The Container Tree 

Nursery Manual

Volume Seven

Chapter 6

Outplanting
148
149

Outplanting is the final stage of the nursery process, but

before we get to specific techniques, we should review

some important concepts. Outplanting performance (survival and growth) depends on three factors, which are the

final elements of the Target Plant Concept (Figure 7.6.1).

Limiting factors on the outplanting site. Each site is different so it is critical to identify the environmental factors

that can limit plant survival and growth. Temperature and

moisture are usually the most limiting and are discussed

in section 7.6.4. Other site factors, such as aspect and

soil type, must also be considered. Sites with south or

southwest aspects will dry out more quickly and should

therefore be planted first. In some cases, shade materials

may be required. Some planting tools should not be used

on fine textured soils, such as silts and clays, and this will

be discussed in section 7.6.7. 

Outplanting sites must be evaluated well in advance of

the actual outplanting. Although the site evaluation

process will not be covered in detail here, two good

examples exist. First, the USDA Forest Service requires a

detailed Reforestation Plan for each planting project

(USDA 2002). Second, a very comprehensive example of

how to conduct a site evaluation on a restoration site can

be found in Steinfeld and others (2007). Because of the

highly disturbed nature of restoration sites, site evaluation

is even more critical before planting can begin

(Munshower 1994).

Timing of the outplanting window. For each site, there is

an ideal time to plant, and the process for determining

this “window” is discussed in section 7.6.2.

Outplanting tools and techniques. The processes for

selecting the best way to plant nursery stock are discussed

in sections 7.6.3 to 7.6.9, and section 7.6.10 describes

how to evaluate the quality of the outplanting project. 

7.6.1 Introduction

Figure 7.6.1—The final three steps of the Target Plant

Concept are critical to outplanting success and should be

considered when planning and initiating outplanting 

projects.
150

7.6.2 Outplanting Windows

Years of experience have proven that the best time to outplant seedlings is when they are dormant and least susceptible to the stresses of harvest, storage, shipping, and

planting. The outplanting window concept was introduced as a critical part of the Target Plant Concept (see

section 7.1.1.5) and is defined as the period of time during which environmental conditions on the site most favor

survival and growth of nursery stock. Traditionally, outplanting windows were established by harvesting nursery

stock and observing outplanting performance. Plant quality tests, such as cold hardiness, are also good ways to

determine when nursery stock is most hardy and best able

to survive the stresses of outplanting. For example, cold

hardiness testing of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)

and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) over a 4-year

period shows how the duration of outplanting windows

varies from year to year (Figure 7.6.2A). 

The start and end dates of an outplanting window are

constrained by limiting factors on the planting site. Soil

moisture and temperature are the usual constraints on

most sites, but other environmental or biological factors

can also limit plant survival and growth (see section

7.1.1.4). For high value plantings where irrigation can be

supplied, container stock can be ouplanted throughout

the year in appropriate weather conditions and with proper handling (White 1990). Changing weather patterns

have caused changes in the outplanting window. In eastern Texas, an extended drought has caused foresters to

change from traditional spring outplanting with bareroot

stock to fall outplanting with container stock. Tests show

fall-planted container seedlings had a 93 percent survival

rate compared to 67 percent for bareroot stock (Taylor

2007). 

In most of the continental US, nursery stock is outplanted

during late winter or early spring when soil moisture is

high and evapotranspirational losses are low. In most of

Canada and the US, this typically occurs from January to

April for lower elevations (Figure 7.6.2B) and from May to

July at higher elevations and latitudes where persistent

snow cover keeps soil temperatures low and limits access

(Figure 7.6.2C).

Recently, some foresters in northern Canada, Scandinavia,

and the northern mountains of the western US have been

planting container stock in mid-summer and fall

(Louranen and others 2006; Tan and others 2008).

Because these plants are not fully dormant and have not

been stored for months under refrigeration, this summer

or fall-outplanting is known as “hot-planting”. Still, hotplanted stock needs some hardening to withstand the

stresses of harvesting, shipping, and outplanting, and

moisture stress or short-day (“blackout”) treatments are

most commonly used (Landis and Jacobs 2008).

Outplanting in summer or fall requires careful planning

and close coordination with the nursery but can be successful under the right conditions. (For more information

on hot-planting see sections 7.4.2 and 7.6.3.2).
151

Figure 7.6.2—Outplanting windows are established from

observations of lifting and planting successes or with plant

quality testing (A). In most of the US and Canada, the

outplanting window occurs during late winter or early

spring (B). At higher elevations and latitudes, however, the

outplanting window is later spring or early summer due to

persistent snow and cold soil temperatures (C), (A - modified from Tinus 1996).

A

B

C
152

7.6.3 Outplanting—On-Site Handling & Storage

Nursery stock should be outplanted as soon as it arrives

on the project site, but that is often operationally impossible. Weather delays, worker scheduling, and poor communication are just a few of the reasons why on-site storage may be necessary. The duration of on-site storage

should last for only a few days although, under unanticipated weather, such as heavy snow, it can reach a week

or more. Therefore, it’s always wise to plan ahead. Ideally,

project managers should only bring as much stock as can

be planted on a given day to avoid the need for on-site

storage. However, distance and other logistical factors

may make this difficult. 

Overheating and desiccation are the major stresses that

can occur during on-site storage. Because of significant

differences in dormancy stage and hardiness, however,

nursery stock for hot-planting must be treated differently

than stock from refrigerated storage. 

7.6.3.1 Inspecting Nursery Stock

As discussed in Chapter 7.5, many things can happen

between the harvest and outplanting of nursery stock.

Therefore, it’s a good idea to conduct a thorough inspection of nursery stock when it arrives at the outplanting

site. All boxes should be opened and checked for the following (Mitchell and others 1990):

• In-box temperatures of refrigerated stock should be

checked upon delivery (Figure 7.6.3A), and should be

cool, no warmer than 2 to 4 °C (36 to 39 °F). Stock

delivered in containers or hot-plant stock should be

kept as cool as possible and out of direct sunlight.

• If possible, use a pressure chamber to check plant

moisture stress of a sample of plants (Figure 7.6.3B).

(Target PMS values can be found in Chapter 7.2 ).

• Nursery stock should not smell sour or sweet, which is

evidence that the stock has been too warm or excessively wet. 

• Root plugs should be moist. If the plants have foliage,

most often it should be a healthy green. For species

with terminal buds, those buds should still be firm.

• Check the firmness of the bark around the root collar.

The bark should not easily slough off and the tissue

underneath should be creamy, not brown or black,

which indicates frost injury.

Figure 7.6.3—

Nursery stock

should be inspected

upon delivery to the

outplanting site.

Check in-box temperatures of boxed

plants (A) and, if

possible, measure

the plant moisture

stress with a pressure chamber (B).

Storage molds can

become a serious

problem in on-site

storage so check for

grey or colored

mycelia within the

foliage (C).

AB

C
153

• Spread the foliage to check for white or grey mycelia

(Figure 7.6.3C), which is evidence of storage molds

such as Botrytis cinerea. In particular, check foliage at

the base of the crown. If mold is present, check the

firmness of the tissue underneath. Soggy or watersoaked tissue indicates serious decay and those plants

should be culled. Plants with superficial mycelia without corresponding decay should be planted immediately. Fungal molds will not survive after exposure to

ambient conditions on the site. 

7.6.3.2 Hot-Planted Stock and Open-Stored Stock

Hot-planted stock, because it is not fully dormant or

hardy, should be outplanted immediately or stored on the

project site for only a day or two. The key to a successful

hot-planting operation is careful planning and coordination between the nursery and planting project managers.

Ideally, hot-plant stock should be packed upright in cardboard boxes without plastic bag liners that can reduce air

exchange and increase respirational heat build-up. If

stock is pulled-and-wrapped, using white packing boxes

will help to reflect sunlight and keep in-box temperatures

lower (Kiiskila 1999). 

At the outplanting site, tops of cardboard boxes containing open-stored or hot-planting stock should be opened

to dissipate heat and promote good air exchange. If not

already so, the plants should be set upright and placed in

a shady area as soon as they arrive on site. Unfortunately,

trees and other natural shade are absent on many reforestation and restoration sites, but even when natural

shade is available, it can be difficult to keep plants in the

shade all day (Figure 7.6.4A). Therefore, plan on erecting

some type of artificial shade. Tarps or shadecloth suspended between poles is effective (Figure 7.6.4B). As

shown in Figure 7.5.12D in the previous chapter, darkcolored tarps absorb and reradiate solar heat

(Emmingham and others 2002), therefore canvas tarps

should be suspended above the nursery stock to allow for

good air circulation. Wetting the tarps regularly will keep

the air cooler through evaporative cooling (Mitchell and

others 1990). 

Moisture stress is another concern with open-stored or

hot-planted stock because plants are transpiring during

delivery and on-site storage. As with respiration, the transpiration rate is a function of temperature but sunlight

intensity is equally important. Therefore, it makes sense to

check that root plugs are fully charged and plants are not

under any moisture stress immediately before outplanting.

Irrigating container plants on the project site is not commonly done but recent research with hot-planted birch

(Betula species) and spruce (Picea species) seedlings

showed that water before outplanting significantly

increased survival (Figure 7.6.4C). So, the best on-site

storage for open stored or hot-planted nursery stock has

access to a reliable water source (Figure 7.6.4D) because

frequent watering requires large volumes of water

(Mitchell and others 1990).

7.6.3.3 Stock from Refrigerated Storage

Nursery plants delivered from cooler or freezer storage

must be treated differently than open-stored or hot-planted

stock because they are still fully dormant and hardy and,

ideally, should be kept that way until outplanting. So,

whenever possible, refrigerated trucks (“reefers”) should

be used for transportation to the site as well as for on-site

storage (Figure 7.6.5A). Each truck should receive a

mechanical check before use, and the storage van precooled by operating the compressor for at least 4 to 6

hours (Paterson and others 2001). Anticipate mechanical

failure by having a back-up plan.

Snow caches, culvert or pole structures covered with

snow and an insulating material such as sawdust or straw

(Figure 7.6.5B), have been successfully used for on-site

storage where conditions permit (Paterson and others

2001). In a Canadian trial, a custom-made, insulated storage building was effective in protecting container stock

from both frost damage and overheating (Zalasky 1983). 

Boxes or bags of stock, stored either under refrigeration or

in insulated buildings, should be patched if torn during

shipping and handling and kept closed. Temperatures

inside the boxes or bags can be much warmer than the

outside temperatures because plants produce heat during

respiration. As temperatures increase, so does the rate of

respiration, which further increases temperatures.

Therefore, the temperature in boxes or bags should be

monitored on delivery and daily thereafter (Figure

7.6.3A). Make sure that the in-box temperature remains

above freezing but below 10 °C (50°F)(Rose and Haase
2006). If nursery stock is exposed to warm temperatures

for an extended period, standard seedling quality tests

(root growth potential, chlorophyll fluorescence, and cold

hardiness) and in-container concentration of ethanol were

shown to accurately predict seedling performance (Maki

and Colombo 2001). (See Chapter 7.2 for more information on plant quality tests).

It’s also prudent to check inside a few boxes for signs of

storage molds such as Botrytis cinerea (Figure 7.6.3C).

This common nursery pest can increase rapidly after

refrigerated storage, perhaps because of increased carbon

dioxide levels inside boxes and bags (see Volume Five for

more information).

Thawing frozen stock. Plants with root plugs frozen

together must be thawed before outplanting. Some customers want their stock thawed before shipping by either

“rapid” or “slow” thawing (Figure 7.6.6A). However, the

definitions of “slow” and “rapid” vary considerably (Table

7.6.1). Originally, slow thawing was considered best (for

example, Mitchell and Others 1990) and was typically

done at the nursery. Recent research comparing the two

thawing techniques found no differences after two growing seasons (Rose and Haase 1997). In the most comprehensive physiological research on thawing frozen stock

(Camm and others 1995), cold hardiness tests showed

that, rapidly thawed stock had more hardiness and also

resumed shoot growth earlier than slowly thawed

seedlings. Moreover, shoot and root growth measure154

Figure 7.6.4—All nursery stock should be kept in the shade on the outplanting site but natural shade moves with the sun

(A). Artificial shade from tarps or shadecloth is needed on many project sites (B). Watering plants immediately before outplanting has proven beneficial for hot-planted silver birch on dry sites (C), so provide for a source of irrigation water (D).

(C - modified from Luoranen and others 2004).

A B

C D
155

Figure 7.6.5—Nursery stock from refrigerated storage

should be kept in reefer trucks (A), insulated structures or

snow caches (B) until outplanting.

Figure 7.6.6—Frozen nursery stock must be carefully

thawed at warm temperatures for 24 to 48 hours (A).

Never expose frozen plants

to direct sunlight (B), but

open boxes or bags (C) in a

shady location (D). [A -

modified from Paterson and

A others (2001)].

A

B

C

B

D
156

Table 7.6.1—Common thawing regimes for frozen container nursery stock

Speed of Thawing Reference Temperatures Duration

“Slow” Thaw Camm and others (1995) 5 °C (41 °F) 7 days

15 °C (59 °F) 2 days

Rose and Haase (1997) 0 to 3 °C * 42 days

(32 to 37 °F)

Kooistra and Bakker (2002) 0 to 3 °C * 21 to 35 days

(32 to 37 °F)

“Rapid” Thaw Camm and others (1995) 5 to 15 °C 9 days

(41 to 59 °F)

Rose and Haase (1997) 7 °C (45 °F) 5 days

Kooistra and Bakker (2002) 5 to 10 °C 5 to 10 days

(41 to 50 °F)

* Operational cooler storage conditions

ments after 3 months were similar. These results suggest

that a good operational procedure might be to remove

bundles of frozen stock from shipping containers and lay

them on the ground, or open shipping boxes or bags

(Figure 7.6.6C) in a well-ventilated shady location. Never

attempt to thaw frozen nursery plants by placing them in

direct sunlight (Figure 7.6.6B) as this can cause serious

moisture and temperature stress. Do not physically pry

frozen root plugs apart because this can cause serious

damage (Mitchell and others 1990). Defrost only enough

stock that can be planted in a couple of days. The ideal

situation is to set-up a thawing operation where frozen

stock is removed from refrigerated storage and then

thawed in an adjacent shade structure (Figure 7.6.6D).

Outplanting frozen stock. Outplanting nursery stock with

frozen root plugs would save the time and effort needed

to thaw plants. A few years ago this was not possible

because root plugs were frozen together but technology

for packing singulated plants is now available. Results of

field trials, however, are mixed. In British Columbia, the

performance of western larch (Larix occidentalis), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and interior spruce planted

frozen was not significantly different from thawed plants 2

years after outplanting (Kooistra and Bakker 2005). Other

studies indicate that site conditions have an overriding

effect. In an outplanting study of Norway spruce (Picea

abies) seedlings in Finland, thawed seedlings outperformed frozen stock in survival and shoot and root growth

in warm and cold soils (Helenius 2005). In a more recent

trial, the physiological processes of thawed and frozen

Douglas-fir container seedlings that were exposed to

either “cool and moist” or “warm and dry” conditions

were monitored. Thawed plants had higher photosynthesis rates and more active buds and roots than plants that

were planted frozen, which could affect subsequent outplanting performance (Islam and others 2008). Obviously,

more research trials under a wide variety of outplanting

site conditions are needed before outplanting frozen stock

can be recommended. 
157

7.6.4 Pre-planting preparations

Before the outplanting actually begins, several preparations should be made to ensure the project runs smoothly

and successfully.

7.6.4.1 Check soil moisture and temperature

Soil moisture plays a vital role in the uptake and translocation of nutrients and can have a significant influence on

plant survival and growth (Helenius and others 2002).

Following outplanting, a root system must be able to take

up sufficient water from the surrounding soil to meet the

transpirational demands of the shoot. If soil moisture is

inadequate, the newly planted seedling can become

stressed, resulting in reduced growth and increased mortality. Lower photosynthetic rates can occur in newly

planted seedlings under water stress, which results in

lower root regenerating ability (Grossnickle 1993). Ideally,

soil water potential in the top 25 cm (10 in) should be

greater than -0.1 MPa at the time of outplanting (Cleary

and others 1978, Krumlik and others 1984). 

Soil temperature has a profound effect on root development (Balisky and Burton 1997; Domisch and others

2001; Landhäusser and others 2001). The ideal soil temperature range for root growth is 5 to 20 °C (41 to 68 °F)

(see Figure 7.1.5B), so planting may have to be delayed

until soil temperatures increase. When transpirational

demands are high but cold soils limit water uptake, plants

may experience a “physiological drought” that can limit

survival and growth (Mitchell and others 1990). In

Ontario, planting projects are not started until soil temperatures exceed 5 °C (41 °F).

7.6.4.2 Monitor air humidity, temperature, 

and wind speed

Weather conditions at the time of outplanting have a direct

effect on plant moisture stress. Although an increase in both

air temperature and wind speed affect transpiration, wind

effects are more difficult to quantify. Conditions become critical when air temperatures exceed 25 °C (78 °F) and relative

humidity is lower than 30 percent (Paterson and others

2001). Relative humidity does not influence evapotranspiration rates as much as vapor pressure deficit, which is the difference between the amount of water the air can hold at a

given temperature and the amount of water at saturation.

Sample calculations can be found in Cleary and others (1978). 

Therefore, planting is best done during the early morning

hours when air temperatures are cool and wind speeds

are low. When weather is sunny, windy, or dry it is necessary to take extra protective precautions to minimize plant

stresses. In extreme cases, the planting operation may

have to be suspended. 

7.6.4.3 Site aspect and planting sequence

Conditions will vary at different locations in the planting

area, especially in mountainous terrain. Aspect, or direction of solar exposure of mountain slopes, is one of the

most important factors affecting outplanting success.

South- and west-facing aspects have a hotter, drier environment than north and east aspects and should be planted first. Shading of outplanted stock is often required on

these aspects (see following section). Deer and elk often

use southern and western exposures for winter range so

this impact must also be considered (USDA 2002).

Be sure to consider access and transportation distance

from the on-site storage. It is generally a good idea to start

at the furthest location and plant back towards access

roads. 

7.6.4.4 Watering plants and root dips

The practice of dipping plant roots to protect them from

stress during outplanting has been around for many years

because it is intuitively attractive, especially for bareroot

stock. Roots of nursery plants dry as they are exposed to

the atmosphere during harvesting and handling and so it

makes sense to rehydrate them or apply a coating to protect them (Chavasse 1981). Many different commercial

root dips have become available and most are superabsorbent hydrogels. These crosslinked polymers can

absorb and retain many times their own weight in water

and are routinely applied to bareroot stock as root dips.

Not much research of the benefits of hydrogels to container stock has been published. However, one recent

trial with Eucalyptus seedlings with root plugs dipped in a

hydrogel slurry had significantly lower mortality at 5

months after outplanting compared to the controls. The

author attributed this to increased soil moisture or contact

between the root plug and the field soil (Thomas 2008). It

would be interesting to see more research on this subject.
158

The plug should already be moist when it is unpacked. If

not, then a quick water dip should be adequate to protect

the roots from desiccation, because, as demonstrated in

Figure 7.6.4C, irrigating root plugs before outplanting has

proven beneficial.

7.6.4.5 Site preparation

Trees and other native plants vary in their requirements

for sunlight and other site resources to successfully regenerate. Site preparation (referred to as “site prep”) to

remove competing vegetation and site debris has several

benefits (USDA 2002). Biologically, it improves nursery

stock survival and growth by reducing the competition

from existing plants for nutrients, water, and sunlight.

Roots from existing plants may have already occupied the

soil profile and can easily reduce survival of outplanted

nursery stock (Figure 7.6.7A). Operationally, site prep

makes the physical process of planting easier by reducing

surface debris on the site and removing the duff or sod

layer. Removal of woody and herbaceous plants around

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings resulted in

up to three times the stem volume after 8 years as compared to seedlings without vegetation control (Rose and

Rosner 2005).

Site prep done at the time of outplanting can be accomplished by mechanical (scalping or mounding) or chemical (see section 7.6.4.6) means.

Scalping. Scalping is the physical removal of grasses,

forbs, small shrubs, and organic debris around planting

holes (Figure 7.6.7B)—it is ineffective against larger

woody plants that are too difficult to remove. Removing

organic debris around the planting hole ensures that roots

are in contact with mineral soil. Nursery stock planted in

organic matter or duff dry out rapidly and often die

(Grossnickle 2000). Scalping can also reduce the frequency of drought damage because of the reduction in competition (Barnard and others 1995; Nilsson and Orlander

1995). When light is the limiting factor, however, scalping

can reduce growth because of reduced moisture and

available nutrients (Miller and Brewer 1984). 

Scalping can be accomplished with some planting tools

such as the side of a hoedad blade (Figure 7.6.7C). With

other planting implements such as augers, scalping is

done beforehand by another worker. Planting contracts

often contain specifications for the size and depth of

scalping. For example, the USDA Forest Service requires

that all vegetation be removed from an area 30 to 60 cm

(12 to 24 in) around the planting hole and 2 to 5 cm (1 to

2 in) in depth. On dry exposed sites, duff, litter, and rotten

wood should be placed back on the cleared surface to

serve as mulch (USDA 2002). Scalping can definitely slow

down planting productivity, but operational experience in

Oregon found that a good hoedad planter can still scalp

and plant 850 trees/day in Oregon (Henneman 2007).

Continuous scalping (“discing” or “scarifying”) is done with

tractor-drawn or self-powered equipment. The Bräcke

Scarifier is mounted on the front of a prime mover on a

three-point hitch allowing the operator to select individual

spots. Two side-by-side scalps are about 2.5 m (8 ft) apart

with about 2 m (6.5 ft) spacing between rows. Depending

on terrain and desired density of the scalps, production

varies from 0.5 to 2.0 ha (1.2 to 4.8 acres) per hour

(Converse 1999). Discing, which produces a shallow furrow about 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft) and 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4

in) deep, has proven essential for establishment of longleaf

pine (Pinus palustris) on abandoned farmland in the southeastern US (Shoulders 1958). Barnard (1995) found continuous scalping to be beneficial for these reasons:

• Reduced weed competition

• Improved soil moisture availability

• Less damage by root pathogens and insects

• Increased planting efficiency.

The beneficial effects of scalping will vary on a site-bysite basis, and whether or not to scalp should be determined during the planning phase of any outplanting project. On grass-dominated sites in interior British

Columbia, scalping was found to reduce evapotranspiration and increase soil moisture, which yielded better survival and growth of conifer seedlings (Figure 7.6.7D). In

Oregon, increasing scalp size resulted in significant

improvement in stem volume after 4 years (Rose and

Rosner 2005). On the other hand, on boreal reforestation

sites in northern British Columbia where plant competition is not severe, the additional time and expense of

scalping failed to improve outplanting performance

(Campbell and others 2006). 
159

Figure 7.6.7—Existing plants compete with outplanted nursery stock for moisture (A); scalping is the physical removal of

plants, and organic debris from around the planting hole (B). Spot scalping can be done with the planting tool like this

hoedad (C). On a grass-dominated reforestation site, scalping improved conifer seedling survival compared to ripping, herbicide, or the no-treatment control (D). (D - modified from Fleming and others 1998).

Mounding. On boreal and other cool-temperate planting

sites, slow organic matter decomposition creates a heavy

surface layer of duff that can be an impediment to planting nursery stock. Mounding is a general term for a type

of site preparation that can treat several potentially limiting factors: plant competition, cold soil temperatures,

poor aeration on wet sites, and nutrient deficiencies. The

term “mounding” has been, however, applied to a variety

of mechanical site treatments that can have widely different biological consequences. Sutton (1993) provides a

thorough discussion of mounding and how it has been

used worldwide. 

For our purposes, we define mounding as the mechanical

excavating and inverting of soil and sod to create separate

piles that are higher than the existing terrain. With thick

duff layers, the resulting mounds consists of a mineral soil

cap over a double layer of humus (Figure 7.6.8A). While

mounding was originally done by hand, a number of

mechanical implements have been developed to speedup the process. For example, the Bräcke Mounder is a

scarifier featuring a hydraulically-operated entrenching

spade followed by a mounding tool that uses soil from the

scalped area. Widely used in Canada and Scandinavia,

this machine produces mounds 16 to 26 cm (6 to 10 in)

high with 3 to 19 cm (1 to 7 in) caps of mineral soil.

Other studies have used modified mouldboard plows to

generate a continuous mounded ridge (Sutton 1993). 

The results of mounding have been generally favorable, at

least in the short term. For example, compared to scarification and herbicide treatments, mounding produced

A B

C D
strong, consistent, positive results for jack pine (Pinus

banksiana) on grass-dominated sites (Sutton and Weldon

1993). Most research involved conifers, but a recent study

found that mounding was an effective alternative to herbicides for establishing pedunculate oaks (Quercus robur) on

water-logged sites (Lof and others 2006). Conversely,

Sutherland and Foreman (2000) found that mound planting

resulted in less growth of black spruce (Picea mariana)

compared to repeated herbicide treatments. Mounding has

also been shown to help reduce injury by the European

pine weevil (Hylobius abietis), which is the major regeneration pest in northern European forests. Because it reduces

feeding damage by the weevil, mounding is common on

20 percent of Norway spruce (Picea abies) plantations in

Finland (Heiskanen and Viiri 2005). 

Site Preparation and Frost Heaving. Frost heaving of

recently outplanted nursery stock is a major problem on

sites subject to repeated cycles of freezing and thawing.

Heaving is a purely mechanical process whereby plants

or other objects are slowly racheted out of the soil by

repeated freezing and thawing (Goulet 1995). All nursery

plants can be frost-heaved but, because of their smoothwalled root plugs, container plants are particularly susceptible. Sites prone to frost heaving have high soil moisture and soil textures with good hydraulic conductivity

(Bergsten and others 2001). The tendency to frost heave

increases as pore size decreases so silt and clay soils are

most problematic. Southerly or southwesterly sites have

more of a problem with frost heaving because the high

solar exposure intensifies the freeze-thaw cycle. 

The physiological condition of stock at outplanting can

have a significant effect on frost heaving. Plants that have

rapid root egress (Figure 7.6.8B) will become physically

anchored into the soil and therefore less susceptible. Fear

of frost heaving is a major reason why late fall outplanting

is discouraged. Nursery stock that is outplanted so late

that new roots cannot anchor the plant will be vulnerable

to frost heaving (Figure 7.6.8C). In one study, however,

stock outplanted later did not suffer more damage than

stock outplanted earlier (Sahlen and Goulet 2002). 

160

Figure 7.6.8—On boreal sites with heavy duff layers or in waterlogged soils, mounding has proven to benefit plant survival

and growth (A). Plants that can rapidly grow new roots (high “root egress” - B) will be less susceptible to frost heaving

(C). Mounding has also proven effective when the plants are positioned on top of the mound and not in the hole (D). B –

Courtesy of Cheryl Talbert; D - modified from Sahlen and Goulet 2002.

A

C

B

D
Site preparation treatments have a significant effect on

frost heaving. Scarifying the planting spot increases potential for heaving because the insulating humus layer and

surrounding vegetation is removed, allowing diurnal temperatures to fluctuate more widely. On the other hand,

mounding should reduce frost heaving because it provides better drainage and reduces capillary water rise

(Bergsten and others 2001). Research on the effect of

planting position on frost heaving showed that heaving

was considerably higher in the hole where water migrated

to the surface and froze into layers that attached to the

plant. On top of mounds, frost heaving was as low as in

the nontreated humus layer (Figure 7.6.8D). Although

deep planting has been suggested as a way to provide

better anchorage, it was ineffective in this study (Sahlen

and Goulet 2002).

Mounding has been criticized from an aesthetic and ecological standpoint and can have a negative effect on other

forest values such as recreation (Lof and others 2006). So,

as with all site preparation treatments, mounding needs to

carefully evaluated on a site-by-site basis and compared

to other site preparation options. 

7.6.4.6 Application of herbicides (“chemical scalping”)

Mechanical scalping is a time consuming and therefore

expensive site preparation treatment. Another option is to

kill competing vegetation around planting spots with herbicides in advance of the actual outplanting. A general

purpose herbicide like glyphosate (Roundup®) kills all

types of plants in the treated area but has very low environmental impacts and no residual activity. By killing

competing plants before the planting project begins, soil

moisture that would otherwise be lost by their transpiration (Figure 7.6.9A) is conserved on-site and will be readily available to the outplanted nursery stock (Figure

7.6.9B). On reforestation sites in the northern California

mountains, hexazinone (Velpar®) herbicide is applied 1 to

2 years before the planting project to kill brush and other

competing vegetation (Frederickson 2003). Two years of

intensive vegetative control was essential to successful

161

Figure 7.6.9—When competing vegetation is killed with herbicides prior to planting (A), the soil moisture that would have

been lost to transpiration is conserved on the site (B).

A B
reforestation on Weyerhaeuser lands in Washington State

(Talbert 2008). Herbicides not only eliminate transpirational water loss, but create a mulch of dead organic matter that reduces surface evaporation. Vegetation control

with herbicides has been shown to increase subsequent

survival and growth of outplanted nursery stock. An

experiment evaluating three levels of vegetation control

with chemical scalping significantly increased stem volume, basal diameter, and height of seedlings on four of

five sites with increasing area of weed control, and the

magnitude of difference between treatments increased

with time (Rose and Ketchum 2002). Herbicide applications can also be effective in reducing fire hazards and

eradicating non-native plants.

The best herbicide application method depends on the

type of project. Aerial application with helicopters is efficient and cost-effective for large reforestation or restoration projects. For forest plantation projects, herbicides can

be sprayed in rows by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or by

sprayers attached to ripping equipment. For smaller projects, herbicides can be applied with a backpack sprayer

by a person trained to select likely planting spots. 

7.6.4.7 Site preparation for restoration plantings

On restoration planting sites, severe disturbance may

require unusual site preparation to create suitable planting spots. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in

Washington State, the restoration of 60,700 ha (150,000

acres) of timberland posed some serious challenges

(Figure 7.6.10A). Experiments showed that seedlings must

be planted in mineral soil to survive, which required digging through 30 to 60 cm (1 to 2 ft) of volcanic ash at

each planting spot (Figure 7.6.10B). In many cases, planting sites must undergo major stabilization before planting

can occur. Because of their steep slopes and the erosive

power of water, stream banks must be stabilized with bioengineering structures before they can be revegetated

(Figure 7.6.10C). Woody cuttings of willows or other

162

Figure 7.6.10—Restoration sites require special and sometimes extreme preparations before they can be planted. The blast

zone of Mt. St. Helens in Washington state was covered with volcanic ash (A) which had to be dug away so that seedlings

could be planted in mineral soil (B). Stream banks often require bioengineering structures (C) for stabilization; when willow cuttings are used, they can sprout quickly (D). D courtesty of Steinfeld and otehrs (2008).

B

C D

A
163

7.6.5 Selecting plant spacing and pattern

riparian species used in the structures will sprout (Figure

7.6.10D) and provide rapid revegetation (Hoag and

Landis 2001). 

The pattern and spacing of outplanted plants is also a

reflection of project objectives. Industrial forestry projects,

where timber production is the primary objective, dictate

a specific number of seedlings per area in a regularlyspaced pattern (Figure 7.6.11A) based on expected survival rates and laws governing the number of free-to-grow

plants required after a specified period of time. Most

planting projects will specify a certain desired number of

established plants per area (Table 7.6.2). These density

targets should be considered general guidelines and

should never override the selection of planting spots in

biologically desirable areas (Paterson and others 2001). 

Where ecological restoration is the objective, however,

random outplanting of individual plants (Figure 7.6.11B)

or outplanting in random groups (Figure 7.6.11C) is more

representative of natural vegetation patterns.

The best place to plant nursery stock depends greatly on

site conditions. When reforesting a level farm field with

relatively uniform terrain, proper spacing is of utmost

importance to minimize competition after the seedlings

reach pole size. In this situation, then, the choice of

planting spots is very mechanical; planters work in parallel lines and plant at the prescribed distance between

spots (Table 7.6.2). The same goes for using mechanized

planters that plant seedlings at regular intervals. 

7.6.5.1 Selecting planting spots

Microsites. When hand planting in mountainous sites

with old stumps and other woody debris, choosing the

best planting spots is critical and more important than

exact spacing. Planting in favorable microsites protects

nursery stock and greatly improves the probability of survival. Examples of unfavorable planting spots include

depressions with standing water, rocky spots, deep duff,

and compacted soils. Seedlings shaded by a stump, log,

or large rock tend to grow well, especially on hot, dry

sites (Figure 7.6.12A&B). High sunlight on plant foliage

causes moisture stress and direct sunlight can cause lethal

temperatures to the seedling stem at the ground line.

Planting around physical obstructions also provides proFigure 7.6.11—In

addition to target

plant specifications,

the objectives of the

outplanting project

also affect planting

patterns. If the objective is rapid growth

or Christmas trees,

then plants can be

regularly-spaced (A).

Most restoration

projects do not want

the “cornfield look”,

however, and so

plants are spaced in

a more random pattern to mimic natural

conditions (B). The

most natural outplanting look uses

the random clumped

pattern where different species are planted in groups (C).

tection from cattle damage and large game browsing

(USDA 2002). In the southern Rocky Mountains, planting

in microsites shaded by dead woody material doubled the

survival of ponderosa pine seedlings. This improved performance was attributed to better moisture and temperature

and protection against animal browsing (Nelson 1984).

Where planting sites have been mechanically prepared with

disc scarifiers, nursery stock should be planted on the side

of the hole in mineral soil (Figure 7.6.12C). On mounds, the

best planting spot is on the top (Figure 7.6.12D).
164

Table 7.6.2—Plant spacing based on regular grids with resultant stocking densities (Modified from Cleary and others 1978)

Spacing (m) Plants per hectare Plants per acre Spacing (ft)

6.4 by 6.4 247 100 20.9 by 20.9

14.8 by 14.8 494 200 4.5 by 4.5

3.7 by 3.7 741 300 12.0 by 12.0

3.2 by 3.2 988 400 10.4 by 10.4

2.8 by 2.8 1,236 500 9.3 by 9.3

2.6 by 2.6 1,483 600 8.5 by 8.5

2.4 by 2.4 1,730 700 7.9 by 7.9

2.2 by 2.2 1,977 800 7.4 by 7.4

2.1 by 2.1 2,224 900 7.0 by 7.0

2.0 by 2.0 2,471 1,000 6.6 by 6.6

Figure 7.6.12—On sites with uneven terrain with physical obstructions, the best planting spots are in microsites in the

shade of stumps (A) or other debris (B). Specific planting spots are also prescribed where sites have been prepared by

discing (C) or mounding (D). [A&B from Rose and Haase (2006), C & D from Heiskanen and Viiri (2005)].

A B

C D
165

Advance planning, crew training, and good supervision

are essential to achieving good outplanting success. 

7.6.6.1 Plant handling. 

During the planting process, plants should always be handled with extreme care. Crews should be instructed to

never toss or drop boxes of plants from the truck.

Research shows that dropping seedlings from various

heights can result in growth reductions after planting

(Tabbush 1986, Sharpe and others 1990, McKay and others 1993). Planters should never shake or beat plants to

remove excess media. Deans and others (1990) found

that height growth of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)

seedlings was negatively affected by beating them against

boots at time of planting.

Each planter should carry only as many plants as can be

planted in an hour or two. On larger reforestation and

restoration projects, it’s most efficient to use runners that

carry batches of nursery stock on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs)

from on-site storage to planters. Planting bags must not be

overfilled to avoid crushing plants (Figure 7.6.13A); loose

plants are easier to remove without damage. Once a planting hole has been prepared, only one plant should be pulled

gently from the bag to avoid root stripping and stem damage

(Figure 7.6.13B and C). One mistake inexperienced planters

make is to take a handful of plants from the bag and then

carry them from one planting hole to the next, increasing the

risk of physical damage or desiccation.

The critical concept is to handle plants gently and minimize root exposure during the entire planting process.

Although it’s difficult to actually measure stresses during

the shipping, handling, and outplanting process, comparison of outplanting performance between operational projects and research trials proves that the additional care

afforded plants in trials pays off. 

7.6.6.2 Proper planting technique

The retention of experienced tree planters from year to

year appears to be declining (Betts 2008). Moreover,

planting crews are often prone to high turnover rates during planting season too, with members of the crew changing week to week. Therefore, it is crucial that all planters

are thoroughly trained in planting procedures. Even a

7.6.6 Crew training and supervision

Figure 7.6.13—Planting

bags should never be

overfilled (A), and

plants should be carefully removed one at a

time from the container

(B) or planting bag (C)

and only after the planting hole has been dug.

(A - courtesy of Mark

Hainds; B- J.D. Irving

Ltd.)

C

B

A
166

Figure 7.6.14—Nursery stock should be planted properly

(A). Common problems include planting too shallow (B),

planting too deep (C), not vertical placement (D), filling

the hole with debris (E), or poor compaction which leaves

air pockets around the root plug (F). Modified from Rose

and Haase 2006.

plant with the best quality will die if improperly outplanted. Good training, close supervision, and regular inspection are important in order to optimize outplanting quality.

Somewhat surprisingly, very little is published on proper

planting depths for container plants. In general, however,

the planting hole should be deep enough to bury the plug

2.5 to 5 cm (1 to 2 in) (about up to the cotyledon scar;

USDA 2002, Londo and Dicke 2006), although this can

vary with plant species. For example, in the Southeastern

US, longleaf pine seedlings that have their apical buds near

the plug surface are planted with 0.6 to 1.3 cm of the container plug exposed (Hainds 2003), and this probably holds

true for other species that have apical meristems near the

plug surface. Because new photosynthates are required for

new root growth after outplanting (van den Driessche

1987), burying foliage should probably be avoided. 

The most important training concept is that good root-tosoil contact is necessary before nursery stock can become

established on the site and quickly access water and mineral nutrients. The planting hole should be made deep

enough so that, for most species, the root plug can be

completely covered with mineral soil (Figure 7.6.14A)

and “J-rooting” and unnecessary exposure of the root plug

are avoided (Figure 7.6.14B), but the plug is not planted

too deep (Figure 7.6.14C). According to USDA Forest

Service specifications, the minimum-size hole for container stock is 2.5 cm (1 in) deeper than plug length, and at

least 7 cm (3 in) wider than the plug at top of the hole

and 2 cm (1 in) at bottom (USDA 2002). The planters

should be instructed to plant at the correct depth and not

to pull up on the plant to adjust depth or straightness.

Plants should not be oriented more than 30 degrees from

the vertical plane (Figure 7.6.14D); this seems obvious on

level ground, but the steeper the slope, the more important this becomes. Planting holes should be backfilled

with mineral soil without grass, sticks, rocks, or snow

(Figure 7.6.14E). It’s important to firmly tamp the soil

around the root plug to remove air pockets (Figure

7.6.14F), but refrain from stomping around plants to avoid

excessive soil compaction or stem injury. 

Crew training is particularly important with volunteers or

other inexperienced planters. Many of these people lack

the skill or strength necessary to properly plant on wildland sites. One option is to have a professional create the

planting holes with a machine auger and let the volunteers place and tamp plants into position. This technique

has several benefits: the professional chooses the proper

planting spot, creates the desired pattern, and makes certain that the planting hole is large and deep enough so

that plants can be situated without “J-roots”. Several studies have found that mechanical outplanting is more successful when working with private landowners who may

not plant nursery stock properly (Davis and others 2004).

Although the choice of the proper planting tool is important, experienced planters can achieve success with a

variety of implements. Planting failures are often more

attributable to improper technique or handling rather than

choice of planting tool (Adams and Patterson 2004).

Tree planting is strenuous work, and the swinging, bending, and lifting can quickly lead to worker injuries, especially early in the season. Back problems and carpal tunnel syndrome are common complaints. Crews should

have sturdy boots, safety glasses, and hard hats and do

strengthening and stretching exercises each day before

starting to plant. The time and resources spent on worker

protection will be offset by potential downtime and worker’s compensation claims (Koetzel 2004). 
167

7.6.7 Hand Planting Equipment

Root plugs on nursery stock used for reforestation or

restoration are longer and narrower than plant materials

used for landscaping and gardening, and so specialty tools

are necessary. Appropriate planting tools and technique

can mean the difference between a live or dead plant, and

an on-budget or over-budget project (Koetzel 2004).

Hand-planting methods provide maximum flexibility in

plant placement and distribution. A well-trained and experienced hand-planter can surpass the planting quality, and

generally match the speed of many automated methods,

especially over rough terrain. Hand-planting is especially

recommended for placing plants into microsites, and when

planting a mixture of species or stock types. The most common types of hand planting equipment are discussed in the

following sections but new equipment is continually being

developed (Trent 1999). 

7.6.7.1 Dibbles

Dibbles or dibble sticks were among the first tools used to

plant container stock, primarily because they are easy to

use (Figure 7.6.15A). Dibbles are custom-made probes

that create a planting hole specific to one container type

and size. Most designs have one or two metal foot pedals

for forcing the point into the soil (Figure 7.6.15BA). After

making the hole, the planter simply inserts the container

plant and moves to the next hole. One drawback is the

lack of loose soil to cover the top of the plug and prevent

possible desiccation of the medium. Dibbles are most

appropriate for lighter-textured upland soils or alluvial

bottomland soils in wetland restoration projects. Dibbles

should be avoided on heavier-textured clay soils because

they can compact soil and form a glaze around the planting hole that can restrict root egress (Figure 7.6.15C). 

Hollow dibbles are a more recent modification that

extract a core of soil and therefore do not cause soil compaction (Figure 7.6.15D). The hollow dibble heads are

interchangeable, allowing use for different container sizes

(Trent 1999). A slide hammer soil extractor can also

remove a core of soil and, while it was more effective on

rockier and compacted soils, it was considered very strenuous to use because of its weight (Trent 1999). 

Commercially produced dibbles are available for specific

container types and sizes, including Ray Leach ConeFigure 7.6.15—Dibbles were among the first hand planting tools developed for container nursery stock (A).

Because they displace soil to form the planting hole (B),

compaction can be severe enough to restrict root egress

(C). Hollow dibbles are an improvement because they

remove a core of soil to create a planting hole (D).

A B

C D
tainersTM and several cavity sizes of Styrofoam® block containers (Koetzel 2004). Dibbles have been used on shallow soils in Ontario but not on sites prone to frost heaving (Paterson and others 2001). 

7.6.7.2 Bars

Planting bars originated with bareroot stock, and this tool

is still used for smaller container plants. Bars are typically

fabricated from a cylindrical bar with a wedge-shaped

blade welded on the tip, and side pedals to help force the

blade into the soil. Like dibbles, planting bars require little experience or training. The bar is dropped and forced

into the ground with the side pedals (Figure 7.6.16A), and

the planting hole is formed by working the bar back and

forth. The nursery plant is vertically positioned along one

cut face (Figure 7.6.17B), and then the hole is closed by

re-inserting the bar into the soil on the opposite side of

the planting hole and rocking the bar back and forth

(Figure 7.6.16C). The final step is to finish tamping any

loose soil around the plant with the fist or boot to remove

any air pockets (Figure 7.6.16D). In the Pacific Northwest,

168

Figure 7.6.16—Bars are easy to use planting tools that create a planting hole by lateral movement (A). The plant is positioned along one side of the planting hole (B), and

soil is backfilled by leverage from the other side (C). Soil should be gently compacted

around the plant with hand or foot (D).

A B C

D
169

Figure 7.6.17—Hoedads are one of the most popular

planting tools in mountains of the western US and

Canada (A). After several swings to create a deep enough

planting hole (B), the plant is positioned and held (C)

while backfilling with soil (D). The final step is to gently

compact the soil around the plant to remove any air

pockets (E).

planting bars are often preferred for rocky soils but

shouldn’t be used in heavier-textured clays where they

cause excessive compaction (Cleary and others 1978).

They also are popular on reforestation site with sandy

soils in the southeastern US. Planting bars are durable

and simple to maintain, with only occasional blade

sharpening required (Koetzel 2004).

7.6.7.3 Hoedads

Hoedads, also known as planting hoes or mattocks, were

developed specifically for planting bareroot conifer

seedlings for reforestation, and have since been adapted

for container applications (Figure 7.6.17A). They are probably the most common handtool used in the US, especially in the Pacific Northwest (Lowman 1999). Hoedads

come in a variety of sizes and shapes, and are one of the

most versatile tools available. Special “plug hoes” are

available for different sizes of container stock. Brackets,

holding the hickory handle to the desired blade, are typically brass for extra weight and penetration, or tin alloy

(“Tinselite”) for lighter applications. Brackets can be

found in two blade angle configurations: 100° angle for

applications on gently sloped or flat areas and 90° angle

for steep ground planting. It’s a good idea to purchase

and keep handy spare blades, handles, and nuts and bolts

with matching socket or box wrenches. Blades should

also be regularly sharpened with a metal file or electric

grinding wheel (Koetzel 2004).

Hoedads are particularly useful on steep reforestation

sites, and even on rocky and compacted restoration projects. They are swung much like a pick, and it may take

several swings to create a proper planting hole. With each

swing, the planter lifts up and back with the butt of the

handle to open the planting hole (Figure 7.6.17B). Once a

proper hole is complete, the planter uses the tip of the

hoedad to gently loosen soil on the sides of the planting

hole in order to avoid any compaction effects. Then, the

plant is inserted and positioned to the proper depth

(Figure 7.6.17C). While holding the plant, the planter

used the hoedad blade to backfill the soil around the plug

(Figure 7.6 17D). Finally, the planter gently tamps the soil

around the plant (Figure 7.6.17E) and moves to the next

planting spot. If plant competition is a problem, or a

planting basin is required, the back and side of the planting blade is a useful scalping tool (Figure 7.6.7C). Some

A

B C

D E
compaction in the planting hole can occur on the backside of the blade with this tool, but compaction is typically less than with other methods. 

Planting rates vary with container size, planter skill, and

terrain. Koetzel (2004) reported that beginning planters

can install 20 plants/hr while experienced planters may

reach up to 100 plants/hr, and that on wetland planting

projects with small stock and favorable soil conditions,

production reached 240 plants/hr. For small volume containers (66 cm3 [4 in3]) Meikle (2008) reports planting

rates of 600 to 800 trees and shrubs per day on mineland

reclamation sites, but the rate dropped to 400 to 600

plants when container volume increased to 164 cm3 (10

in3). Adding Vexar tubes to prevent herbivory dropped the

planting rate by half (Meikle 2008). 

7.6.7.4 Shovels

While standard garden tile spades can be used, professional planters use customized shovels (Figure 7.6.18A)

with blades long enough to accommodate large containers (Figure 7.6 18B). Wooden handles are standard but

fiberglass models are lighter, and reinforced blades

(Figure 7.6.18C) can endure the vigorous prying action

used to open planting holes (Figure 7.6.18D). Although

not as difficult to learn to use as hoedads, planters should

be trained to use tree-planting shovels efficiently. Once

the hole is excavated to the proper size and depth, the

nursery plant is installed and held in a vertical position

(Figure 7.6.18E) while the planter backfills around the

root plug (Figure 7.6.18F). Tree-planting shovels are the

tools of choice for some tree planters in the Western US

and are considered the most versatile planting tool in

British Columbia (Mitchell and others 1990), as well as

reforestation crews in the Southeastern US. Soil amendments, fertilizers, and other such in-soil treatments are

easily installed with planting shovels. Sites requiring

scalping require a two-person team with the scalper

preparing the site beforehand. When using planting shovels, keep some spare handles and footpads on hand,

along with tools for installing parts and sharpening blades

(Koetzel 2004).

In Ontario, experienced planters started the season by

planting around 1800 seedlings (about 100 cm3 [6 in3])

per day with shovels, while rookie planters only manage

about 900. After about 6 weeks of planting, however,

both groups were able to plant substantially more plants:

2500 per day for experienced planters and 1800 for rookies (Colombo 2008). In Washington State, larger stock

types (250 cm3 [15 in3]) are planted west of the Cascade

Mountains, and this is reflected in the planting rate; only

900 larger seedlings can be planted per day for every

1000 of the larger stock type (Khadduri 2008). 

7.6.7.5 Tubes

Planting tubes are mechanized dibbles that create a planting hole by compressing soil to the sides and bottom with

a pointed pair of hinged jaws (Figure 7.6.19A). The jaws

are switched open with a foot lever, and a container plant

is dropped though the hollow stem tube into the hole

(Figure 7.6.19B). The Pottiputki planting tube is the most

popular brand and is available in several models with different tube diameters. In some models, the planting depth

is adjustable, which would be necessary for stock types

with longer plugs. One attractive benefit of planting tubes

is less worker fatigue because the operator doesn’t have

to bend over. Planting tubes are popular in the Northeastern US and Canada. Although popular in Ontario,

they are considered expensive to purchase and maintain

(Paterson and others 2001). In one comparison, planting

tubes were just as effective as dibbles or planting bars

(Jones and Alm 1989).

7.6.7.6 Motorized Augers

Power augers have been used in reforestation for decades

and are becoming popular for restoration projects (Figure

7.6.20A). Augers work best in deep soils without too

many large rocks or roots, and are the best planting tool

to use for larger, taller stock types. One concern has been

compaction or glazing on the sides of the auger holes

under some soil conditions (Lowman 1999), but this can

be minimized by rocking the bit slightly. In Quebec and

Nova Scotia, large container seedlings are preferred to

compete with heavy brush competition and a gasolinepowered auger was considered a better planting tool than

spades or soil extractors in all soil types (St-Amour 1998).

A gasoline-powered hand drill can be used with auger

bits from 2.5 to 10 cm (1 to 4 in) in diameter, and the

reversible transmission helps when the bit becomes stuck

(Trent 1999). 

170
171

Figure 7.6.18—Shovels are

very versatile planting tools (A)

and are ideal for large and

deep container plants (B).

Specialized shovels have reinforced blades (C) that open

deep planting holes without

soil compaction (D). While

holding the plant vertical in

the middle of the hole(E), soil

is backfilled and compacted

around the root plug (F).

Figure 7.6.19—Planting tubes have pointed jaws that open the

planting hole (A) and then the plant is dropped down into the

hole through the hollow stem (B).

D

C A B

E F

A

B
172

Figure 7.6.20—Augers are effective planting tools because one skilled operator can create planting holes (A, B), and several other workers plant the stock (C) and fill the holes by hand (D). Tractor-mounted augers can create holes large enough

for the biggest container stock (E).

One benefit of auger planting projects is that the operator

selects the location of planting spots and also controls the

quality of the planting holes (Figure 7.6 20B). One operator can drill enough holes for several planters to follow

and plant the nursery stock (Figure 7.6.20C). When scalping is required, the scalper will select the planting spots

and create the scalp in advance of the auger operator. In

some soil types, the operator will have to excavate extra

mineral soil near each hole to ensure proper planting.

Digging auger holes deeper than the depth of the container plug reduces compaction and can promote downward

root growth. This means that the planter has to support

the plant at the proper depth in the hole, while filling

with soil from the bottom up (Figure 7.6.20D). Soil settling can be a problem with auger planting so it’s a good

idea to mound soil around the base of the plant. When

possible, it’s best to rotate the auger operator to reduce

fatigue (Cleary and others 1978). 

A wide variety of augers are commercially-available for

rent or sale: chainsaw-head, one-person, two-person, and

tractor-mounted augers (Figure 7.6.20E). Most small planting projects can rent power augers at any commercial

rental agency. When doing large scale reforestation or

restoration projects, it’s more cost effective to purchase

one. If you are inexperienced with their operation, however, it is probably a good idea to rent first to make sure

that you have the correct machine for the project. Augers

are high-maintenance planting tools so keep a spare one

available as well as extra parts and bits (Koetzel 2004). 

Well-organized auger teams can reach production rates

ranging from 30 to 70 plants per person/hr (Koetzel

2004). In Hawai‘i, using an auger has become the ideal

planting tool when volunteers or other non-professional

planters are involved because the planting rate in order is

2.5 times that of standard hand tools (Jeffrey and Horiuchi

2003). 

A B C D E
Planting machines have been used for forest tree

seedlings for more than 100 years, and container plants

are ideal for machine-planting because of their compact

root systems and uniformity. Because of steadily increasing labor costs and difficulty in finding skilled planters

(Hallonborg 1997), many reforestation and restoration

specialists are looking at machine-planting. Foresters in

British Columbia conducted trials with planting machines

and found that the cost of machine-planting was comparable to hand planting but was only possible on relatively

flat, easily accessible sites. Many mountainous reforestation sites are steep, rocky, and covered with stumps and

slash, factors that favor trained hand planters (Mitchell

and others 1990). Likewise, mechanical tree planters are

not used widely in Ontario because of site restrictions,

high initial investment, and greater maintenance costs

(Paterson and others 2001). Machine-planting has been

more popular on the more gentle terrain of the central,

northeastern, and southern US, and in Scandinavia.

Two basic types of planting machines, towed and selfpropelled, are used and will be discussed separately

(Table 7.6.3).

7.6.8.1 Machines Towed behind Tractors

Many mechanical tree planters are commercially available, and consist of a rolling coulter, a trencher, an operator’s seat, and packing wheels that are mounted on a sturdy frame (Figure 7.6.21A). Machine-planters for open

fields feature a three-point hitch and are towed behind a

tractor with the operator facing forwards. The coulter cuts

through the sod and any roots, and the trencher opens a

narrow furrow (Figure 7.6.21B) where the stock is hand

planted by the operator. Packing wheels on the back of

the machine close the furrow and firm the soil around

each plant. For planting in open fields, planting machines

can also be equipped with a tank for applying herbicides

(Figure 7.6.21C).

Some models, such as the Whitfield Tree Planting Machine,

are popular for reforestation sites that have a lot of woody

slash. They are safer because the operator rides backward in

a protective cage, and can’t be hit by debris thrown up by

the tractor (Figure 7.6.21D) . The operator places plants in a

clip on a revolving chain assembly (Figure 7.6.21E) that carries the plant around until it is positioned in the furrow. The

clips open mechanically and the plant is placed in the fur173

7.6.8 Machine-Planting

Table 7.6.3—Characteristics of the two types of tree planting machines (modified from Landis 1999)

Planting Stock

Characteristics

Type of Planting Plant Plant Plug Length Firm Root Stem Rigidity

Propulsion Method Placement Spacing Determined By Plugs Required Required

Towed Behind Furrow with Manual Fixed in Row Depth of No Yes

Tractor Closing Wheels Opening Shoe

Self-Propelled: Scarifying, Automated: Variable Depth of Yes Yes

Mounted on Mounding and Hydraulic or Planting Head

Excavator or Hole-making Pneumatic

Harvester Heads
174

Figure 7.6.21—Need caption.

A B

C

E

E

D
row that is then closed by the packing wheels (Figure

7.6.21E). The Taylor Tree Planting Machine is attached to the

prime mover with a three-point hitch that allows down pressure to maintain planting depth; it also features a water tank

on top to cool the stock (Converse 1999). Some machineplanters are equipped with furrowing attachments to scalp

the planting spot, while others have spray attachments for

applying herbicides to control unwanted vegetation.

Planting speed varies with the ground conditions, size of the

nursery stock, and the experience and skill of the planting

crew. Planting rates of 400 to1,000 trees/hr have been

reported (Slusher 1993), and in the Southeastern US, 1100

longleaf pine seedlings can be planted per hour at a within

row spacing of 4 m (12 ft) (South 2008).

Machine-planting must be evaluated on a site-by-site

basis, and is not effective on slopes greater than 35 percent. To offset the considerable transportation, operation,

and maintenance costs, planting projects must be relatively large and accessible. A comparison of hand versus

machine-planting showed that labor savings can be considerable (Figure 7.6.21F). For example, in southeastern

Alaska, reforestation costs ranged from $247 to $321/ha.

($100 to130/ac), which was 18 percent less than hand

planting (Peterson and Charton 1999).

One consideration with towed planting machines is that

plants are spaced regularly along the furrows. This is beneficial when a grid-like planting pattern is desired such as

in commercial forest or Christmas tree plantations (see

Figure 7.6.11A). Equal plant spacing is a drawback, however, when a more natural appearing planting is desired

(see Figure 7.6.11B&C). 

7.6.8.2 Self-propelled Planting Machines

Because of the high cost and unreliability of skilled

planters, several models of self-propelled planters have

been developed for container stock in Scandinavia (Figure

7.6.22A). These all-purpose planting machines have multiple benefits (Drake-Brockman 1998):

• Scarifying, mounding, and planting can be accomplished in a single operation

• Planting spots are selected by the operator, which

results in a more natural looking plantation (see Figure

7.6.11B&C)

• Less worker injuries as the machine does the physical

work

• Operators are protected from inclement weather

• Consistent quality of planting

• Less contact with chemically-treated nursery stock

• Reduced management planning and supervision.

Each planting machine has a different mechanism but all

have remote heads that scarify, mound, and plant

seedlings in specific spots selected by the operator.

Bräcke Planting Machine. Developed in Sweden, this has

been the most popular of the self-propelled planting

machines (Figure 7.6.22A). The planting head is mounted

on the hydraulically-controlled arm of an excavator or

harvester (Figure 7.6.22B) and contains a circular magazine containing 60 to 88 plants (Figure 7.6.22C). It can

create mounds and plant seedlings in the same operation

(Figure 7.6.22D-E). Bräcke planter production rates vary

from 140 to 250 seedlings per hour, depending on site

conditions. 

EcoPlanter. This Swedish planting machine is also mounted on a harvester or excavator boom, but can create and

plant two mounds at a time (Figure 7.6.22F). The

EcoPlanter has a capacity of 240 plants and can plant

220 to 250 seedlings per hour (Saarinen 2004). 

Several comparisons of self-propelled planting machines

were done in northern Europe. In Finland, the Bräcke and

Ecoplanter had similar planting rates of 200 to 250

seedlings/hr. The planting quality of the Bräcke machine

was comparable to hand planting and better than the

Ecoplanter (Figure 7.6.22), which caused stem deformation and had more weakened or dead trees after 2 years

(Saarinen 2004). In a test of the Bräcke in Ireland, planting quality was well within planting quality specifications,

but not as good as hand planting. However, no overall

significant differences in height growth and root-collar

diameter increment were found after the first growing season (Nieuwenhuis and Egan 2002). In the United

Kingdom, the Bräcke machine produced acceptable

planting of container conifers on upland reforestation sites

(Drake-Brockman1998).

175
176A

B

C

D
177

Figure 7.6.22—A number of self-propelled

planting machines have been developed in

Scandinavia for planting container stock. The

Bräcke Planting Machine (A) has been used

the longest and consists of a planting head

(B) with a magazine of seedlings [C] which is

mounted on the arm of an excavator. The

planting head hydraulically creates a mound

and plants a seedling on top (D-E), and the

newest machines such as the EcoPlanter (F)

can plant two seedlings without moving the

excavator. Planting trials have shown that

machine planters can compare favorably with

hand planting (G). Photo E&F courtesy of Leo

Tervo.

E F

G
178

Large container stock and nonrooted cuttings are difficult

to plant effectively, and so special equipment has been

developed. Note that good access is essential and, in the

case of the pot planter, a source of water must be available.

7.6.9.1 Expandable stinger

The expandable stinger is a recently developed planting

machine attached to the arm of an excavator (Figure

7.6.23A) that creates a hole and plants nursery stock in one

operation. The planting head is composed of two parallel

steel shafts, which are hinged in the middle to open and

close in a scissor-like manner. Each shaft is constructed to

create a long hollow chamber between them when closed.

The opening and closing of the shafts are hydraulically driven. When the shafts are closed, the stinger comes to a point

and is pushed into the soil by the force of the excavator

arm. A long hardwood cutting or container plant is placed

into the chamber. The expandable stinger is maneuvered to

the planting spot, where the beak is inserted into the soil.

When the beak opens, the plant drops to the bottom of the

hole (Figure 7.6.23B-D).

Two expandable stinger models, single-shot and 50-shot,

are currently in use. The single-shot model holds only one

plant at a time and averages 50 to 80 plants per hour. The

rotary magazine of the 50-shot model holds 50 plants of up

to three different species and can double the planting rate of

the single-shot model (Kloetzel 2004). The expandable

stinger can reach sites that are inaccessible by other planting equipment. The arms on smaller excavators can reach

7.5 m (25 ft), while those on larger machines extend out to

a 15-m (50-ft) radius. This equipment can also plant in very

rocky soil conditions, including rip-rap and gabions, and

can penetrate very compacted soils making it ideal for

restoration projects. It’s a good idea to have someone follow

the stinger and fill-in around the plants with mineral soil. 

The major drawback to the expandable stinger is its

expense. In addition to hourly operating costs, mobilization costs can be very high although these costs should

be amortized across the entire project. As the number of

plants installed by the expandable stinger on a project

increases, the cost per established plant decreases. In a

well-planned operation, the expandable stinger can

achieve a production rate of 200 plants/hr. 

7.6.9 Planting Equipment for Large Stock

Figure 7.6.23—

The expandable stinger

is a specialized planting

machine for harsh sites

including compacted soil

and rip-rap (A). The long

scissor-like planting head

creates a planting hole

where a tall pot or nonrooted cutting can be

installed (B-D). A
179

Figure 7.6.24 —The pot planter uses high pressure water

pumped from a compressor (A) through holes in a specialized nozzle (B) to create planting holes for large container stock (C).

7.6.9.2 Pot planter

The pot planter was developed for riparian restoration

projects (Hoag 2006) and uses high pressure water to create planting holes for large container stock. Water from a

lake, stream, or tank is pumped into a compressor (Figure

7.6.24A) and then forced through the tip of a high pressure nozzle (Figure 7.6.24B). The pot planter has 7.6-cm

(3-in) vanes attached to the sides of the nozzle, which

create holes large enough for containers up to 3.8 L (1

gal) (Figure 7.6.24C). The hole that is created by the pot

planter is filled with a soil slurry that is displaced when

the root plug of the container plant is inserted to the

desired planting depth. Once the water drains from the

slurry into the surrounding soil, the soil settles in around

the root plug, assuring good soil-to-root contact. The

water also thoroughly wets the root plugs and seeps into

the surrounding soil. Operational trials have shown that

large container stock can be planted at a rate of approximately 60 plants per hour (Hoag 2006).

A

B C
Depending on the site, several other treatments may be

applied to plants at the time of outplanting to improve

survival and growth. These solutions to potential limiting

factors would have been identified during the site evaluation (see section 7.6.1).

7.6.10.1 Protection from animal damage

Compared to wild plants, fertilized nursery stock has

higher levels of mineral nutrients and is therefore preferred browse by deer, elk, and other animals

(Frederickson 2003). Plants (especially the terminal

shoots) are eaten by deer, elk, gophers, and other animals

although the rate of browsing can vary by season (Kaye

2001) (Figure 7.6.25A). If the outplanting area is known

to have a problem with animal damage, then control

measures may be necessary. Physical barriers installed

immediately after planting such as netting, rigid mesh

tubing (Figure 7.6.25B), bud capping, and fencing can be

helpful to protect plants long enough for them to grow

large enough to resist animal damage. Troy and others

(2006) found that 95 percent of nonprotected oak

(Quercus species) seedlings were browsed, compared to

only 4 percent of those in protective shelters. Johnson and

Okula (2006) concluded that browse protection increased

both survival and growth of outplanted antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) seedlings. Most of the mesh

tubes and netting are designed to biodegrade over time.

Even still, periodic maintenance is usually required.

Terminal shoots can get tangled in the mesh and deform

the stem. Also, heavy wet snows can accumulate on the

netting and bend plants over (Frederickson 2003). Once

plants grow out of the netting or tube, they are again vulnerable to browsing damage. 

Chemical repellents are another option to protect from

animal damage. These repellents are less costly than physical barriers but their efficacy can be shorter lived. A variety of products are available that have an odor (often from

predators) or taste that is repugnant to wildlife. Treating

plants with these products can result in significant reductions in browsing (Frank 1992, MacGowan and others

2004; Figure 7.6.25C).

180

7.6.10 Treatments at Time of Planting

Figure 7.6.25—Browsing damage to outplanted seedlings

can be very high on some sites (A). Options for protecting plants from animal damage include plastic mesh tubing (B), or an application of predator scent repellent (C).

B

C

A
7.6.10.2 Fertilization

Mineral nutrition is a key component of plant performance after outplanting. Several studies have shown a positive field response to fertilizer applied at the time of planting (Arnott and Burdett 1988, van den Driessche 1988) or

incorporated into the growing medium of container

seedlings (Moore and Fan 2002, Haase and others 2006).

Fertilizer efficacy, however, varies with site conditions

(Rose and Ketchum 2002, Everett and others 2007). On

moisture-limiting sites, fertilizer salts can build-up to toxic

levels resulting in a negative impact on survival and

growth (Jacobs and others 2004). For fall outplanting in

northern California, the initial growth benefits of controlled-release fertilization did not hold up over time

(Frederickson 2003). Before applying any fertilizer, it is

crucial to consider the formulation, application rate,

placement, solubility/release rate, and existing nutrient

levels on the site.

7.6.10.3 Mulches

In addition to site prep practices that minimize effects of

competing vegetation (see section 7.6.4.5), mulching can

reduce recurrence of vegetative competition for a longer

duration than initial site preparation. Mulch mats made

from materials such as plastic, fabric, sod, or paper

(Figure 7.6.26A-B) are held in place with rocks, branches,

or stakes. Mulching plants can also be accomplished with

a thick layer of loose organic matter such as corn cobs,

coconut fiber, pine straw, sawdust, or bark chips (Figure

7.6.26C). In addition to inhibiting growth of competing

vegetation, mulch insulates soil from temperature

extremes and helps maintain soil moisture by reducing

surface evaporation. Although purchase and installation of

mulch materials can be costly, mulches can significantly

improve plant survival and growth on droughty sites.

McDonald and others (1994) found that large (3 m x 3 m

[9 ft x 9 ft]), long-lasting (5 years) mulch mats effectively

enabled ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) seedlings to

181

Figure 7.6.26—Mulching with paper mats

(A,B) or loose materials (C) can reduce competing vegetation around the planted seedling.

A

B

C
become established on the site unimpeded by competing

plants and significantly increased height and diameter

growth compared to controls. Similarly, bur oak (Quercus

macrocarpa) and white ash (Fraxinus americana ) had a

significant positive response to mulch treatments (Truax

and Gagnon 1993). 

7.6.10.4 Shelters.

As mentioned above, tree shelters (Figure 7.6.27A) can

protect plants from animal damage. Another important

benefit is that shelters limit the intensity of UV light and

drying winds that cause damage by desiccation and sun

scald. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) seedling survival increased from 58 percent to more than 95 percent

when shelters were installed (Jacobs and Steinbeck 2001).

Tree shelters are available in a variety of sizes and colors

(allowing varying amounts of solar radiation to penetrate),

as well as with or without venting. Selection of a specific

shelter should be made based on expected site conditions

and the growth habit of the species. In a comparison of

ventilated and nonventilated shelters, ventilation consistently reduced inside shelter temperatures by about 2.7

°C (5 °F) (Swistock and others 1999). Plants kept in tall,

rigid shelters for a long period of time can become

spindly (reduced stem diameter relative to height) and

incapable of standing upright after shelter removal (Burger

and others 1996). Management considerations for using

tree shelters should include the costs of purchase, assembly, and installation as well as annual maintenance following winter snow pack that can crush the shelters and

cause plant damage. Nevertheless the increased cost may

be offset by increased survival, thereby reducing the need

to replant at a later date when competing vegetation is

established. 

7.6.10.5 Shading. Ideally, an outplanting site provides adequate materials such as stumps or logs to provide

microsites for planting (see section 7.6.5.1). It is sometimes

useful, however, to install artificial shade to protect plants

from damaging heat. Resistance to heat damage increases

with plant size as the ability of the plant to shade itself

increases. Heat damage usually occurs on flat or south-facing sites in regions with hot dry summers and clear skies,

but can also occur in wetter regions under dry clear conditions. Shading only the basal portion of the stem appears to

be as effective in preventing heat damage as shading the

entire stem and some foliage, which can also reduce transpiration (Helgerson 1989a). Five-year survival of Douglasfir seedlings was increased with shading on two south-facing sites in southwest Oregon (Helgerson 1989b). In another study, artificial shading significantly increased seedling

survival on four of six harsh sites west of the Cascade

Mountains (Peterson 1982). Artificial shade materials

include cardboard, shingles, rigid shade cloth, or other

materials and should be installed on the south or southwest

side of the seedling (Figure 7.6.27B).

182

Figure 7.6.27—Tree shelters (A)

and shading (B) can improve

seedling growth and establishment on hot, dry sites.

A B
Reforestation and restoration outplantings are an expensive investment so it makes sense to conduct surveys to

evaluate their need, monitor performance, and track outplanting success over time. Many different types of reforestation surveys have been well covered in the literature

(Pearce 1990, Stein 1992), and an excellent guide on how

to evaluate restoration plantings can be found in Chapter

12 of Steinfeld and others (2008). 

The following discussion deals with monitoring planting

quality during the project. The only way to determine if

planting is being done correctly is to conduct an inspection right behind the planting crew (Neumann and Landis

1995). With contract planting jobs, these inspections certify whether the work meets specifications, and the results

are used to calculate payment. Prompt and thorough

inspections can also lead to increased outplanting success

in subsequent projects. In Texas, for example, the incidence of plantation failure was more than cut in half

(from 40 percent to about 16 percent) after an inspection

program was initiated (Boggus 1994).

A typical plantation inspection consists of these three

steps (Rose 1992):

Check the number and spatial distribution of 

planted plants. Plots are established to determine whether

the correct number of plants was installed in a given area,

whether good planting spots were selected, and whether

plants were properly spaced.

Above-ground inspection. A representative sample of

plants is examined to see if the planting spot was selected

properly, and to check the quality of the scalping, stem

orientation, planting depth, and use of natural or artificial

shade. Planting depth is one of the most critical things to

check and is usually specified in relation to top of the

root plug (Figure 7.6.28A; see section 7.6.6.2). 

Below-ground inspection. A hole is dug with a planting

shovel (see Figure 7.6.18C) alongside the planted plant to

check for proper root orientation, loose soil, air pockets,

foreign material in the hole, and so on. Begin digging the

hole far enough away from the main stem (25 cm [10 in])

so that roots are not disturbed in the process of inserting

the shovel. Then, gently clear soil away while digging

toward the plug so that the plug can finally be inspected

in the position it was planted Figure 7.6.28B). The plug

must be in a vertical plane and not twisted, compressed,

or jammed and the hole should not contain large rocks,

sticks, litter, cones, or other foreign debris. Soil should be

nearly as firm as the undisturbed surrounding soil with no

air pockets. In auger plantings, be sure and check soil

firmness near the bottom of the holes (USDA 2002).

7.6.11.1 What type of survey is best? 

Two types of surveys, circular plots and stake rows, have

traditionally been performed, and each has its own

advantages.

Circular plots. The traditional method to determine planting density is to measure 40-m2 (1/100 acre) plots that are

evenly distributed throughout the plantation. An adequate

sample is about 2.5 plots per hectare (one plot per acre),

with usually no more than 30 plots evenly distributed

throughout the planted area. A 100th acre plot has a

radius of 3.6 m (11 ft, 9.3 in), which is established with a

center stake and a piece of string or twine cut to this

length (Longo and Dicke 2006). All planted plants within

the plot are counted, and their tops examined and measured. The root system of the plant closest to the center is

excavated to evaluate planting technique. Record each

plot separately on a survey form (Figure 7.6.28C) using

the examination criteria shown in Figure 7.6.14.

Stake rows. Because it is surprisingly hard to relocate

plants due to rapid weed growth, 10-plant stake rows are

used to make plants easier to find in subsequent evaluations. One row plot consists of establishing a starting

point that can easily be relocated, and staking 10 plants

along a compass bearing. Height, diameter, and plant

condition are recorded on the data form, along with average spacing between plants. Stake row data is typically

used to determine survival and growth rates and, with

average spacing between plants, can also be used to calculate plants per area (Londo and Dicke 2006).

7.6.11.2 What sampling design is best? 

Systematic stratified sampling is often recommended

because plots are located at standard predetermined distances and are therefore easy to establish and relocate.

Stratification means that the entire population of plants in

183

7.6.11 Monitoring Outplanting Performance
184

Figure 7.6.28—It is

best to inspect right

after the planting

crew (A), and dig a

vertical hole alongside the seedling (B)

to check for proper

depth and alignment

of the root plug.

Using a standard

survey form (C) will

ensure that the same

information is collected at each plot.

A

B

C
185

the outplanting area is subdivided into homogeneous

units before sampling begins. First, strata of uniform conditions are identified, and then sample plots are located

systematically within these areas (Pearce 1990). These

strata could be based on species, nursery of origin, planting crew, or any other factor that could introduce serious

variation. Machine-planted stock on abandoned farmland

would have less variability because conditions are relatively uniform and planter-to-planter variation is not an

issue. In contrast, considerable variability exists on handplanted projects in mountainous terrain where much variation occurs because of differences in aspect, soil, and

planting technique (Neumann and Landis 1995).

7.6.11.3 How Many Plots Are Necessary?

The number of plots to establish is generally a function of

two factors: 1) available resources (time and money), and

2) variability of the attributes that will be measured. In

calculating an appropriate number of plots, statisticians

are interested in some measure of variability, such as the

standard deviation of plant heights in the outplanting.

Using this example, if a quick check of height varies

greatly within the plantation to be sampled, then more

plots should be taken. On the other hand, if the heights

appear to be very uniform, then fewer plots will be sufficient. If you want statistical significance, more complicated calculations are available to compute appropriate

number of plots using an estimate of the variability of the

attribute and the degree of statistical accuracy desired

(Stein 1992).

Determining the number of plots based on variability is

often a judgment call but, in most cases, a 1 to 2 percent

sampling intensity is sufficient (Neumann and Landis

1995).
186

7.6.12 Conclusions and Recommendations

Outplanting is the final stage in the nursery process, and

survival and growth are the ultimate tests of plant quality.

The final three steps of the Target Plant Concept are critical to outplanting success and should be considered

when planning and initiating outplanting projects. Each

outplanting site is different and should be evaluated to

identify critical limiting factors as well as the best season

for outplanting during the planning process. The best outplanting tool and technique must also be specified during

planning because that decision will have a major effect

on the best stock type to produce. A wide variety of hand

and machine planting options are available but each tool

and technique are best suited to particular stock types

and outplanting site conditions. All of this information is

traditionally included in the site prescription which will

guide the entire nursery-to-outplanting process. 

Stock handling during transport and on the planting site

has a critical effect on outplanting performance. Nursery

stock should be outplanted as soon as it arrives, but often

a day or two of on-site storage is necessary. It’s wise to

plan for contingencies such as bad weather, crew problems, or equipment breakdown. A representative sample

of the nursery stock should be inspected as soon as it

arrives on the planting site to identify possible problems

and make adjustments. At the same time, a survey of the

planting site itself should be conducted and plans made

for which areas should be planted first. 

Site preparation treatments are also part of the site prescription, and this will ensure that the proper supplies

and equipment are available ahead of time. Plant spacing

and pattern should also be specified in the prescription so

that this critical information is part of crew training. Other

treatments such as plastic netting, tree shelters or mulches

may need to be applied to plants at the time of outplanting to ameliorate potentially limiting site factors.

The final step in the process is to conduct surveys during

and immediately after outplanting to evaluate monitor

plant performance, and track outplanting success over

time. The best type and intensity of sampling will depend

on project objectives and should be designed as part of

the site prescription. Successful outplanting projects are

the result of good planning and timely execution. Often,

adjustments need to be made on-site but most of these

contingencies can be anticipated in the site prescription. 
Adams PA. 1998. Soil compaction on woodland properties. The woodland workbook: Forest protection.

Oregon State Univ. Ext. Serv., Corvallis, OR. 8 p.

Adams JC, Patterson WB. 2004. Comparison of planting

bar and hoedad planted seedlings for survival and

growth in a controlled environment. p. 423-424 in:

Connor, K.F., ed. 2004. Proceedings of the 12th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SRS-71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Arnott JT, Burdett AN. 1988. Early growth of planted western hemlock in relation to stock type and controlledrelease fertilizer application. Can. J. For. Res. 18:710-

717.

Balisky AC, Burton PJ. 1997. Planted conifer seedling

growth under two soil thermal regimes in high-elevation forest openings in interior British Columbia. New

For. 14:63-82.

Barnard, E. L., Dixon, W. N., Ash, E. C., Fraedrich, S. W.

and Cordell, C. E. 1995. Scalping reduces impact of

soilborne pests and improves survival and growth of

slash pine seedlings on converted agricultural croplands.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 19(2): 49-59.

Bergsten, U., Goulet, F., Lundmark, T., and Lofvenius, M.

O. 2001. Frost heaving in a boreal soil in relation to

soil scarification and snow cover. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research 31(6):1084-1092.

Betts J. 2008. Recent workforce trends and their effects on

the silviculture program in British Columbia. In:

Dumroese RK, Riley LE, technical coordinators.

National Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery

Associations—2007. Fort Collins (CO): USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Proceedings RMRS-P-???.

Boggus, T. 1994. Personal communication. Lubbock, TX:

Texas State Forest Service.

Burger DW, Forister GW, Kiehl PA. 1996. Height, caliper

growth and biomass response of ten shade tree species

to tree shelters. J. Agri. 22 (4): 161-166.

Camm EL, Guy RD, Kubien DS, Goetze DC, Silim SN,

Burton PJ. 1995. Physiological recovery of freezerstored white and Engelmann spruce seedlings planted

following different thawing regimes. New Forests

10:55-77.

Cleary BD, Greaves RD, Hermann RK. 1978.

Regenerating Oregon’s Forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon

State University Extension Service. 286 p.

Colombo S. 2008. Personal communication. Thunder Bay,

ON: Ontario Forest Research Institute, Centre for

Northern Forest Ecosystem Research.

Converse CM. 1999.Mechanical site preparation and tree

planting equipment for Alaska. IN: Stocking standards

and reforestation methods for Alaska, University of

Alaska Fairbanks, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment

Station, Misc. Publication 99-8: 57-67.

Deans JD, Lundberg C, Tabbush PM, Cannell MGR,

Sheppard LJ, Murray MB. 1990. The influence of desiccation, rough handling and cold storage on the quality

and establishment of Sitka spruce planting stock.

Forestry 63: 129–141.

Domisch T, Finér L, Lehto T. 2001. Effects of soil temperature on biomass and carbohydrate allocation in Scots

pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings at the beginning of the

growing season. Tree Physiol. 21:465-472.

Drake-Brockman GR.1998. Evaluation of the Bracke

Planter on UK Restock Sites. Technical Note 7/98.

Dumfries UK: Forestry Commission, Technical

Development Branch. 10 p.

Emmingham WH, Cleary BC, DeYoe DR. 2002. Seedling

care and handling. The woodland workbook: Forest

protection. Oregon State Univ. Ext. Serv., Corvallis,

OR. 4 p.

Everett KT, Hawkins BJ, Kiiskila S. 2007. Growth and

nutrient dynamics of Douglas-fir seedlings raised with

exponential or conventional fertilization and planted

with or without fertilizer. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 37(12): 2552–2562.

Fleming RL, Black TA, Eldridge NR. 1994. Effects of site

preparation on root zone soil water regimes in highelevation forest clearcuts. For. Ecol. Manage.

68:173–188.

Frank, D. 1992. Predator odour as a deer browsing repellent: an investigation of an East Coast Vancouver Island

Douglas-fir plantation. FRDA Research Memo No. 204.

Fredrickson E. 2003. Fall planting in northern California.

IN: National proceedings: Forest and Conservation

Nursery Associations — 2002. Riley, L.E., Dumroese,

R.K. and Landis, T.D., technical coordinators. USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Proceedings RMRS-P-28: 159-161.

Goulet, F. 1995. Frost heaving of forest tree seedlings: a

review. New Forests 9(1):67-94.

187

7.6.13 Literature Cited
Grossnickle SC. 2000. Ecophysiology of northern spruce

species: the performance of planted seedlings. Ottawa,

ON: National Research Council Research Press. 409 p.

Grossnickle SC. 1993. Shoot water relations and gas

exchange of western hemlock and western red cedar

seedlings during establishment on a reforestation site.

Trees. 7:148-155.

Haase DL, Rose R. 1993. Soil moisture stress induces

transplant shock in stored and unstored 2+0 Douglasfir seedlings of varying root volumes. Forest Science.

39: 275-294.

Haase DL, Rose RW, Trobaugh J. 2006. Field performance

of three stock sizes of Douglas-fir container seedlings

grown with slow-release fertilizer in the nursery growing medium. New Forests. 31:1-24.

Hainds MJ. 2003. Determining the correct planting depth

for container-grown longleaf pine seedlings. In: Kush,

John S., compiler. Longleaf Pine: A Southern Legacy

Rising From the Ashes, Proceedings of the Fourth

Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference. Longleaf

Alliance Report No. 6: 66-68.

Helgerson OT. 1989a. Heat damage in tree seedlings and

its prevention. New Forests 3:333-358. 

Helgerson OT. 1989b. Effects of alternate types of

microsite shade on survival of planted Douglas-fir in

southwest Oregon. New Forests 3:327-332. 

Helenius P. 2005. Effect of thawing regime on growth

and mortality of frozen-stored Norway spruce container seedlings planted in cold and warm soil. New

Forests 29:33-41.

Helenius P, Luoranen J, Rikala R. 2004. Effect of thawing

duration and temperature on field performance of

frozen-stored Norway spruce container seedlings. Silva

Fennica 38:347-352.

Helenius P, Luoranen J, Rikala R, Leinonen K. 2002. Effect

of drought on growth and mortality of actively growing

Norway spruce container seedlings planted in summer.

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 17(3):218-224.

Henneman D. 2007. Personal communication. Medford

OR: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. E-mail:

dave_henneman@blm.gov

Heiskanen J, Viiri H. 2005. Effects of mounding on damage by the European pine weevil in planted Norway

spruce seedlings. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry

22(3):154-161.

Hoag JC. 2006. The pot planter: a new attachment for the

Waterjet Stinger. Native Plants Journal 7(1): 100-101.

Islam MA, Jacobs DF, Apostol KG, Dumroese RK. 2008.

Transient physiological responses of planting Douglasfir seedlings with frozen or thawed root plugs under

cool-moist and warm-dry conditions. Canadian Journal

of Forest Research X(X):XXX-XXX

Jacobs DF, Rose R, Haase DL, Alzugaray PO. 2004.

Fertilization at planting inhibits root system development and drought avoidance of Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings. Annals of Forest

Science. 61(7): 643-651.

Jacobs DF, Steinbeck K. 2001. Tree shelters improve survival and growth of planted Engelmann spruce

seedlings in southwestern Colorado. W. J. Appl. For. 16

(3): 114-120.

Jeffrey J, Horiuchi B. 2003. Tree planting at Hakalau

National Wildlife Refuge—the right tool for the right

stock type. Native Plants Journal 4:30–31.

Johnson GR, Okula JP. 2006. Antelope bitterbrush

reestablishment: A case study of plant size and browse

protection effects. Native Plants Journal 7: 125-133.

Jones B, Alm AA. 1989. Comparison of Planting Tools for

Containerized Seedlings: Two-Year Results. Tree

Planters’ Notes 40(2):22-24; 1989.

Kaye TN. 2001. Propagation and population re-establishment for tall bugbane (Cimicifugaelata) on the Salem

District, BLM. Second year report. Philomath, OR:

Institute for AppliedEcology. 12 p.

Khadduri, N. 2008. Personal communication. Olympia,

WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources,

Webster State Nursery.

Kloetzel S. 2004. Revegetation and restoration planting

tools: an in-the-field perspective. Native Plants Journal

5(1):34-42.

Kooistra CM, Bakker JD. 2002. Planting frozen conifer

seedlings: Warming trends and effects on seedling performance. New Forests 23:225-237.

Kooistra CM, Bakker JD. 2005. Frozen-stored conifer container stock can be outplanted without thawing. Native

Plants Journal 6:267-278. 

Krumlik GJ. 1984. Fall-planting in the Vancouver Forest

Region. B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Research Rep.

84002-HQ.

188
Landhäusser S, DesRochers A, Lieffers VJ. 2001. A comparison of growth and physiology in Picea glauca and

Populus tremuloides at different soil temperatures. Can.

J. For. Res. 31:1922-1929.

Lof M, Rydberg D, Bolte A. 2006. Mounding site preparation for forest restoration: survival and short term

growth response in Quercus robur L. seedlings. Forest

Ecology and Management 232(1-3):19-25.

Londo AJ, Dicke SG. 2006. Measuring Survival and

Planting Quality in New Pine Plantations. Technology

Bulletin SREF-FM-001. Athens, GA: University of

Georgia. Southern Regional Extension Forestry. 5p.

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

on root and shoot growth and on budburst timing in

conifer seedling transplants. New For. 4:107-124.

Lowman B. 1999. Tree planting equipment. IN: Stocking

standards and reforestation methods for Alaska.

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Agricultural and

Forestry Experiment Station, Misc. Publication 99-8:

74-77.

Luoranen, J., Rikala, R., Konttinen, K., and Smolander, H.

2005. Extending the planting period of dormant and

growing Norway spruce container seedlings to early

summer. Silva Fennica 39(4):481-496.

MacGowan BJ, Severeid L, Skemp F. 2004. Control of

deer damage with chemical repellents in regenerating

hardwood stands. IN: Michler, C.H.; Pijut, P.M.; Van

Sambeek, J.W.; Coggeshall, M.V.; Seifert, J.; Woeste, K.;

Overton, R.; Ponder, F., Jr., eds. Black walnut in a new

century, proceedings of the 6th Walnut Council

research symposium; 2004 July 25-28; Lafayette, IN.

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-243. 

Maki DS, Colombo SJ. 2001. Early detection of the effects

of warm storage on conifer seedlings using physiological tests. Forest Ecology and Management 154(1-

2)237-249.

McDonald PM, Fiddler GO, Henry WT. 1994. Large

mulches and manual release enhance growth of ponderosa pine seedlings. New Forests 8: 169-178.

Meikle, T.W. 2008. Personal communication. Hamilton,

MT: Great Bear Restoration.

Miller, D.L. and D.W. Brewer. 1984. Effects of site preparation by burning and dozer scarification on seedling

performance. For. Tech. Paper. Potlatch Corp.,

Lewiston, ID. TP-91-1.

Mitchell WK, Dunsworth G, Simpson DG, Vyse A. 1990.

Seedling production and processing: container. IN:

Lavender, D.P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C.M.; Montgomery,

G.; Vyse, A.; Willis, R.A.; Winston, D. Regenerating

British Columbia’s Forests. Vancouver, BC: University of

British Columbia Press: 235-253.

McKay, H. M., Gardiner, B. A., Mason, W. L., Nelson, D.

G and Hollingsworth, M. K. 1993. The gravitational

forces generated by dropping plants and the response

of Sitka spruceseedlings to dropping. Can. J. For. Res.

23: 2443–2451.

Moore JA, Fan Z. 2002. Effect of root-plug incorporated

controlled-release fertilizer on two-year growth and

survival of planted ponderosa pine seedlings. West. J.

Appl. For. 17:216-219.

Munshower FF. 1994. Practical handbook of disturbed

land revegetation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 265 p.

Nelson, JA. 1984. Elk springs burn seedling survival study

- July 1982 to April, 1984. Mescalero, NM: Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Mescalero Agency. 14 p.

Neumann, R. W.; Landis, T.D. 1995. Benefits and

Techniques for Evaluating Outplanting Success. In:

Landis, T.D.; Cregg, B., tech. coords. National proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-365. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station: 36-43.

Nieuwenhuis M, Egan D. 2002. An Evaluation and

Comparison of Mechanised and Manual Tree Planting

on Afforestation and Reforestation Sites in Ireland.

International Journal of Forest Engineering 13(2):11-23. 

Nilsson, U. and G. Orlander. 1995. Effects of regeneration

methods on drought damage to newly planted Norway

spruce seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 25: 790-802.

Paterson J, DeYoe D, Millson S, Galloway R. 2001.

Handling and planting of seedlings. IN: Wagner RG,

Colombo SJ, eds. Regenerating the Canadian forestprinciples and practice for Ontario. Markham, Ontario:

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Fitzhenry &

Whiteside Ltd: 325-341.

Petersen GJ. 1982. The effects of artificial shade on

seedling survival on western Cascade harsh sites. Tree

Planters’ Notes 33: 20-23. 

189
Peterson, A. and Charton, J. 1999. Advantages and disadvantages of machine planting in south-central Alaska.

IN: Stocking standards and reforestation methods for

Alaska, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Agricultural and

Forestry Experiment Station, Misc. Publication 99-8:

p.68-73.

Pearce, C. 1990. Monitoring regeneration programs. IN:

Lavender, D.P.; Parish, R.; Johnson,C.M.; Montgomery,

G.; Vyse, A.; Willis, R.A.; and Winston, D.

Regenerating BritishColumbia’s Forests. Vancouver, BC:

University of British Columbia Press: 98-116.

Rose R, Haase DL. 2006. Guide to Reforestation in

Oregon. College of Forestry, Oregon State University,

Corvallis. 48p.

Rose R, Ketchum JS. 2002. Interaction of vegetation control and fertilization on conifer species across the

Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research

32:136-152.

Rose R, Rosner L. 2005. Eighth-year response of Douglasfir seedlings to area of weed control and herbaceous

versus woody weed control. Ann. For. Sci. 62:481-492.

Rose R, Haase D. 1997. Thawing regimes for freezerstored container stock. Tree Planters’ Notes 48:12-18.

Rose R. 1992. Seedling handling and planting. IN: Hobbs

SD, Tesch SD, Owston PW, Stewart RE, Tappeiner JC,

Wells GE. Reforestation practices in southwestern

Oregon and northern California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon

State University, Forest Research Laboratory:328-344.

Saarinen V. 2007. Productivity, quality of work and silvicultural result of mechanized planting. Nordic Nursery

Conference Sept. 5, 2007. Suonenjoki, Finland: Finnish

Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Station.

13 p. Website:http://www.metla.fi/tapahtumat/2007/nsfptaimitarharetkeily/abstracts/nsfp050907-saarinen.pdf.

Accessed: Feb. 16, 2008. 

Sahlen, K. and Goulet, F. Reduction of frost heaving of

Norway spruce and Scots pine seedlings by planting in

mounds or in humus. New Forests 24(3):175-182.

2002.

Sharpe AL, Mason WL, Howes REJ. 1990. Early forest performance of roughlyhandled Sitka spruce and Douglas

fir of different plant types. Scottish Forestry 44:

257–265

Shoulders, E. 1958. Scalping, a practical method of

increasing plantation survival. Forest Farmer 17(10):

10-11

Slusher JP. 1993. Mechanical tree planters. Publication

G5009. Columbia, MO: University of MissouriColumbia, Extension Publications. 5 p.

South DB 2008. Personal communication. Auburn, AL:

Auburn University, Department of Forestry and Wildlife

Sciences.

Stein, W.I. 1992. Regeneration surveys and evaluation.

IN: Hobbs, S.D.; Tesch, S.D.; Owston, P.W.; Stewart,

R.E.; Tappeiner, J.C.; Wells, G.E. Eds. Reforestation

practices in southwestern Oregon and northern

California. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,

Forest Research Laboratory: 346- 382.

Steinfeld, DE, Riley SA, Wilkinson KM, Landis TD, Riley

LE. 2008. Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated

Approach to Establishing Native Plants. Vancouver,

WA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration. XXXp.

St-Amour, M. 1998. Evaluation of a powered auger for

planting large container seedlings. Forest Engineering

Research Institute of Canada, Field Note: Silviculture -

107. 2 p.

Sutherland B, Foreman FF. 2000. Black spruce and vegetation response to chemical and mechanical site preparation on a boreal mixedwood site. Can. J. For.

Research 30: 1561-1570.

Sutton RF. 1993. Mounding site preparation: a review of

European and North American experience. New

Forests 7:151-192. 

Swistock BR, Mecum KA, Sharpe WE. 1999. Summer

temperatures inside ventilated and unventilated brown

plastic treeshelters in Pennsylvania. North. J. Appl. For.

16 (1): 7-10.

Tabbush PM. 1986. Rough handling, soil temperature,

and root development in outplanted Sitka spruce and

Douglas-fir. Can. J. For. Res. 16: 1385–1388.

Talbert C. 2008. Achieving Establishment Success the First

Time. Tree Planters’ Notes 53(2): 31-37.

Tan W, Blanton S, Bielech JP. 2008. Summer planting performance of white spruce 1 + 0 container seedlings

affected by nursery short-day treatment. New Forests

35 (2): 187-205.

Taylor E. 2005. Shift of Weather Patterns Necessitates

Rethinking of Reforestation Methods. Texas A&M

University, Agricultural Communications. Date Posted:

2005-05-28 Website: http://agnews.tamu.edu/

dailynews/stories/FRSC/May2705a.htm

190
Thomas, DS. 2008. Hydrogel applied to the root plug of

subtropical eucalypt seedlings halves transplant death

following planting. Forest Ecology and Management

255 (2008) 1305-1314.

Tinus RW. 1996. Cold hardiness testing to time lifting and

packing of container stock: a case history. Tree

Planters’ Notes 47(2): 62-67.

Trent, A. 1999. Improved tree-planting tools. USDA Forest

Service, Technology and Development Program,

Timber Tech Tips 9924-2316-MTDC. 6 p.

Troy T, Loewenstein E, Chappelka A. 2006. Effect of animal browse protection and fertilizer application on the

establishment of planted Nuttall oak seedlings. New

Forests 32 (2): 133-143.

Truax B, Gagnon D. 1993. Effects of straw and black plastic mulching on the initial growth and nutrition of butternut, white ash and bur oak. Forest Ecology and

Management 57: 17-27.

USDA 2002. Silvicultural practices handbook (2409.17),

Chapter 2 - reforestation. Missoula, MT: United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 106 p.

van den Driessche R. 1987. Importance of current photosynthate to new root growth in planted conifer

seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 17:776-782.

van den Driessche R. 1988. Response of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) to some different fertilizers applied at planting. New For. 2:89-110.

Vapaavuori EM, Rikala R, Ryyppö A. 1992. Effects of root

temperature on growth and photosynthesis in conifer

seedlings during shoot elongation. Tree Physiol.

10:217-230.

White JJ. 1990. Nursery stock root systems and tree establishment. Forestry Commission Occasional Paper 20.

43p. 

Zalasky H. 1983. Field storage of containerized conifer

seedlings. Forest Management Note 20. Edmonton, AL:

Northern Forest Research Centre. 3 p.

191
192