1

The Container Tree 

Nursery Manual

Volume Seven

Chapter 1

The Target Plant Concept
2

Contents
3

The basic ideas behind the Target Plant Concept can be

traced back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when new

insights into seedling physiology were radically changing

nursery management. Foresters were giving more thought

to their reforestation prescriptions and asking for new and

different stock types (Figure 7.1.1). By 1990, the term

“target plant” had become well-established in nursery and

reforestation jargon. In that year, the Target Seedling

Symposium brought together foresters and nursery workers to discuss all aspects of the target plant, and the

resultant proceedings are still a major source of information on the subject (Rose and others 1990).

One basic tenet of the Target Plant Concept is that plant

quality is determined by outplanting performance.

Although they might be the same species, forest and conservation plants are very different from ornamental nursery stock. For example, a Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii) seedling outplanted in the relatively harsh forest

environment will have different requirements from one

outplanted in a city park or in a Christmas tree plantation.

These differences are pivotal to the Target Plant Concept

because plant quality depends on how the plants will be

used—”fitness for purpose” (Ritchie 1984). This means

that plant quality cannot be merely described at the nursery; it must also be proven on the outplanting site. There

is no such thing as an “all-purpose” plant because nice

looking plants at the nursery will not survive and grow

well on all sites.

7.1.2 Defining the Target Plant

A target plant is one that has been cultured to survive and

grow on a specific outplanting site, and can be defined in

six sequential components (Figure 7.1.2).

7.1.2.1 Objectives of the Outplanting Project 

The reason why plants are needed will have a critical

influence on the characteristics of the target plant. In traditional reforestation, commercially valuable tree species

that have been genetically improved for fast growth are

outplanted with the ultimate objective of producing saw

logs or pulp. 

The target plant for a restoration project, however, might

be radically different because the objectives are totally

Figure 7.1.1—The “Target Plant Concept” developed as

foresters and other plant users began to work more closely

with nurseries to develop stock types for specific outplanting projects.

Figure 7.1.2—The six components of the Target Plant Concept.

7.1.1 Introduction

different. For example, a watershed protection project

would require riparian trees and shrubs and wetland

plants that will not be harvested for any commercial

product. In this case, the objectives would include stopping erosion, stabilizing the stream bank, and ultimately

restoring a functional plant community. Fire restoration

projects will have different objectives depending on the

plant community type and the ultimate use of the land.

Project objectives for a burned rangeland might be to stop

soil erosion, replace exotic weed species with native

plants, and establish browse plants for deer or elk. Target

plants for such a project might include a direct seeding of
native grass and forbs, followed by an outplanting of

woody shrub nursery stock. For a burned forest, however,

the plant materials might be native grass seeds to stop

erosion and then outplanting of tree seedlings to bring the

land back to full productivity as soon as possible. Another

project might be to restore plants that are in danger of

going extinct in a particular habitat. For example, Short’s

goldenrod (Solidago shortii) is an endangered plant that

can only be found in 14 populations in a small geographic area in Kentucky (Baskin and others 2000). Fortunately,

this plant is relatively easy to propagate from seeds and

grows well in greenhouses. 

Conservation planting projects can have still different

objectives. Although native plants are emphasized whenever and wherever possible, exotic species may be

required on extreme sites. In dry areas of the Intermountain West, where no native trees for upland sites are available, species like Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) are used to create windbreaks for home or livestock protection. As you can see,

project objectives are a critical first step in the target plant

concept.

7.1.2.2 Type of Plant Material

The second consideration in the Target Plant Concept is

what types of plant material would be best (Fig. 7.1.2).

Plant materials refer to anything that can be used to propagate a species; these propagules can be seeds, bulbs or

rhizomes, cuttings, or seedlings (Landis 2001). In container nurseries, plant material usually means the species and

the stock type.

Species. The species is determined by the project objectives

that were discussed in the previous section. For example,

Douglas-fir is one of the most important timber species in

the Pacific Northwest and is therefore a major crop in local

forest nurseries. Douglas-fir has been outplanted extensively for the past century, often in monocultures. In parts of

Oregon and Washington, these pure stands have recently

become severely infected with Swiss needle cast caused by

the fungus Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. One silvicultural

recommendation is to interplant with other conifers, especially western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), to reduce the

impact of this disease (Filip and others 2000). In the southeastern US, the demand for longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)

has increased tremendously in recent years and, for this

species, container stock has proven to survive and grow

better than bareroot stock (Barnett 2002).

Stock type. Container nurseries are currently producing a

wide variety of stock types including seedlings, transplants, and rooted cuttings. Although biological factors

should be the primary consideration (see 7.1.1.4), the

choice of container stock type is primarily defined by

price and preference.

1) Selling Price–Although the cost of containers and

growing media are important, the price of container stock

is basically a function of nursery production space. A unit

area of greenhouse bench space costs a fixed amount and

so the prices of the various container sizes increase as

their cell densities decrease (Table 7.1.1). Actual selling

prices for each container size are set by tradition and

market factors. 

2) Customer Preference–The demand for container types

has changed considerably over the past 25 years, and one

trend is to larger volumes. For example, in the 1970s, one

Oregon nursery typically produced container stock of 33

to 66 cm3 (2 to 4 in3) whereas by 2000 they were growing all their seedlings in 246 to 328 cm3 (15 to 20 in3)

containers (Figure 7.1.3A). This preference for larger stock

types has led to the practice of container transplanting,

where seedlings are started in small “miniplugs” in greenhouses and then transplanted to larger containers grown

in outdoor compounds. 

One reason why larger container stock types are in

greater demand is due to increased vegetative competition on the outplanting site. Environmental concerns in

Quebec have lead to a prohibition of herbicide use for

site preparation. The standard stock size for black spruce

(Picea mariana) and white spruce (Picea glauca) on these

sites was 110 cm3 (7 in3), and, therefore, research trials

were established to test a range of larger container sizes

(Jobidon and others 2003). When measured 8 years after

outplanting (Figure 7.1.3B), seedlings in the 340 cm3 (20

in3) containers were found to be the best and most economical stock type in the absence of herbicides.

Customer preferences are also evidenced by regional

trends in container type. It is cost prohibitive for a nursery

4
5

Table 7.1.1—Container seedling selling price is primarily a function of nursery production space 

Type of Container Cell Volume Number of Cells Per 

cm3 in3 m2 ft2 Price per 1,000 Seedlings

Styroblock 1 207A 8 1.1 2,121 196 $100 * 

Styroblock 2A 211A 41 2.5 1,032 103 $190 

Styroblock 5.5 315B 90 5.5 756 71 $276 

Styroblock 10 415D 160 9.8 364 34 $576 

Styroblock 15 515A 250 250 284 26 $755 

Styroblock 20 615A 336 20.5 213 20 $980 

* Arbitrarily set price, US dollars, 2007

Figure 7.1.3—Larger container plants are gaining in popularity (A) but outplanting trials are needed to determine which

sizes grow best and are most economical. Eight years after outplanting, spruce seedlings in containers that were 340 cm3

(20 in3) in volume were the best choice on sites with heavy vegetative competition in Quebec (B).

A B
6

to test all types of containers and so they typically use

whatever is locally popular. Styroblock® containers were

developed in British Columbia and continue to be the

most popular container type in the Pacific Northwest (van

Eerden 2002). In the northeastern US and Canada, however, hard plastic Ropak® Multi-Pots were the most popular container type and now are being replaced by Jiffy®

cells (White 2003). 

7.1.2.3 Genetic Considerations

The third component of the Target Plant Concept concerns the question of genetics. Three factors should be

considered: local adaptation, genetic diversity, and sexual

diversity.

Local adaptation. Many native plants can be propagated

by seeds which should be collected on or near the project

area. “Seed source” is an idea familiar to all forest nursery

managers and reforestation specialists who know that,

because plants are adapted to local conditions, seeds

should always be collected within the local “seed zone.”

Container nurseries grow plants by seed zone, which is a

three-dimensional geographic area that is relatively similar in climate and soil type (see Volume Six, section

6.2.1.2). Local adaptation is not always considered in

ornamental nurseries. For example, both native plant

nurseries and ornamental nurseries grow Douglas-fir

seedlings but the former distinguish between ecotypes

(e.g., variety glauca) and ornamental nurseries offer different cultivars (for example, ‘Carneflix Weeping’) (Landis

2001).

Seed source affects plant performance in a couple of

ways: growth rate and cold tolerance. In general, plants

grown from seeds collected from higher latitudes or elevations will grow slower and tend to be more cold hardy

during winter than those grown from seeds collected from

lower elevations or more southern latitudes (St. Clair and

Johnson 2003). Seed zone research has not been done on

many other native plants but it is intuitive that the same

concepts should apply. Therefore, it would be prudent to

always collect seeds or cuttings from the same geographic

zone and elevation in which the nursery stock is to be

outplanted. 

Genetic diversity. Target plants should also represent all

the genetic diversity present on the outplanting site. To

maximize genetic diversity in the resultant seedlings,

seeds should be collected from as many different plants

as possible. The same principals apply to plants that must

be propagated vegetatively. Cuttings must be collected

from near the outplanting site to make sure that they are

properly adapted. Of course, collecting costs must be

kept within reason and so the number of seeds or cuttings

collected must be a compromise. Guinon (1993) provides

an excellent discussion of all factors involved in preserving biodiversity when collecting seeds or cuttings, and

suggests a general guideline of 50 to 100 donor plants. 

Sexual diversity. Dioecious plants, such as Salix and

Populus, present another consideration because all progeny produced by vegetative propagation will have the

same sex as their parent (Figure 7.1.4). Therefore, when

collecting cuttings at the project site, care must be taken

to ensure that both male and female plants are equally

represented. Willows, cottonwoods, and aspen are sexually precocious so another option is to collect sexually

mature cuttings from a broad genetic base representing

both sexes and root them in a nursery. Within 1 to 2 years

the cuttings will flower and produce seeds. The seeds can

then be sown into containers and the resultant seedlings

will have a broad genetic and sexual diversity (Landis and

others 2003).

7.1.2.4 Limiting factors on the outplanting site 

The fourth aspect of the Target Plant Concept is based on

the ecological “principle of limiting factors”, which states

that any biological process will be limited by that factor

present in the least amount. Each outplanting site should

be evaluated to identify the environmental factors most

limiting to survival and growth (Figure 7.1.5A). Foresters

do this when they write prescriptions for each harvest

unit, specifying which tree species and stock type would

be most appropriate (Figure 7.1.1). 

On most reforestation sites, soil moisture is the limiting

factor and target plant specifications reflect this fact. On

outplanting sites at northern latitudes or at high elevation,

however, cold soil temperatures may be more significant

than soil moisture. Access to these sites may be restricted

by snow that may not melt until late June or even July

(Faliszewski 1998; Fredrickson 2003). The melting snow
7

Figure 7.1.4—The choice of whether to propagate by seeds or cuttings will affect the genetic diversity of the resultant crop.

With dioecious plants like willows and cottonwoods, the sex of the parent plant must also be considered to make sure that

the outplanting contains a mixture of both males and females. (Modified from Landis and others 2003).
8

keeps soil temperatures cool and this can be limiting as

research has shown that plant root growth is restricted

below 10 °C (50 °F) (Figure 7.1.5A; Lopushinsky and Max

1990). A reasonable target plant for these sites could be

grown in a relatively short container to take advantage of

warm moist surface soils (Figure 7.1.5B) (Landis 1999), as

is the case for high elevation reforestation sites in British

Columbia (Faliszewski 1998).

Restoration sites pose interesting challenges when evaluating outplanting sites for limiting factors. For example,

after a wildfire, soil conditions are often severely altered

whereas mining sites have extreme soil pH levels.

Riparian restoration projects require bioengineering structures to stabilize stream banks and retard soil erosion

before the site can be planted with natives (Hoag and

Landis 2001). In desert restoration, low soil moisture, hot

temperatures, high winds with sand blast, and heavy grazing pressure have been listed as limiting factors

(Bainbridge and others 1992).

Animal predation and snow load can also be limiting factors on some outplanting sites, especially at high elevations in the mountains. Container Engelmann spruce

(Picea engelmannii) seedlings of six stem diameter grades

were outplanted on a mountainous site in northern Utah.

After two seasons, seedlings with larger diameters had

significantly higher survival than smaller ones. Stock with

larger diameters showed less mortality from snow breakage or rodent depredation (Hines and Long 1986).

One outplanting site condition deserves special mention:

mycorrhizal fungi. These symbiotic organisms provide

their host plants with many benefits including better water

and mineral nutrient uptake. Reforestation sites typically

have an adequate complement of mycorrhizal fungi that

quickly colonize outplanted nursery stock whereas many

restoration sites do not. For example, severe forest fires or

surface mining eliminate all soil microorganisms including mycorrhizal fungi. Therefore, plants destined for these

sites should be inoculated with the appropriate fungal

symbiont before outplanting. (See Volume Five, Chapter 2

for a complete discussion of mycorrhizae).

So, as you can see, nursery managers must work closely

with plant customers to identify which environmental factors will be most limiting on each outplanting site.

Through these discussions, specifications for the best target plant material can be designed to maximize survival

and growth under these specific site conditions. 

7.1.2.5 Timing of the outplanting window 

The outplanting window is the period of time in which

environmental conditions on the outplanting site are most

favorable for survival and growth of seedlings or rooted

cuttings. The outplanting window is usually defined by

limiting factors and, as discussed in the previous section,

soil moisture and temperature are the usual constraints. In

most of the continental US, nursery stock is outplanted

during the rains of winter or early spring when soil moisture is high and evapotranspirational losses are low

(Figure 7.1.6). 

One real advantage of container plants is that they can be

sown at different dates and then cultured to be physiologically conditioned for outplanting during different times of

the year. For the traditional mid-winter outplanting window, plants can be harvested and hot-planted or coolerstored for a few weeks until the outplanting site is ready

(Figure 7.1.7A). As mentioned in the previous section,

high elevation or boreal sites are challenging because

they cannot be accessed during the typical mid-winter

outplanting window. Outplanting during the fall has been

tried for decades with varying results. In recent years,

however, interest in fall outplanting has been renewed,

which is primarily due to the availability of properly conditioned container stock (Fredrickson 2003). Summer outplanting is a relatively new practice that developed in the

boreal regions of Canada (Revel and others 1990) and has

since found some application at high elevation sites in the

Rocky Mountains (Scott 2006). Target plant characteristics

are similar for both summer and fall outplanting: hardened container stock of a specific size with minimal handling and storage.

7.1.2.6 Outplanting tools and technique 

An ideal planting tool exists for the conditions on each

outplanting site, and therefore tools and outplanting techniques must be considered in the Target Plant Concept.

All too often, foresters or restoration specialists develop a

preference for a particular implement because it has

worked well in the past. However, no one tool will work
9

Figure 7.1.5—A key part of the target plant concept is to evaluate which environmental factors may be limiting on the outplanting site (A). At high elevations and latitudes, spring soil temperatures are cold and research has shown that roots do

not grow appreciably below 10 °C (50 °F)(B). Therefore, target plants for these sites should have a relatively short, compact root system to take advantage of the warmer temperatures in the surface soil layers (C). (B modified from

Lopushinsky and Max 1990).

Figure 7.1.6—A critical component of the Target Plant

Concept is the “Outplanting Window”, which is defined as

the period of time in which plant survival and growth are

optimal for that particular site. In much of the US, the outplanting window is during the rainy period of midwinter

(modified from South and Mexal 1984).

Figure 7.1.7—Container

plants can be grown to meet

the target requirements for a

variety of outplanting windows. They can be harvested at their peak of physiological quality for the traditional mid-winter window

(A), or be specially cultured

for summer or fall outplanting (B).

A B C

A

B
10

under all site conditions. Although outplanting tools will

be discussed in detail in section 7.6, a couple of examples of how outplanting tools or techniques can affect target plant specifications will be mentioned here.

From the first development of container plants, special

implements were designed to outplant them (Hallman

1993). Dibbles were constructed in the exact same size

and shape as the container plugs and the Pottiputki was

designed to plant paperpot plants (Figure 7.1.8A). Nursery

stock that is outplanted mechanically impose unique

restrictions because the target plant must conform to the

size and shape of the handling equipment. Plants used in

machine-powered planting equipment must have stem

diameters that fit the holding clips and root systems must

not be longer than the depth of the furrow. The newest

and most sophisticated machine planting equipment

require plants of a size and shape that can be pneumatically loaded into planting heads (Figure 7.1.8B). So,

where mechanical planting is used, the size and shape of

the target plant is more defined by the type of outplanting

tool rather than any of the other factors. 

New outplanting tools are continually being developed.

Specially modified hoedads called “plug hoes” are now

available for container stock. Again, nursery managers

must work closely with reforestation or restoration project

managers to make certain that their target plants can be

properly outplanted in the soil conditions on the project

site. The “tall pots” used in many restoration projects

require specialized outplanting equipment. The

“Expanded Stinger” uses an articulated planting head to

place tall pot seedlings or cuttings in compacted soil or

even rock (Steinfeld and others 2002; Figure 7.1.8C). 

Figure 7.1.8—The type of outplanting tool has a significant effect on the target plant. Hand planting tools like

the Pottiputki (A) were developed to handle paperpots,

one specific type of container stock. With all types of

planting machines (B), plants must be grown in a particular size and shape to fit in the handling system. The special stock types needed for restoration projects require

innovative new outplanting equipment like the Expanded

Stinger, which was developed for tall pots (C).

A

B

C
11

Figure 7.1.9—The target plant is not a static concept,

but must be continually updated with information

from outplanting trials.

Table 7.1.2—Outplanting performance of Douglas-fir stock types on different outplanting sites after one growing season

Stocktype Survival (%) Height Stem Diameter 

Growth (cm) Growth (mm)

Timbered Rock Fire—Oregon Cascade Mountains

1+1 Bareroot 14 c* 4.2 b - 0.6 b 

Transplant 

Q-Plug Container 39 b 2.6 b - 0.3 b

Transplant 

Stryoblock® 87 a 12.0 a 0.8 a 

Container 

- 246 cc

Biscuit Fire—Oregon Coastal Mountains

1+1 Bareroot 98 a 4.6 b 0.5 b

Transplant 

Q-Plug Container 98 a 7.0 a 0.5 b

Transplant 

Stryoblock® 99 a 7.5 a 1.1 a

Container 

- 246 cc 

* Different letters in each column represent statistical differences at the P = 0.05 level 
12

One unique aspect of the Target Plant Concept is that it is

a collaboration between nursery managers and their customers. At the start of any planting project, the customer

and the nursery manager must agree on certain morphological and physiological specifications. This prototype

target plant is grown in the nursery and then verified by

outplanting trials that monitor survival and growth for up

to 5 years (Fig. 7.1.9). 

Monitoring plant survival and growth during the first few

months after outplanting is critical. Problems with stock

quality will show up soon after outplanting. Problems

with poor planting or exposure to drought conditions take

longer to appear; plants exhibit good initial survival but

gradually lose vigor and perhaps die. Therefore, plots

must be monitored during the first month or two after outplanting and again at the end of the first year for initial

survival. Subsequent checks after 3 or 5 years will give a

good indication of plant growth rates. This performance

information is then used to give valuable feedback to the

nursery manager who can fine tune the target specifications for the next crop.

7.1.3 Field Testing the Target Plant

For example, the Oregon State University Nursery

Technology Cooperative is conducting outplanting trials

of one-year-old stock types on two fire restoration sites in

southwestern Oregon (Nursery Technology Cooperative

2005). The Timbered Rock site in the Cascade Mountains

is much drier than the Biscuit site in the Coast Range. In

terms of survival, the Styroblock® container performed

much better than the transplants at Timber Rock, whereas

little difference was noted on the wetter Biscuit site (Table

7.1.2). The container stock type also grew much better at

both sites, but especially so at Timbered Rock where grass

competition was severe. In fact, the severe moisture stress

caused by the grass resulted in a negative stem growth for

the two transplant stock types. After 3 years, however, the

container stock type exhibited severe chlorosis and slower

growth rates that demonstrates the need for repeated

monitoring to accurately assess seedling and stock type

performance.
13

7.1.4 Summary

The Target Plant Concept is a relatively new but effective

way of looking at reforestation and restoration. It emphasizes that plant quality must be defined on the outplanting

site, and that there is not one universal best stock type. In

particular, the Target Plant Concept emphasizes that successful outplanting projects require good communication

between the plant user and the nursery manager. The

Target Plant Concept should be viewed as a circular feedback system where information from the outplanting site

is used to define and refine the best type of plant for each

project.
14

Bainbridge DA, Sorensen N, Virginia RA. 1992.

Revegetating desert plant communities. IN: Landis TD,

ed. Proceedings, Western Forest Nursery Association.

General Technical Report RM-221. Ft. Collins, CO:

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station: 21-26. 

Barnett JP. 2002. Longleaf pine: why plant it? Why use

containers? In: Barnett JP, Dumroese RK, Moorhead DJ,

editors. Proceedings of workshops on growing longleaf

pine in containers — 1999 and 2001, p. 5-7. USDA

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General

Technical Report SRS-56. 

Davis AS, Jacobs DF, Ross-Davis A. 2004. Success of

hardwood tree plantations in Indiana and implications

for nursery managers. In: Riley LE, Dumroese RK,

Landis TD, technical coordinators. National

Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery

Associations—2003. Ogden (UT): USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Proceedings RMRS-P-33: 107-110

Faliszewski, M. 1998. Stock type selection for high elevation (ESSF) planting. Forest Nursery Association of

British Columbia meetings, proceedings, 1995, 1996,

1997:152.

Filip G, Kanaskie A, Kavanagh K, Johnson G, Johnson R,

Maguire G. 2000. Silviculture and Swiss needle cast:

research and recommendations. Research Contribution

30. Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University, College of

Forestry. 16 p.

Fredrickson E. 2003. Fall planting in northern California.

IN: Riley L.E., Dumroese R.K., Landis T.D., technical

coordinators.National Proceedings:Forest and

Conservation Nursery Associations-2002. Ogden,UT:

USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research

Station.Proceedings RMRS-P-28: 159-161.

Guinon M.1993. Promoting gene conservation through

seed and plant procurement. IN: Landis TD, ed.

Proceedings, Western Forest Nursery Association.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report

RM-221: 38-46. 

Hallman, R. 1993. Reforestation equipment. MTDC

Publication No. TE02E11. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest

Service, Technology and Development Program. 268 p.

Hines FD, Long AJ. 1986. First- and second-year survival

of containerized Engelmann spruce in relation to initial

seedling size. Canadian Journal of Forest research 16:

668-670.

Hoag JC, Landis TD. 2001. Riparian zone restoration:

field requirements and nursery opportunities. Native

Plants Journal 2(1):30-35. 

Jobidon R, Roy V, Cyr, G. 2003. Net effect of competing

vegeetation on selected environmental conditions and

performance of four spruce seedling stock sizes after

eight years in Quebec (Canada). Annals of Forest

Science 60: 691-699.

Landis TD. 1999. Seedling stock types for outplanting in

Alaska. IN: Stocking standards and reforestation methods for Alaska. Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station, Misc. Publication 99-8. Fairbanks, AK:

University of Alaska Fairbanks: 78-84. 

Landis, TD. 2001. The target seedling concept: the first

step in growing or ordering native plants. 

IN: Haase DL, Rose R. eds. Native plant propagation

and restoration strategies, proceedings of the conference. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Nursery

Technology Cooperative. Portland, OR, Western

Forestry and Conservation Association: 71-79.

Landis, TD. 2002. The target seedling concept - a tool for

better communication between nurseries and their customers. IN: Riley L.E., Dumroese R.K., Landis T.D.,

technical coordinators, National Proceedings: Forest

and Conservation Nursery Associations-2002.

Ogden,UT:USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain

Research Station.Proceedings RMRS-P-28: 12-16.

Landis TD, Lippitt LA, Evans JM. 1993. Biodiversity and

ecosystem management: the role of forest and conservation nurseries. IN: Landis TD, ed. Proceedings,

Western Forest Nursery Association, General Technical

Report RM-221. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station:1-17.

Landis, TD, Dreesen DR, Dumroese RK. 2003. Sex and

the single Salix: considerations for riparian restoration.

Native Plants Journal 4(2): 110-117.

Lopushinsky W, Max TA. 1990. Effect of soil temperature

on root and shoot growth and on budburst timing in

conifer seedling transplants. New Forests 4(2):107-124.

Nursery Technology Cooperative. 2005. Rapid response

reforestation: comparison of one-year-old stocktypes

for fire restoration. NTC Annual Report. Corvallis OR,

Oregon State University, Department of Forest Science,

Oregon State University: 23-27.

7.1.5 Literature Cited
Revel J, Lavender DP, Charleson L. 1990. Summer planting of white spruce and lodgepole pine seedlings.

FRDA Report 145. Victoria, BC: Pacific Forestry Centre.

14 p.

Ritchie, G.A. 1984. Assessing seedling quality. IN:

Duryea, M.L.; Landis, T.D. eds. Forest Nursery Manual:

Production of Bareroot Seedlings. Kluwer Academic

Press. The Hague: 243-259.

Rose, R.; Campbell, S.J.; Landis, T.D. 1990. Target

Seedling Symposium: Proceedings, Combined Meeting

of the Western Forest Nursery Associations; 1990

August 13-17; Roseburg, OR. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-200.

Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 286 p.

Scott GL. 2006. Personal communication. Missoula, MT:

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office. 

South DB, Mexal JG. 1984. Growing the “best” seedling

for reforestation success. Forestry Department Series

12. Auburn, AL: Auburn University. 11 p.

St. Clair B, Johnson R. 2003. The structure of genetic variation and implications for the management of seed and

planting stock. In: Riley LE, Dumroese RK, Landis TD,

technical coordinators. National Proceedings: Forest

and Conservation Nursery Associations - 2003. Ogden

(UT): USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-33: 64-71.

Steinfeld DE, Landis TD, Culley D. 2002. Outplanting

long tubes with the Expandable Stinger: a new treatment for riparian restoration. IN: National proceedings,

forest and conservation nursery associations: 1999,

2000, and 2001. Dumroese RK, Riley LE, Landis TD,

technical coordinators. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Proceedings RMRS-P-24:

273-276.

Van Eerden E. 2002. Forest nursery history in western

Canada with special emphasis on the Province of

British Columbia. IN: National proceedings: forest and

conservation nursery associations — 1999, 2000, and

2001. Dumroese, R.K.; Riley, L.E.; Landis, T.D., technical coordinators. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Proceedings RMRS-P-24,

p.152-159.

White B. 2003. Container handling and storage in eastern

Canada. IN: National proceedings: Forest and

Conservation Nursery Associations – 2003. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Proceedings RMRS-P-33. p. 10-14.

15