Douglas-Fir

After twenty weeks of treatment, root fresh weight showed significant differences (P<0.01) between the control and all the ROOTS treatments (figure 2). The 1.0% treatment was 138% higher than the control.

Significant differences (P<0.01) in shoot fresh weight were also found between the control and all the ROOTS treatments. The 1.0% treatment was 99% higher than the control.

Root dry weight showed significant differences (P<0.O1) between the control and all the ROOTS treatments. The 1.0% treatment was 37% higher than the control.

Shoot dry weight also showed significant differences (P<0.01) between the control and all the ROOTS treatments. The 1.0% treatment was 55% higher than the control.

Differences (P<0.05) in total height between the control and all the ROOTS treatments became evident after 84 days (12 weeks).

In both species the fresh, weight shoot/root ratio was slightly improved by ROOTS treatments. This was more evident in loblolly pine than in Douglas-fir. That means that while total growth was promoted, root growth was favored over shoot growth, although correlation between S/R ratio and increasin9 concentrations of ROOTS was not statistically significant (r(5%) = 0.95; r (calc.) = 0.936). Dry weight shoot/root ratios were not affected by the ROOTS treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

ROOTS, when used with a normal fertilizer regime was effective in enhancing root growth and shoot growth of loblolly pine and Douglas—fir, mainly in the 1% concentration.

Early root ~rowth development leads to improved growth throughout the life of the plant, and therefore shorter production time for seedlings.

By improving overall root development, this prototype blend referred as ROOTS would be beneficial for the nursery industry as a method of increasing production, and particularly nursery yields in less time.

The fact that both water content and ~rowth were higher in ROOTS treated seedlings compared to fertilized controls, suggests that both nutrient and water uptake are promoted by treatment with ROOTS.