1). and 2021 (Fig. 1). Leaf Zn concentration was
During each year of study, pecan leaf consistently higher on the pine site than on the
concentrations of the macronutrients N and P cultivated site (Fig. 1). The contrast between
were higher on the cultivated site than on the leaf concentrations of macronutrients and that
effect (P < 0.05) on mean trunk diameter,
leaf area, and maximum leaf width each year
of the experiment (Table 3). Mean leaf width
planting site in 2 out of the 3 years of study
114%, 42%, and 19% greater on the cultivated
site than on the pine site in 2019, 2020, and
2021, respectively (Fig. 3A). Trees grown on
the cultivated site had a 53%, 42%, and 21%
increase in leaf area over those on the pine site
in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively (Fig. 3B).
Maximum leaf width was 25%, 20%, and 7.7%
greater on trees growing on the cultivated site
than on the pine site in 2019, 2020, and 2021,
respectively (Fig. 3C). Mean leaf width and
leaf length were greater (P < 0.05) for trees
planted in the cultivated site vs. the pine site in

HORTSCIENCE VOL. 57(7) JULY 2022 809

 A more related to overall improved availability of
45 P and K where soil pH was higher by the end
40 of the study.
35 Our results suggest that the soil conditions
of sites recently in timber production limit
Leaf area (mm2)
30
25 the growth and development of pecan trees
20
planted to those sites. These limitations result
from soil acidity, an exhaustion of soil
15
nutrients, and loss of organic matter, which
10
has been previously documented following
5 timber harvest and clearing activities and has
0 also been shown to limit early growth of pine
Phosphorus Potassium Zn Sulfate Control
trees (Burger and Kelting, 1998). Producers
At-Planng Ferlizer Treatment
planting pecan trees on such sites should
B focus attention on raising soil pH, building
3.5 soil P levels, and enhancing soil organic
matter before planting of pecan trees.
3
Mean leaf width (mm)

2.5 Literature Cited

2 Albaugh, T.J., H.L. Allen, P.M. Dougherty,

L.W. Kress, and J.S. King. 1998. Leaf area and
1.5 above and below ground growth responses of
loblolly pine to nutrient and water additions.
1
For. Sci. 44:317–328, https://doi.org/10.1093/
0.5 forestscience/44.2.317.
Blackmon, G.H., and R.W. Ruprecht. 1934. Fertilizer
0 experiments with pecans. University of Florida
Phosphorus Potassium Zn Sulfate Control Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 270. University of Florida,
At-Planng Ferlizer Treatment Gainesville, FL.
Burger, J.A. and D.L. Kelting. 1998. Soil quality
C monitoring for assessing sustainable forest
5 management, p. 17–52. In: M.B. Adams, K.
4.5 Ramakrishna, and E. Davidson (eds.) The
Maximum leaf width (mm)

4 contribution of soil science to the development

3.5
3
2.5
2 Fowler, E.D., J.J. Skinner, and R.W. Ruprecht.
1.5
1 ments with pecans on Blanton fine sand and
0.5
0
Phosphorus Potassium Zn Sulfate Control
At-Planng Ferlizer Treatment
Fig. 4. Effect of at-planting application of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), zinc (Zn), and untreated con-
trol on (A) pecan leaf area, (B) mean leaf width, and (C) maximum leaf width in 2021.
2019 and 2020 (Fig. 3D and E). Leaf area for K and Zn were applied at-planting in 2020
2021 was greater in the P and K treatments (Table 3).
Tree and leaf growth differences between
than in the Zn and control treatments (Fig. 4A).
Mean and maximum leaf widths were higher in the two sites are likely a result of enhanced
the P treatment than for the control in 2021 uptake of macronutrients on the cultivated
(Fig. 4B and C). site compared with the pine site, partially as a
There was a significant site × fertilizer result of the lower pH on the pine site. This
interaction for trunk diameter growth, leaf may also explain why at-planting fertilizer
area, mean leaf width, and maximum leaf applications of P and K both led to growth
width in 2020 (Table 3). Trunk diameter responses on the cultivated site. Although leaf
growth in the P and Zn at-planting treatments Zn was higher on the pine site, likely as a
was greater than the control on the cultivated result of lower pH, this did not result in overall
site in 2020 (Table 3). Leaf area, mean increases in tree or leaf growth response.
leaf width, and maximum leaf width of Growth responses to at-planting P, K, and Zn
trees on the cultivated site were greater where treatments on the cultivated site were likely
of and implementation of criteria and indicators
of sustainable forest management. Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI. https://doi.
org/10.2136/sssaspecpub53.c2.
1933. Results of ten years of fertilizer experi-
Bladen fine sandy loam. National Pecan Asso-
ciation Bulletin 32:74–84.
Scott, D.A. and C.M. Bliss. 2012. Phosphorus
fertilizer rate, soil P availability, and long-term
growth response in a loblolly pine plantation
on a weathered ultisoil. Forests 3:1071–1085,
https://doi.org/10.3390/f3041071.
Skinner, J.J., Fowler, E.D., and Alben, A.O. 1938.
Pecan soils of the gulf and southern states and
maintenance of their fertility. USDA Circ. 492.
USDA, Washington, DC.
Sparks, D. 2005 Adaptability of pecan as a species.
HortScience 40:1175–1189, https://doi.org/
10.21273/HORTSCI.40.5.1175.
Starr, J.L., E.K. Tomaszewski, M. Mundo-Ocampo,
and J.G. Baldwin. 1996. Meloidogyne partityla
on pecan: Isozyme phenotypes and other hosts.
J. Nematol. 28:565–568.
Vitousek, P.M. and P.A. Matson. 1985. Disturbance,
nitrogen availability, and nitrogen losses in an
intensively managed loblolly pine plantation.
Ecology 66:1360–1376, https://doi.org/10.2307/
1939189.
Wells, M.L. (ed.). 2007. Southeastern pecan
growers handbook. Univ. Georgia Coop. Ext.
Pub. 1327. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

810 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 57(7) JULY 2022