Growth characteristics and post trimming regrowth potential of tropical and sub-tropical landscape hedge plants in response to spacing

Atinuke Irene  Odusanya,; Christiana Olusola  Owolabi,; Goke Jacob  Bodunde,; Joy Nwakaego  Odedina,; Olatunde Musibau  Olosunde,

Growth characteristics and post trimming regrowth potential of tropical and sub-tropical landscape hedge plants in response to spacing

Christiana Olusola Owolabi | Olatunde Musibau Olosunde | Goke Jacob Bodunde | Atinuke Irene Odusanya | Joy Nwakaego Odedina

Abstract:

Spacing of landscape plants is one of the factors determining the outcome of a design in terms of canopy formation which is one of the variables for aesthetic appearance in terms of shapes and forms. This study was conducted between September 2016 and September 2017, to determine the appropriate intra-row spacing for five plant species in hedge formation. The plant species used were Duranta erecta, Hamelia patens, Ficus retusa, Buxus sempervirens and Acalypha wilkesiana. Transplanting was done at intra-row spacing of 30, 40, 50 and 60cm and a constant inter-row spacing of 100cm. The experiment was a Randomized Complete Block Design in split plot arrangement with three replicates. Plant height, number of leaves, number of branches and canopy space, as indices of species suitability for use as hedge, were measured fortnightly. Plant regrowth and aesthetic characteristics were assessed after periodic trimming. H. patens and B. sempervirens species had the tallest plants. B. sempervirens and D. erecta produced the highest number of leaves while D. erecta and H. patens had the highest number of branches. D. erecta had significantly (p<0.05) the fastest post-trimming shoot regrowth rate relative to other species following the 1 and 2 trimming (25 and 28 WAT respectively). st nd The effect of spacing on shoot regrowth length was significant after the 3 , 4 rd th and 5 trimmings (31, 34 and 37 WAT respectively). The highest shoot regrowth th height was recorded at 40cm spacing followed by 30cm intra row spacing. All species responded best at 50cm intra-row spacing for the number of branches and canopy space as well as early hedge formation. The study concluded that B. sempervirens was suitable for ideal hedging at 40cm intra-row spacing while A. wilkiesiana and H. patens were only suitable as informal hedges. Hence, B. sempervirens species is recommended as the ideal hedge plant choice based on its early regrowth after trimming, high leaf and branch production as well as overall speed in hedge formation at 31WAT.

References:

Blanusa T, Garratt M, Cathcart-James M, Hunt L & Cameron RW. 2019. Urban hedges: A review of plant species and cultivars for ecosystem service delivery in North- West Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 44(126391):1-16
Brun Charles and Dinius Paula. 2015. Selecting plants for screen and hedges. EM089E. Pullman, Washington.1-18. Washington State University Extension
Fordham AJ. 1967. How to have a good clipped hedge. A continuation of the Bulletin of Popular Information of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, 27(3): 17-27
Guevarra AB, Whitney AS & Thompson JR. 1978. Influence of intra-row spacing and cutting regimes on the growth and yield of Leucaena. Agronomy Journal 70(6):1033- 1037
Hansen G. 2010. Basic principles of landscape design CIR536 (pp1-12). Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Hessayon DG. 1999. The tree and shrub Expert. Transworld Publishers, London
Hitchmough JD. 1994. The management of woody plants other than trees in the urban landscape. Urban Landscape Management 7:301-329
John White and W Smith Curtis 2010. Landscape Design and Horticulture: Texas .Master Gardener Manual. (pg1-40) (The Diagnostic Process)
Kendal D, Williams K & Armstrong L. 2008. Preference for and performance of some Australian native plants grown as hedges. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening7(2):93-106
Kozlowski TT and Pallardy SG. 1997. Growth control in woody plants. Academic Press, San Diego, California
Maidapwad SL and Sananse SL 2014. On analysis of two-way ANOVA using data transformation. International Journal of Scientific Research 3(11):1-4
Mitra SA 2013. Handbook of landscape-A Guide. India. (pp1-154). Central Public Works Department
Olosunde OM, Hammed LA, Oyekunle O & Oluyemi AO. 2014. Growth and Flowering response of Rose Periwinkle (Catharantus roseus Lin) to spacing. Proceedings of the 32^nd Annual Conference of Horticultural Society of Nigeria. Editors: Olasantan FO, Aiyelaagbe IOO, Olubode OO, Makinde EA Bodunde J G (pp286-293)
Oreszcyn S Lane A. 2000. The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: Different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management. Journal of Environmental Management 60(1):101-118
Owolabi CO, Bodunde JG & Olubode OO. 2019. Impact of maintenance on a conventional and edible plant components landscape design concept. African Journal of Horticultural Science 15:45-56
Palmer JF. 1989. Residents’ characterization of their residential green space resource. In: Proceedings of the 1988 Society of American Foresters National Convention Rochester on Healthy Forests, Healthy World, New York, October 16–19. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MA (pp373–379)
Master Gardener Progra. 2015. Spacing of landscape plants. Washington State University, Spokane County Extension, Havana, Spokane, WA
Smardon RC. 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban planning, 15(1-2), 85-106
Stoecklein MC. 2001 The Complete Plant Selection Guide for Landscape Design (2^nd edn). Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana
Todorova A, Asakawa S & Aikoh T. 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and urban planning69(4):403-416
Van den Toorn MWM. 2017. Theory and practice of planting design in landscape architecture. Acta Horticulturae 1189:11-18