<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of Landscape Tree Stabilization Systems

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021813/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Landscape Tree Stabilization Systems
Physical Description: 1 online resource (58 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Eckstein, Ryan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: pulling, tree
Environmental Horticulture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Horticultural Science thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: We conducted pull tests on newly planted 7 cm (2.7 in) caliper container grown Quercus virginiana to evaluate wind loading on nine commonly used landscape tree stabilization systems. Maximum force required to rotate the root ball 20 degrees was used to compare systems. Terra Toggle, Brooks Tree Brace, and 2x2s anchoring the root ball withstood the largest forces. T-stakes, dowels, and Tree Staple performed no better than non-staked controls. The three guying systems tested, Arborbrace, Duckbill, and rebar and ArborTie were statistically similar and required more force to failure than controls but less than the group that withstood the largest forces. Direction of pulling had no influence on force to failure for any stabilization system tested.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryan Eckstein.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Gilman, Edward F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021813:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021813/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Landscape Tree Stabilization Systems
Physical Description: 1 online resource (58 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Eckstein, Ryan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: pulling, tree
Environmental Horticulture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Horticultural Science thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: We conducted pull tests on newly planted 7 cm (2.7 in) caliper container grown Quercus virginiana to evaluate wind loading on nine commonly used landscape tree stabilization systems. Maximum force required to rotate the root ball 20 degrees was used to compare systems. Terra Toggle, Brooks Tree Brace, and 2x2s anchoring the root ball withstood the largest forces. T-stakes, dowels, and Tree Staple performed no better than non-staked controls. The three guying systems tested, Arborbrace, Duckbill, and rebar and ArborTie were statistically similar and required more force to failure than controls but less than the group that withstood the largest forces. Direction of pulling had no influence on force to failure for any stabilization system tested.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryan Eckstein.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Gilman, Edward F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021813:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110331_AAAAEM INGEST_TIME 2011-04-01T01:18:44Z PACKAGE UFE0021813_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 51423 DFID F20110331_AADCEH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH eckstein_r_Page_42.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
7a0a554890073d7244668f47fafaac8a
SHA-1
86bf44b09ff76d1f69c977f54eabed65387338af
35795 F20110331_AADBXJ eckstein_r_Page_35.QC.jpg
ef7654f156c566582e5e4e8ac45c4a42
8e6afff3bb5dadb62cc556ebe432b5b77554b9fd
6375 F20110331_AADCJE eckstein_r_Page_25thm.jpg
33482184c9518998ddcddb3bfbe999f5
bb67804361329c149916417ce60fe19cac2a4813
53593 F20110331_AADCEI eckstein_r_Page_44.pro
1f213937dc2fd0b970475507463845f7
49f2c821568d21b1f55a8685bb769240249ed8af
102149 F20110331_AADBXK eckstein_r_Page_33.jpg
3aab9cb4e054881f9688e6773ae73119
22f929c9135f2c52c4fb9581d08832e451802097
3933 F20110331_AADCJF eckstein_r_Page_27thm.jpg
46400ea031f5cc0221cb0f5350fe359b
62be23eaa0d18983762a27a770c92c61e6d44a1f
53788 F20110331_AADCEJ eckstein_r_Page_45.pro
4f6fd0be3d1179b199112c7d72fd63a6
2fa2d82ce14b51d5a3ce6adc88a578ffcc549963
25271604 F20110331_AADBXL eckstein_r_Page_04.tif
dcd51248d7d9ee289e834f4209a665d6
f16ac531251030974787872161b3c9619e56b49e
6643 F20110331_AADCJG eckstein_r_Page_28thm.jpg
1f99ad8d833b1759f2d8c8807a224aaa
80d93b683d690914e9d295b977ba6026284cc934
53651 F20110331_AADCEK eckstein_r_Page_46.pro
385d9162dff1baa6713337ee677bc95e
15cebac5e383001b7cd042b966f9e6b3449112f6
77639 F20110331_AADBXM eckstein_r_Page_25.jpg
a9aebe7eff0167ac00c1100d32564df8
ce2b74c32007f6e1e6bc99c5778bf7a731178208
6242 F20110331_AADCJH eckstein_r_Page_29thm.jpg
5355b216a724bddd20fb973d6088ea01
cde045074c60b904d33506460c7df5792e23b100
102738 F20110331_AADBXN eckstein_r_Page_18.jpg
6d419e043285580866229c5db914e3ba
931208de9abec7ab98dc8246992f663dcec7f173
8344 F20110331_AADCJI eckstein_r_Page_33thm.jpg
01f8b20667f0e07b01d44d18bf81deb7
64069907bee7974cca6d0e9b7a289586218925bb
13284 F20110331_AADCEL eckstein_r_Page_47.pro
b2dd79896f3efd9acad6939f8319196e
b7805a5898ac1d42dc06d2e4913b7dce63d7651e
2114 F20110331_AADBXO eckstein_r_Page_15.txt
853fd352011ca949f185b67132b9dcbf
2b5f23adef30dcfd1fa01fe68f5a7965c919de20
9134 F20110331_AADCJJ eckstein_r_Page_34thm.jpg
0302812f8e0155cdadbe16610ab0fb30
254a9cacb89841a77b578b7f2f49fddaf174644a
19031 F20110331_AADCEM eckstein_r_Page_48.pro
6cf4001430a7370a426b89653903e1cd
c053f055d08269dcd5aad7789344de4cc4d3ba57
218902 F20110331_AADBXP eckstein_r_Page_26.jp2
9edbccc2d8bc9276b7bb8abdc4ddd83d
607a0e6d3ad1e0ba9defe93d27ac2d1ab2ef44d8
3237 F20110331_AADCJK eckstein_r_Page_38thm.jpg
8d8d83fcadccd7f799c6b3349ab2fc0d
173edbe686c1a500045da2ea5678489e68a42afb
18133 F20110331_AADCEN eckstein_r_Page_49.pro
086d46a98dab2de3ad442c9b64d04659
cbf8dcfeed88ea065bf841ea1e4df29d4d1a3601
1051984 F20110331_AADBXQ eckstein_r_Page_12.jp2
b5084e83255b8bddc72d54e0cb85468c
41d9588f080e7f9f835a6f26489bb26af0f813a0
8172 F20110331_AADCJL eckstein_r_Page_40thm.jpg
e0c5a9c7284a613a428975ff413625a6
a424c7f2bb8f37a352068e1dd7a40faafde14fdd
18021 F20110331_AADCEO eckstein_r_Page_50.pro
863b19ab5d2ed0e9eb5d431ba2362865
d0803b3ad94091818142f5f9a5949f592122faac
100117 F20110331_AADBXR eckstein_r_Page_39.jpg
64b92ce8d3b48988ff63c38bae182906
937f3c15402554dda39d99594a682ab5b6a9dc85
8528 F20110331_AADCJM eckstein_r_Page_41thm.jpg
b30f14561fa4b4926e240fa2d95f44b9
c2cd9d19942bee139c7eec5c82c09dff903e04ca
15852 F20110331_AADCEP eckstein_r_Page_53.pro
e91b038981c499d097f73cabb147f9ff
464dede387b401d819597809f6a4c4db34fc3d05
F20110331_AADBXS eckstein_r_Page_54.tif
9d4b5636e9cf674ce8f5d5ad45403e6b
1315418868fb96052b258e62c6c1d4c3ce30ce2a
8699 F20110331_AADCJN eckstein_r_Page_42thm.jpg
544fd26af2ecb1b79b6be316d8c6ee74
886fd9a197f742e1ddeda101435976a96933efe9
13170 F20110331_AADCEQ eckstein_r_Page_54.pro
98db3fb223238adda7844b70e4d008fa
166d826e41811b6f7e6a9e914ba5c15d0ae1cb42
F20110331_AADBXT eckstein_r_Page_34.tif
c94afe2bec228878da6e27425e837359
1e2fa5b6e7f658c073c57fdbe79110b0515cf780
8808 F20110331_AADCJO eckstein_r_Page_44thm.jpg
e591c6af191c935aac191a9aaffeec76
e2ec2c5decba470fa371f1ae98f760bbac347f74
8454 F20110331_AADCJP eckstein_r_Page_45thm.jpg
46845deb5f1436bc12ce3c4f7d5a7f66
bdb41b88ca36f0a55258ba5523d7c3b7affde036
12421 F20110331_AADCER eckstein_r_Page_55.pro
55140c0784d75e2d9a2cd51bc280df8c
a53258551a43a464bc6fd2bfcc1e908e0e37557e
51851 F20110331_AADBXU eckstein_r_Page_21.pro
350ed1aae877d4b867706138cff34bd9
07cbad263f910342862e722ee6c825fc87b8f510
62682 F20110331_AADCES eckstein_r_Page_56.pro
5210a6a65f29e5fea625d2a45ef6a0af
8e53e9ad69185a98e9727d1142b41a6f134f742b
66120 F20110331_AADBXV eckstein_r_Page_29.jpg
109fd1f030fafde72e3588d0a5a9be4f
9abc9167963d4be4f2b2ad2951136fbffc614225
6588 F20110331_AADCJQ eckstein_r_Page_49thm.jpg
dda9de76f583fffa19119b3b8871c590
9781f6c1b2962f6d290e56d35dde6e79dbec3dfa
22048 F20110331_AADCET eckstein_r_Page_01.jpg
04993229222d47eec7845f260f1a6a83
41a070cefc59d1483e94eda41d90c47c31443870
106995 F20110331_AADBXW eckstein_r_Page_35.jpg
63a25ea76a85fc6b97b82059d260411c
e7f7176dafbc1a2ca83dd924847a07fc321bfcd2
6995 F20110331_AADCJR eckstein_r_Page_51thm.jpg
82c06ccd47fb368bcaed24804eef7f35
5587efe8c2c041b25d07552a264764e0a9e9d49c
1165 F20110331_AADCEU eckstein_r_Page_02.QC.jpg
597aaf898aa731533b14df5f48b21c0b
e9e1b26bdc670ea628ac5e04ffe8f4e18f405a21
1051944 F20110331_AADBXX eckstein_r_Page_10.jp2
2d05449277cd1ac8ad1440140e23ad34
c65ab5e0dd81b38fdf2c4b70b30b18b2c1d422f2
5940 F20110331_AADCJS eckstein_r_Page_52thm.jpg
a900f18bf8729ec0912350819923dca1
f55be0369b753014261dd2ca2c63ad7b5afa063a
F20110331_AADBXY eckstein_r_Page_37.tif
fa0d923146a359eae47ebd0873f24f08
f2d7870fb9f4d5f02b667e8107340a18956490c2
1598 F20110331_AADCEV eckstein_r_Page_03.QC.jpg
d10f039c68814ecdd1f705ac6b51b7ac
e909a8b36929ae057d99fbd6b7e08b959049f2d0
7637 F20110331_AADCJT eckstein_r_Page_53thm.jpg
2d415174c02a7aa56fe107e547356d83
21aa343ec3e593cb4eed969ab1278ebb3dfbb15c
F20110331_AADBVA eckstein_r_Page_01.tif
a503002bf7246247a22465583d421f0f
690b4762428b3873ced137a5e2ad8787880a4b7f
107609 F20110331_AADBXZ eckstein_r_Page_45.jpg
1e6eadbcd36a394257fb4cbd8bb98937
cbe4959590aa8c7de302d11d0fb53ce8e1478977
17487 F20110331_AADCEW eckstein_r_Page_04.QC.jpg
efd42dffc12c38cd6be2da38b7afb278
d5c07c9601a4f4d17f2a2e7541fa47ce499cc73f
9083 F20110331_AADCJU eckstein_r_Page_56thm.jpg
ed443844378dc951b6cafd6baf04bf99
2bb96e292d0690ac837a5a97605158f6f19d3302
107320 F20110331_AADCEX eckstein_r_Page_05.jpg
d5f2f8cc55b9a02597e8ba9ecadcc80e
b1cbfe0e900386bdf2c5189c122560c7ac5a5f74
F20110331_AADBVB eckstein_r_Page_13.tif
8bec681926766abf279c6b0a14d14bdb
6fbf7c7a194375699dc7236445e3a9f6857f52dc
3575 F20110331_AADCJV eckstein_r_Page_57thm.jpg
c1d0874cd2da1ea564c097d1d418c4e5
471f3ce4952df20913ad362ab9dcbaa582a451c4
2717 F20110331_AADCCA eckstein_r_Page_06.txt
15cbf226b32ece0e12e255e46d0e09aa
8d816ed80af22597039a1e36deb9e5010ea7b55f
22408 F20110331_AADCEY eckstein_r_Page_05.QC.jpg
5f25a37bfa8bce1e31def87c30e4ed1c
2648a37c4316ada1c649ba2aa28f99634a8c41e4
49102 F20110331_AADBVC eckstein_r_Page_43.pro
7c0d5bb7ce47b48a986da95af00b110c
31b1d2894970d5efd7375549d9300d997056b2ec
70685 F20110331_AADCJW UFE0021813_00001.mets FULL
420be100d353b7332988c4bca18d1ba0
49de62cc0a73ff612760043a7efb0ca05141670b
637 F20110331_AADCCB eckstein_r_Page_07.txt
76028ab98baff08d2ec151e31f9afa23
48080ef1f4ab7004f6990abeb90cf093d70db1de
82491 F20110331_AADCEZ eckstein_r_Page_06.jpg
f7e193be8746bfc62f645733633632e2
7540813c92d66f79fe77ac058969c116430e022e
F20110331_AADBVD eckstein_r_Page_16.tif
c34ff580c6a551ee6efdb5e54fa89f3a
200577646416d2c7e983cd65eef36a26c44a154c
1461 F20110331_AADCCC eckstein_r_Page_08.txt
70e4b270053cce23029a95d9a38ce9ca
e87726c593a1252af516143cba4120e7e852da56
90 F20110331_AADBVE eckstein_r_Page_02.txt
2eafea6ee9b911c2408192ba41ba82f4
5c09b804c0010ebb805ef77cd7d72b5c91f1971b
70291 F20110331_AADCHA eckstein_r_Page_53.jpg
c7aa9f9fa3062535c7a7e728971968f0
938fa5582e4363bdba06a65ff7244696e5693c78
2103 F20110331_AADCCD eckstein_r_Page_10.txt
282dd27967f964e6b6d9eef92a233e29
51903c3525a5c73642997fb19590e35e740d66f4
373161 F20110331_AADBVF eckstein_r_Page_07.jp2
69f14b46560beb937754caab7e25e061
816f431a89740f4d55903e7685a94c03566ca784
24562 F20110331_AADCHB eckstein_r_Page_53.QC.jpg
b47e1a636198fff4d10b712c4688f8c8
306ec40a9cc80437860c6e39a0ee002f121a636a
2149 F20110331_AADCCE eckstein_r_Page_11.txt
4a5f300a62abd2ef4d05a9b5cea138dc
93e46fff2300c8bb7c41fd5e7cba78097b6511d8
706 F20110331_AADBVG eckstein_r_Page_55.txt
d20ab04d32f55515f338d2eef65ef7e8
329d661059574daa6bf2d53672f3611fa37addcc
63275 F20110331_AADCHC eckstein_r_Page_54.jpg
1b17811d057ba66a378a975ad6efe8eb
72a01b735e6cc7a1f9ea426a9ba94a3d68dc29b7
2163 F20110331_AADCCF eckstein_r_Page_12.txt
76a1181907cc4ce2ddccc5791b5d85c9
3a5daa180ee075be813d0ffca82a2f76a8fa35e0
1571 F20110331_AADBVH eckstein_r_Page_38.txt
b3d9850ea9fba998aaccbc91aca5575d
b53b0a9b6a4f6b11166a72bb0650d7fe4964c5f3
21504 F20110331_AADCHD eckstein_r_Page_54.QC.jpg
788ee6671b4dbcd83f6560db6f696626
16b6c7eaf2cf885943e6f9e0233a3804e8ac78ce
2160 F20110331_AADCCG eckstein_r_Page_13.txt
f41aa5f54f5e247618981410d1665bd5
e0f301a6006c377cc79884f67e7df91a36b35061
1051954 F20110331_AADBVI eckstein_r_Page_21.jp2
8fa079e5d11d3803252ff665fa474e56
ea223ab24380b1c3f201b12c7262ab227adf76bb
16912 F20110331_AADCHE eckstein_r_Page_55.QC.jpg
0fd102354d424666e00a7c5d1cd98438
b00211774afdd739e95e1e4ff4a2004e946b5c6f
1915 F20110331_AADCCH eckstein_r_Page_14.txt
ca7fb275567153aa0dbdebedfa5c399e
e8a8feef0c002854d7937c00b2674cff18da71b4
F20110331_AADBVJ eckstein_r_Page_35.tif
e072a2e6a3cd10eed5c3d5aba83131c3
0983f269a5c52874eeffe3bffd7f1b15ada47ed9
14379 F20110331_AADCHF eckstein_r_Page_57.QC.jpg
70728a0b897df4e3d908f3648afd44cb
ef7b05390e536e448a62d38e3ec61f664cb591ff
2010 F20110331_AADCCI eckstein_r_Page_17.txt
59ccfdd204c03bfc7778431a37acb0e6
b85294f5d646a882fb845a451cec4b5ade1748be
6325 F20110331_AADBVK eckstein_r_Page_54thm.jpg
659b5881c567ed37d3f7a89ac2b1661b
1abf4b453178299ae4fc4bad12398669d644edfa
54650 F20110331_AADCHG eckstein_r_Page_58.jpg
69019c281bf2b6126a426439e76f16c9
0b1eef6e51503652df262c5ad4c7f035796f9dd2
5261 F20110331_AADBVL eckstein_r_Page_30thm.jpg
5c6580cd055265a2383e6a8102f0f6e4
8071a77732cb316ae1845805683012cb98cd77fb
17928 F20110331_AADCHH eckstein_r_Page_58.QC.jpg
a292017127b53df3978e9b8dd41919c5
5814cc634688f9b073ffd47a332f5af6e0e27015
1997 F20110331_AADCCJ eckstein_r_Page_18.txt
f439e60b26e79c61662ddcf3fe2dcf09
c1fb35a026d656a6a212e4f6e9076702d80279a6
19293 F20110331_AADBVM eckstein_r_Page_09.QC.jpg
49a09b6c96870303cd4e4b320930c96a
6f0b806931ba23de6e93be80d609d8f6e0a20331
1051982 F20110331_AADCHI eckstein_r_Page_05.jp2
0d752e6bbc7b3cbcf496d1413b53c125
89eb4b4aa3aa94bd44535aa757b9a2814fd67bce
2028 F20110331_AADCCK eckstein_r_Page_19.txt
9451f49e1485bf3b36691d0ef5e2284f
6050479ad96b6d1376bbb65d821fcf0a7dfd09d5
6720 F20110331_AADBVN eckstein_r_Page_26.QC.jpg
6a73617e30fd198027c6f8ffb5741539
81c32dd435ac426602978b73557a3040831ff68d
1051985 F20110331_AADCHJ eckstein_r_Page_08.jp2
52b808609822fe0ba984acc2bb48a6c5
a3fb268af01e7cbe377f1c85b7964e246372c47b
2182 F20110331_AADCCL eckstein_r_Page_20.txt
114756d41fa07d03fbf26d12f9533241
1bd51fc96d12140d16a7d359cd18865bc1c0df37
F20110331_AADBVO eckstein_r_Page_24.tif
a78429730525ef1611510688c474b543
adb1862b518f35d85229df8b6ddf209635fa9379
669919 F20110331_AADCHK eckstein_r_Page_09.jp2
739618cc66cf14ab58f34c4d49ee3c04
c5490ca761060d4ce6ecf7e2f55fe993138f147b
2202 F20110331_AADCCM eckstein_r_Page_22.txt
415d20f10409b2c607a723644e2c8113
2669b036d9a21e9516da0a38bed004f137abce8b
2064 F20110331_AADBVP eckstein_r_Page_39.txt
7283b974e26f2c40737cd0b0a5ba1edb
c49ff91e28f32b0a548958a13fc5baf20a39f936
1051975 F20110331_AADCHL eckstein_r_Page_11.jp2
c2d4f6c38e88d6b4e131c7b93b912137
7530435d7d32e496a1eb833436964cf94203f981
2044 F20110331_AADCCN eckstein_r_Page_23.txt
97e77ac9e4fa5b74ea1c6a50a0fae27d
9455718e4721e1eecbe9071350cf64a28f8f1cf6
891228 F20110331_AADBVQ eckstein_r_Page_49.jp2
762e1165cff956b84588563b7c74067c
bdae80e6b1c6f84e8b38f574763b0c59785e07b0
1051950 F20110331_AADCHM eckstein_r_Page_13.jp2
07f3433ea9526c44e97c070413f1c54a
4c80f6ea3267d4ef70049300e4ca7322e388b5a1
2150 F20110331_AADCCO eckstein_r_Page_24.txt
e520371185afaebd7d905790f316680e
4a4d3fbae135908197d5db1d457ec4cced792ac8
61605 F20110331_AADBVR eckstein_r_Page_28.jpg
90f54710398552b1cd4a951d322b0f01
0dead0b888627987d966472cc7d147f457e9f58e
1051926 F20110331_AADCHN eckstein_r_Page_14.jp2
c91da9775a8f8cf38be8adf679261f2d
176de01269b824e43fcb05f42fc079cf61eb242b
234 F20110331_AADCCP eckstein_r_Page_29.txt
fd4514f2efef3b0797d27ebe43523f09
06ae8568ead49eb73ccf8876f0002d3f3acbf762
1950 F20110331_AADBVS eckstein_r_Page_26thm.jpg
bd6db430bd39a7a58093231582063d37
27270c29cffd8fc0d08417e3370dc48e3c614a5d
249 F20110331_AADCCQ eckstein_r_Page_30.txt
7cb52381ebb747e295c27e3675fd9dd5
ac710b59782292ac069ec284ad22a574c723a856
18911 F20110331_AADBVT eckstein_r_Page_06.QC.jpg
68f354cd3a3eded6bc11b34771e99db9
ca3db8c48cdf9e2817cd6e71b106cee23d91601f
1051978 F20110331_AADCHO eckstein_r_Page_15.jp2
b8cf71656406bfba91a6f19a9531d2fa
231f00c34d24dac1efdaa09625b206df42b0e9aa
194 F20110331_AADCCR eckstein_r_Page_31.txt
aa7b0ec63eb717af10c162ca9a0ff1da
19d904254fa9460908f457f5d0cebf8e931f5362
1051901 F20110331_AADBVU eckstein_r_Page_22.jp2
9d7b91b3ed9c0ad5b2576f43c038fa8c
27f33db2e146e22027ce982119dd9052d1cd6702
1041554 F20110331_AADCHP eckstein_r_Page_16.jp2
1b1a1cfb0ba55eb7da3e885e3c356e7e
3cb5663a988ff606d5c1f7f5f4759c2aab984c35
2055 F20110331_AADCCS eckstein_r_Page_33.txt
9b54f4d951def15f7b78ad7232c6eb42
e7ab29e1f9a23cdfdc43a49638c2825b6a516c85
35995 F20110331_AADBVV eckstein_r_Page_34.QC.jpg
de213afc94400f5c9f53c8e2c7217cb0
7b9fa3a8e4517d6a4d346eb1d17706b654de178c
1051963 F20110331_AADCHQ eckstein_r_Page_17.jp2
475e0fb2a38b0c1af20bd34eda995637
f0a2c794d4d7a132da6f932b2ff608fdcd82255b
2124 F20110331_AADCCT eckstein_r_Page_35.txt
4859fc14ae9cef0beda71ca842486961
2334e5d323fb27bc29c4b78e77f998fedef7052b
49487 F20110331_AADBVW eckstein_r_Page_41.pro
4cfd7ed764568fb6fceddd930947764d
586d8a14bb08f3039600912d0d848bc2855eec5d
1638 F20110331_AADCCU eckstein_r_Page_37.txt
c79bd00246b1bc1423341be8beb44793
f0f4a954a8bf36227d50f930789b192796f76c91
99400 F20110331_AADBVX eckstein_r_Page_17.jpg
d09f23eb9b619d7b77ffbcb85b740fba
53c8595a85ba5d630f9eadface39ea88cf3d28aa
1051966 F20110331_AADCHR eckstein_r_Page_18.jp2
648db99254d00f15e0f76c64da71019c
73af539b19e54a6d77f0c51f1ad3ec1af71e08df
1910 F20110331_AADCCV eckstein_r_Page_40.txt
97f09b0c49d475cf3d5e990d917ff6ca
b24080a4c1b1af50f5dab5fe50e99477d7e78129
245 F20110331_AADBVY eckstein_r_Page_16.txt
374c7aeec833af82df383d6fb24eb50e
375f1342fab534ef240ca94995a089621c3e53fb
1051931 F20110331_AADCHS eckstein_r_Page_19.jp2
601b9d51df560647d14413c4041b0a6e
0273e8b39d081747b5125660fd34d6b861986767
1961 F20110331_AADCCW eckstein_r_Page_41.txt
f16f43a152465ebec3f4e22e0e6653d9
8ca3faf8b764742bbc71c5cda9e106a079b39bff
5523 F20110331_AADBVZ eckstein_r_Page_27.pro
7118e3a7fb9da3e4d90c9e9201afe383
ee9478dc98ed9cbc956750d78ad75fa84ee2c21e
826463 F20110331_AADCHT eckstein_r_Page_25.jp2
7bd1545141be6607ee51a0006e980678
55941b6ff894cf5f0f7b4918761f6b84ba9189de
F20110331_AADCCX eckstein_r_Page_42.txt
d2e8648ebfad78e1d98a0ef1c8bbb561
6cdbe93005670807ce7681e52b74e03b71d3c649
440606 F20110331_AADCHU eckstein_r_Page_27.jp2
85557e5c9cb3c39e29877c5d6f1cb7a1
449da230e51d079027236c1683f7e49b255d0b54
13418 F20110331_AADCAA eckstein_r_Page_38.QC.jpg
3f59f09d6759f318cb97295e8fa21fbd
7bf8e4a9a3ac83ee8b13f1a59103e1cdcc77b8a4
2146 F20110331_AADCCY eckstein_r_Page_44.txt
18cb0478c6cb24519f0758ddbd73d822
89cc09505a71645d934ec153dc5368f8f0e40944
955787 F20110331_AADCHV eckstein_r_Page_29.jp2
3d0e9c4644916322a49aad932e8cd5c3
9a2f03a4f36e954621ac3b3e5735e1df71c2123f
F20110331_AADCAB eckstein_r_Page_26.tif
79d4ff1c327c247935fe878f2d2fe05e
1660356a4dbd1cde82a65e92d0f89eb58aedadac
2142 F20110331_AADCCZ eckstein_r_Page_46.txt
83684cd9efbe3ed261a149bc3218f0b4
fec46d9ca3b6704f17acb4e73a2fba84cad350d9
667832 F20110331_AADCHW eckstein_r_Page_30.jp2
a263a49efa19fed06dd8ff829461e7af
ceed2e33481954b1d0f5cbd5fefda8028c8072bf
1051981 F20110331_AADBYA eckstein_r_Page_40.jp2
8eb1d0dab670cfccae478c2858e8523d
37ca3f43481ce2e4a77f659206d251817eabfeb6
1025 F20110331_AADCAC eckstein_r_Page_49.txt
4f9ed8e262edba02c28ab374dfe0fd30
a47aa08e9dfad8f6c640e74e49907dd6afe5e8d8
1036892 F20110331_AADCHX eckstein_r_Page_32.jp2
98d4cb09c77866f58e1eae17e965804f
a0dacbff90c7c93d06d95ceec87c52a38d7bd4b5
F20110331_AADBYB eckstein_r_Page_33.tif
bedc64557cefca4c16d22ada9afae64c
8c63db302e4cd40153abaacac8217adf306ebb50
984154 F20110331_AADCAD eckstein_r_Page_54.jp2
c38a2f14f563013c02a614cba3a3fe92
b84c3d9dc6b13360821a64cbb2188093ea459927
23866 F20110331_AADCFA eckstein_r_Page_07.jpg
5d9168053cccd84249287f07edecfcf1
55ad852b59b4c80675505fe880e9765c8a11f900
1051959 F20110331_AADCHY eckstein_r_Page_34.jp2
07214e4262cd7f0a9590a46028e134c4
4b4ed23766e270164a3fe7119e61e897c130d41b
51079 F20110331_AADBYC eckstein_r_Page_33.pro
fe85e882b97c54ebbdf5bdb30267c670
d137eade5eb685e5f999f44f49e0855c70ed6ce4
4002 F20110331_AADCAE eckstein_r_Page_05.txt
928b395c0e2a6b2e0dabcaeadd5de1c6
a97dcc92998bde3c173d206bbdcff82861af980f
62246 F20110331_AADCFB eckstein_r_Page_08.jpg
6a129f65662c0d2e1dc449105c94a820
d48bb87076e539188be718ad2adf50e85cdf1b35
1051965 F20110331_AADCHZ eckstein_r_Page_35.jp2
cd09993825f99bce81556f77a8f61d34
fed0b924b1be69b55d2891e5339b33a5d01ec8b4
1053 F20110331_AADBYD eckstein_r_Page_48.txt
0932804717ff0c019b215f83e013b429
a66e655df8df554c5535b24f74e4bcf564e58826
17943 F20110331_AADCFC eckstein_r_Page_08.QC.jpg
feb3f5d7aa5941f79ed7a7b7d81b667e
a1d692380cb3a4d8cec9be547a9356b4d7d2f721
5308 F20110331_AADBYE eckstein_r_Page_30.pro
a5e2eee2f0eb973e8fdbe8343c70d150
c0af93edc925cb729e77e422a8d27293e551d9f1
51427 F20110331_AADCAF eckstein_r_Page_19.pro
4b03f0c860d57655b5a58ff6ac3802c0
710189e846e00b240e476ed8dc3bd768d5a517c2
62504 F20110331_AADCFD eckstein_r_Page_09.jpg
404fa43b0e2c706d2ead411954f0e7e0
fcad99a2d64b2e80cda835f82fdbf0ca96e9c921
F20110331_AADBYF eckstein_r_Page_06.jp2
4c3968fa16e1bef952fc27c2ac0cf8c0
6388347247ccbaae8c7cf6ca58eb1c180e35b97a
93991 F20110331_AADCAG eckstein_r_Page_32.jpg
6ac551532a17a29c6e58c79390df8779
6f8f704ab6f16e7e011b568907471df0c09e5521
35260 F20110331_AADCFE eckstein_r_Page_11.QC.jpg
202966204e5e8be4b85abc7753d206a1
69db0e3d7f7be47f44363fb44cfccb20058adf6b
1469 F20110331_AADBYG eckstein_r_Page_25.txt
0376aa490a59ad9e8c0ff5310ad1056a
7abe1a924e69e0a6e685e292853d30aa1d2e3b34
110573 F20110331_AADCFF eckstein_r_Page_12.jpg
6442e0019ce2d72ee1b4f9c8d216990f
de20ca6667bf0cb7cb2b921277f74e3cb46a633a
299742 F20110331_AADBYH eckstein_r_Page_47.jp2
8d2346614c4cc63cce65281c25223c89
c41014bf1465bc984aa82feeec7322fb65570655
F20110331_AADCAH eckstein_r_Page_20.jp2
a188fba3e86e7dd8ccfdf64d2de941f9
4fca76f15468491002a18452e99de003890419fd
107916 F20110331_AADCFG eckstein_r_Page_13.jpg
dc0623e9787ecdda926d43470a70a736
96613aff1c84a2c53dbe7975ba52e4ac0735beb4
556156 F20110331_AADBYI eckstein_r_Page_04.jp2
6cd74c41a0dabc78a1038bc3cb667912
4ab93d19021401e215ef52c9e0b37789ecbd65d1
99160 F20110331_AADCAI eckstein_r_Page_41.jpg
a9bc30fa1413378245c16e626849084a
a856721778531ea88d1f6645f57852d761fb7474
35687 F20110331_AADCFH eckstein_r_Page_13.QC.jpg
f081d18aa856d794b6061e246f914462
c36867cf7c22bf1202e9baf252e02eded35c1570
670760 F20110331_AADBYJ eckstein_r_Page_31.jp2
2ca2ac28a4cce31e94c30830ee506927
0f6897766e78151737f9fbc6c824f5ccb31ab1b7
F20110331_AADCAJ eckstein_r_Page_51.jp2
75c063b43e1895a4cfd0dd5baf1a9c61
d7f3f87b0abea958c269ca6db4e286f2c8945b8a
96790 F20110331_AADCFI eckstein_r_Page_14.jpg
24d632711aa5a58a8e2169fc2f7f3170
1b018fc5fc86c984b274a57170c5ce62665a3797
54362 F20110331_AADBYK eckstein_r_Page_34.pro
22788dee2cf4599629bf2db0fbcb233d
921f09a55748e37b3cc94b1722a0f4b55d43f7d2
527 F20110331_AADCAK eckstein_r_Page_02thm.jpg
05ef0a3311a70758468953319a47facc
0e904bb2f263e53f1389ba388fe2bf27b131eeae
30588 F20110331_AADCFJ eckstein_r_Page_14.QC.jpg
0f723ea741de504db023c5b651ed0628
1a1e07bd083b3be26db0b5da95bc01474797f107
14269 F20110331_AADBYL eckstein_r_Page_52.pro
28ad77b40e787fdb9a7b798598c14e2a
c7a58306da69f592a373579a1a32b4a880c3a772
8067 F20110331_AADCAL eckstein_r_Page_48thm.jpg
120753742d0175bbc5950bac00ffd7ad
12f9090219fd52595743d076b544507da1d4062b
35575 F20110331_AADCFK eckstein_r_Page_15.QC.jpg
6911dba858158d4adead654f62b12ceb
036a343d3848642df0c08ef7cc54ee5eea5629c8
F20110331_AADBYM eckstein_r_Page_23.jp2
b58f290e909566f6eaea315a504a3edd
768562e4b39431a82e4f15c9a36dabcdbe7febe3
5297 F20110331_AADCAM eckstein_r_Page_55thm.jpg
aa28dedf415ed7f6fdca8c5757d04766
deba0654f60b51ee8c4ee9f2799c4a0782a06c8a
72494 F20110331_AADCFL eckstein_r_Page_16.jpg
049b16a04507c0a2a65b8e5d1128685d
eae0d49a8b9ce6d385b127093eeba1559fc7e7a5
2122 F20110331_AADBYN eckstein_r_Page_21.txt
ec3d37123de5ef0948ee83ab5985295c
8306fabe57bad442cd8873305a4b92c18fada7a8
2560 F20110331_AADCAN eckstein_r_Page_56.txt
ef899e40e46831c722df70478372ea1e
fa9f5f59cb6687661e7e2e0e8cc905fc433a7c11
9329 F20110331_AADBYO eckstein_r_Page_35thm.jpg
6a2c5a001493f491e8cc7b260e26d505
660cf7517c8c733599ecc407c8545ff0fa7fa6f7
3564 F20110331_AADCAO eckstein_r_Page_31thm.jpg
14de87ccb40835b1e78d4630b2c49083
ba8983b15e75c5e0f884021633ca62ab5a03143f
23669 F20110331_AADCFM eckstein_r_Page_16.QC.jpg
574dbe189cf7f64ff51ab5f0f047f5fc
4858e72501508c2aaf5e38aebf279adab5ae971f
4235 F20110331_AADBYP eckstein_r_Page_04thm.jpg
801f3b29b90f07f9b254b5a92f4c380e
6c57c44f1ed38c7b2df21152877a37f798c9d40e
96025 F20110331_AADCAP UFE0021813_00001.xml
a451b81ab128e37ec89dbe8db6d688b1
07bed557ca106f3a11ef29045128b2a5d87784d8
104687 F20110331_AADCFN eckstein_r_Page_19.jpg
d7679ec7919d4d787c3e217fd5eb00bd
40d7541cdb9e2e05a03a73abc80ca6241dd999cb
16123 F20110331_AADBYQ eckstein_r_Page_36.QC.jpg
e5e6a5ccb3e03a32a038bbdb68ef454f
b056d3b3de26b53505c81070eb31c9a6fde1229c
35066 F20110331_AADCFO eckstein_r_Page_19.QC.jpg
4ce0f03cb11e2219c0ce35ed030f16ca
b4b85c3eb955be6f10a23dd939541cabe548d6bf
1346 F20110331_AADBYR eckstein_r_Page_09.txt
9738756a9cb13d871c03e6ec837407a5
02cbfae4bddb280facc5276e08067910e8715ed2
110436 F20110331_AADCFP eckstein_r_Page_20.jpg
24fac342c98fc34e20f027c06fa7360b
0ab6c00077ae0f3813c5e2b4f66c027e33cf974b
97851 F20110331_AADBYS eckstein_r_Page_40.jpg
6bc7b2c9a691a48f9fd458ba4337a16a
33969b2c16a206bc30655c634ba3f34acb8a8dbd
F20110331_AADCAS eckstein_r_Page_02.tif
cfd1ee7480f8f22063b1b6185550feca
e5a59d84edd97de42626e8b222a5efea6fd9b9d4
36157 F20110331_AADCFQ eckstein_r_Page_20.QC.jpg
fa5187fcd6e7ca552c6127112d7d86a8
119d85b3428906122754428b1a9d54017334e5fb
929 F20110331_AADBYT eckstein_r_Page_57.txt
abf2e2274d0590b944afe59fcccce3e8
daa69dba56ca6913253b2ddd231f0de40459e871
F20110331_AADCAT eckstein_r_Page_05.tif
1d39c668ff915850649a216fd360f102
fd022b81809c3b9a71f0ad9c5bd1562689944a29
105916 F20110331_AADCFR eckstein_r_Page_21.jpg
bf694ec484e8d6aa7db71b334f604cd3
10772132dc971d40bc0ce9fd9435adfdc6eda766
7037 F20110331_AADBYU eckstein_r_Page_07.QC.jpg
6cee4f5592acd7558a5f1dbe3ea1b15e
fe40c35ad0cae91914c8a86cafa48c5f65562617
F20110331_AADCAU eckstein_r_Page_07.tif
3702285d6879d56cd18f7766912dc875
6cb5ac9f932d98015af0feced2580658f571f8e2
34710 F20110331_AADCFS eckstein_r_Page_21.QC.jpg
0a6aaf6540609343fb8f09173ae011ff
8c6597f97f3129d4c03a42e8151c57dc278f632e
F20110331_AADBYV eckstein_r_Page_14.tif
a00b61e1ff692de39a25585b83d0c617
36fe3fa1e2a5ff0f6558d6c515677ed15d8e9949
F20110331_AADCAV eckstein_r_Page_09.tif
3b3dd145242023c11683849a7254c75e
d6bca84460a7c2f6d9aa0ed0be7394c679189981
112951 F20110331_AADCFT eckstein_r_Page_22.jpg
46f606789a233c5b334ae95d7644f4f5
cdd5f7c9aeb36da105fcc1dedead80729a458dbf
29320 F20110331_AADBYW eckstein_r_Page_47.jpg
66f213b4fcffbaff5c28acd51ca5a271
a7d0cf8d95d6993908b86cb339b78dbe47e55a77
F20110331_AADCAW eckstein_r_Page_10.tif
b4d76434197b079147748ed07d4efe69
03d52a51657b16ead312d9a0595ab877fc5ee595
37494 F20110331_AADCFU eckstein_r_Page_22.QC.jpg
d8cf28ef5f3f97ec36c1fe8ed2f3d74d
0a2df6cf38c0124378c737af75a63334c74a7e2f
3958 F20110331_AADBYX eckstein_r_Page_02.jpg
90f54e8727e11127f77ee4039c3e9141
b17fb14638264c95e7e72d70dd5452ca739cd5ef
F20110331_AADCAX eckstein_r_Page_12.tif
6226567922d55a92d6ce9a7cae88ff87
c72effca26f403c93cefcaec9fd03c8189450c28
100978 F20110331_AADCFV eckstein_r_Page_23.jpg
e1cb480c3743656a655cfb165030b5f5
c1fb703a749ed6fea5472bda05288b92bf578b53
24981 F20110331_AADBYY eckstein_r_Page_02.jp2
1bbd58d3305de50f925dbf8ac9e7795d
3cfdc122ce0865980b243e0439a38191eea57a9a
F20110331_AADCAY eckstein_r_Page_17.tif
468d9a4e61f9e67e19591819b3f5dbaf
c737419640947513108db423c71daf9ece19d1c5
34658 F20110331_AADCFW eckstein_r_Page_23.QC.jpg
78c02b69cd3a65ea808d58f3c1557824
dd8251e94a8deab3a737d792964b1d5fa4e69de0
35022 F20110331_AADBWA eckstein_r_Page_18.QC.jpg
d061323021a885e48e637d7a5e43ccd5
2318d540afa99c447024edb3866ea444cf21a017
8258 F20110331_AADBYZ eckstein_r_Page_39thm.jpg
d2240a6e34c1931cda8c9da39eab57f0
d1a08d122f11341603c5ebd3cfe5fb40412b8cfe
F20110331_AADCAZ eckstein_r_Page_18.tif
987206efe5ede88f0235f340447eb508
216f84d935a36c31dd06c660cddc87c637e5acaf
108884 F20110331_AADCFX eckstein_r_Page_24.jpg
ea663828bbb708eff138c4a6f3d6c46f
879ef129fd5f0c8b4667b314f09da182b85a9cf7
7206 F20110331_AADBWB eckstein_r_Page_01.pro
ed62823356e645af39531681af9a8c3b
db5e5ee30a9e41bd60789e7ffdca56a07e25dc17
529 F20110331_AADCDA eckstein_r_Page_47.txt
dbd7daa82f7968c485dd86d7b30a6ec6
52ba89787cd0521e3c6d00e0d96c3dafa8206a9a
36856 F20110331_AADCFY eckstein_r_Page_24.QC.jpg
a93280cf9990e3d6e09365751c5c0ad0
4b4804cd486f27de73425c6d2bbca2abf5109349
F20110331_AADBWC eckstein_r_Page_58thm.jpg
e96618bcd55ee2de27e38b55b690eb4e
9454026df6d4f50a78d0c15b47fae6f784b479b5
24690 F20110331_AADCFZ eckstein_r_Page_25.QC.jpg
568565e8a79739d1cf5891ba3a06383c
fcd92c454edb54b02047625f6dcedd369e235545
13223 F20110331_AADBWD eckstein_r_Page_27.QC.jpg
6fd6ef17a4c6bb2a27c64585238aa03c
86e832bf7b96c6ff0901987cc5f579ea3c38e1e2
1067 F20110331_AADCDB eckstein_r_Page_50.txt
b29b50d56ce6a8c24117d6220382aa39
aafac9018487e6a84cf9c9c1271980c5145ed036
F20110331_AADBWE eckstein_r_Page_19.tif
08b5d5b53f8276fe5117b465b77ac4e4
ec3fb55eed0fdd6b737d4d20efa267940c417a8e
888 F20110331_AADCDC eckstein_r_Page_51.txt
4eae4ccc3b7f84191c6216f670e4bddb
f9b8a53c45bbe1ea4879c9c919b536cd2b006f53
44495 F20110331_AADBWF eckstein_r_Page_03.jp2
6a88a5616fcb480bbd41dfcac837a45a
6e75ad25ce0c6d59be5e1b36450d987cafeed93e
510478 F20110331_AADCIA eckstein_r_Page_36.jp2
dc1798505c4dfb638706739f8162eaa6
87c24116ca73489113e655897306c7e75b9ede4b
1187 F20110331_AADCDD eckstein_r_Page_53.txt
36694b24c26471903563937666d350a2
7e287de5b05280e6cd8070e4dce03b7d10861e7d
110273 F20110331_AADBWG eckstein_r_Page_15.jpg
c9bd1a1cad293ab56c690f1dc710fe6e
20e7c36eda32cc910e37349071f89f2b979952cc
572824 F20110331_AADCIB eckstein_r_Page_37.jp2
7ab78e62017780c50203e715d26b12c2
9ca8aa91e30c1c2e80a4a427f9f551a6127cb984
825 F20110331_AADCDE eckstein_r_Page_54.txt
6eaeb58bf65528df6ecf551bd4e76599
40d8e54da18d18f56ad7618568a7e3b0a74864b5
1011 F20110331_AADBWH eckstein_r_Page_58.txt
221d5f677fbc9e51a6d8b989c6c20cf8
7144af319398a9b90a3a9f0870fda30c46decd83
1051968 F20110331_AADCIC eckstein_r_Page_39.jp2
2b1843a6327136e38204b5f016a24d4f
06a28cac854eb66944c2dca984ad73fbd2918b4b
1769 F20110331_AADCDF eckstein_r_Page_03.pro
44f3feda9449f17d193f5b16a670397e
6821e14f258aeca756b6193e6e287cc8c8480c96
F20110331_AADBWI eckstein_r_Page_27.tif
af3f919ddc3562795b6f3a7bb6eab2e8
300a439690e0855bc3e4b5099739d80ec4d82db5
1051979 F20110331_AADCID eckstein_r_Page_41.jp2
ff43a86368b967ce1c220679f5252d61
49c1f2c7ce4f1f74e73685aae0738d8d07874a96
24306 F20110331_AADCDG eckstein_r_Page_04.pro
f71c49939e8f4e5adadb32a0fd6a0be6
a0acf7ccc39098f5ba443822058684acda333989
F20110331_AADBWJ eckstein_r_Page_44.jp2
8b4d38ec97aff3554a853a4a84bd0bf2
563b04bc03bd67c89865767c65cd1784eb088539
1051951 F20110331_AADCIE eckstein_r_Page_42.jp2
bb06dc1be3b3ef21c7f5cafdd5b23d86
e93d328f582244e9b1e113ba907ef9d9446e4583
96420 F20110331_AADCDH eckstein_r_Page_05.pro
397664163016fafe2398f7a1b1987eab
41ab846d52be68343a114bb94c4d011af90ac928
122 F20110331_AADBWK eckstein_r_Page_03.txt
1852f38ec489005a157baba32c8e294b
2679c161b9955cae656587c59db703e90c29d525
1051974 F20110331_AADCIF eckstein_r_Page_43.jp2
ce179833283601d76ccd5c0542f02726
7277928f89ae98398b36cb5d5e60a47ddb2bba07
64462 F20110331_AADCDI eckstein_r_Page_06.pro
f7228eb38dbaf767cff71dfac1b490f1
b1388c7a01d718c410480d8392c669b5b8a5c512
F20110331_AADBWL eckstein_r_Page_25.tif
30b7591d7827b94f43127a2e5562bdfc
513d14c9275547199938107d3a65f2fd9e0964ff
1051980 F20110331_AADCIG eckstein_r_Page_45.jp2
d6528aa7d19a7271f8bec59bd92901ad
5b641f4944f2976b0549516d9adf07a1e1384d17
14054 F20110331_AADCDJ eckstein_r_Page_07.pro
6f5938f7fba34694242d809956769441
7b8871416c3e52c6b61c28c093df13564ac710d9
711822 F20110331_AADBWM eckstein_r_Page_55.jp2
5c311678627448adc100741512d3abce
5823e2bc08f0523c56ec67701d47cd849d3126be
1051971 F20110331_AADCIH eckstein_r_Page_46.jp2
6d6c6fd1dba00956e82f6b3d35c04867
40ecab485df6e2c58cb0d93018cbd44bc7cbc680
5982 F20110331_AADBWN eckstein_r_Page_03.jpg
c5cb490b7e7d07aa181534057ed6ed72
e71e074b6c80ea2d3f69b8a7d5dee0218368f31d
1051937 F20110331_AADCII eckstein_r_Page_50.jp2
fc80bdc44589553ea72a82b9473440bf
2a66fad33c3baa9911d21e35f040d198acc42f0a
35512 F20110331_AADCDK eckstein_r_Page_08.pro
2fc3ec88ceee349585c37e1e3688e886
802a160bad18d056abd0f20fbe15b4d2c400a118
474 F20110331_AADBWO eckstein_r_Page_28.txt
6d17e6474a79eb09a067e78a4f288ce9
d9e94a80e7db63d488b1da17ce4c9db15ee3b985
1051922 F20110331_AADCIJ eckstein_r_Page_53.jp2
bbe86f5b3b13bbc832f23cb8c77f03df
a5526384896751a6fac1697735bf44c909373ecf
28652 F20110331_AADCDL eckstein_r_Page_09.pro
7cddb25d63865e55e042ab9e8b233330
738f7e04353b2dd1e2c99c24ac57b417b5836035
130340 F20110331_AADBWP eckstein_r_Page_56.jpg
e964e855b24f2cddafd08e049c287175
0fec71ff271b3e5adfb4cfc291ac7329508ec34b
1051976 F20110331_AADCIK eckstein_r_Page_56.jp2
aecc18f774d04c6945ffae256e1dc71a
94478615369adeb75d774f1b069d9b04cbc66819
51203 F20110331_AADCDM eckstein_r_Page_10.pro
5e6e986f38feaff4bb1805d4f3c160b1
21dd977fc0f9dcd2c63d82cf1a8b29ad6151c8c5
F20110331_AADBWQ eckstein_r_Page_48.jp2
ee02a6d5328e9121a39eb1c234e25fb7
9192b8102c5c916224e66932826d4e76463c5cd5
499994 F20110331_AADCIL eckstein_r_Page_57.jp2
eaee82fe4de15738892ba0489ed29200
a17c945a0726565f2a4c86b87cd6ebe67a324668
54610 F20110331_AADCDN eckstein_r_Page_11.pro
7f18ee8185fd247da0c68ff829a45fa3
da2fa62b85fd1300ab553d10c0143398839f8828
103629 F20110331_AADBWR eckstein_r_Page_10.jpg
ae85230e1b5cd87c960927b5c284136a
11d8ba45d41e3fb236a2c59a7562c93bc7ab4f23
572349 F20110331_AADCIM eckstein_r_Page_58.jp2
fe8c32c1ad301357004fd30f74515705
651b9444763e84b73d2238ef7c3bb01a34cf499f
54179 F20110331_AADCDO eckstein_r_Page_13.pro
585df7d0806b9f01b7604e1c69439cb0
c3961f597a99d20176de97de7a4099a05f1454cd
F20110331_AADBWS eckstein_r_Page_30.tif
db88d50ad12adcade7ea23163c75b82f
1189481de751cf59a3eca5dd870d6b4f3db9e70c
1881 F20110331_AADCIN eckstein_r_Page_01thm.jpg
5a73e5f967e9e9ae5ce61d05d32c6cb5
ed249f306cdce36727a1eabc5dff811a5fffb850
48263 F20110331_AADCDP eckstein_r_Page_14.pro
4a738b4760736b1dc6d33400eb465d89
e685455683ad7874247768f28623857f0e62678e
7129 F20110331_AADBWT eckstein_r_Page_01.QC.jpg
1695ac75890f7ebad60583b23bea93c6
95edba11acfc7c36cb8e5b7abe16f84b4a3abb5c
681 F20110331_AADCIO eckstein_r_Page_03thm.jpg
c15c3e751abffade73c148e67436aad6
7d87b51e6e0cb10d40dc732f6d1d76e3017796c4
53752 F20110331_AADCDQ eckstein_r_Page_15.pro
11d4bab44a08249a3685faf464e83562
f7dff464460472076531754bcbe9d77dd8c4a18e
911 F20110331_AADBWU eckstein_r_Page_36.txt
2e72d634bc8a07b7cef2d87072fad1be
e1cae24cb51309275f024344bf6d89caca1a4c06
4644 F20110331_AADCDR eckstein_r_Page_16.pro
1e37dcc92507d5b90ca089d4c77619e9
fa38b5d3f365a9d87d816049eaee9a17f3adb777
2433 F20110331_AADBWV eckstein_r_Page_47thm.jpg
36404d85f59d3f148b8aeef5394c64c5
674100c949de669cc1387515476b2b316893773e
5547 F20110331_AADCIP eckstein_r_Page_05thm.jpg
5bff72013cd7c862092db0fc2121c03d
5b5c0aeda0a7e5e9981679db0c90ec2db7db7b08
48304 F20110331_AADCDS eckstein_r_Page_17.pro
1e0d69a1cadb2666606f4bacc3e03ff5
a358858d7edfa66e775a4253ab00cd4871a77e64
4806 F20110331_AADCIQ eckstein_r_Page_06thm.jpg
d46ee79a3c802222e49df416edb00bcf
7e44d3966f4d6a7c8f83e9833c2ecd5d522847b5
50221 F20110331_AADCDT eckstein_r_Page_18.pro
3118ae55e77c314164cbeb68e802a28f
9f2372ad1dac584d898332f82c95ede917953052
32309 F20110331_AADBWW eckstein_r_Page_39.QC.jpg
cb652d52d0c1103ca67fede6c47bea17
b9723e1e924e012c66f735b4b68ce1a8ca7fb65a
4618 F20110331_AADCIR eckstein_r_Page_08thm.jpg
370020c1374ce1896e4375b78b019970
305f96b7b4501be7bb0338e57bbed5cdfe315357
55801 F20110331_AADCDU eckstein_r_Page_20.pro
3f12619c26a3fc1a6e433a96d4ee2e5b
4b55c68e6e10c366b6fa3b3d587fdfc40c4af4ed
8261 F20110331_AADBWX eckstein_r_Page_43thm.jpg
d5a6a2533d2658361d7073495d1e9574
c4f9458f676cf892918f2d4b7e6cf7de529cb226
5165 F20110331_AADCIS eckstein_r_Page_09thm.jpg
9106f7c21e11ce41d15e925a56e32999
f49d258cf8da771cb020af848cdd8990dc99c2b6
55107 F20110331_AADCDV eckstein_r_Page_22.pro
532f7e57871c1e34328ab4031b5f3bfe
12c93ce7cfbd79739233883a76b5298f59abacc3
1051986 F20110331_AADBWY eckstein_r_Page_24.jp2
8b17e131d791320ced0e3c463cbfe1e6
214ec8db23355511438c267273f42d9e0f3e69c9
8303 F20110331_AADCIT eckstein_r_Page_10thm.jpg
2be813cfb9e04b1e1c2af0d5425eb96a
4fe0170b5d54eef0c9823d295386238fd98c5daf
49798 F20110331_AADCDW eckstein_r_Page_23.pro
c5da37a75610ffdbfae27d6d170d61e4
db0cc0eeb11974e4b3683120f38c2a83031543fb
32938 F20110331_AADBWZ eckstein_r_Page_10.QC.jpg
ebf819f2c998c6dec4138adb83852cb8
7a84269f7421091f58f5deb5043a1da67af169ac
8632 F20110331_AADCIU eckstein_r_Page_11thm.jpg
7e1cb30f9fd0fb270cf9a2d6909e9613
1b46dc5fe5003c368da9178b6e0b5cd8771838fd
36722 F20110331_AADCDX eckstein_r_Page_25.pro
75e443f639aa413146afeaf8716415c0
e58470b6a2b82abff2367b1c41f0c7c7271a07c3
7943 F20110331_AADCIV eckstein_r_Page_14thm.jpg
4d4ed017c381dc8650aaa9df3993000b
6b5deef6103e4bca99a9f2f300c254519d5e1e8b
1976 F20110331_AADBZA eckstein_r_Page_43.txt
4ebe69b1358249d4c1bfc7f85826c348
8f33170b8785b51077208129a81366fd627e3c8b
F20110331_AADCBA eckstein_r_Page_20.tif
59bcbfec85bd1730b5bf8512543ac5b4
1d81d0956f11d50f0eaf16c101f29ae2c59941b1
12808 F20110331_AADCDY eckstein_r_Page_26.pro
890d0052a06159081b9ae01277393dd6
0974cb509069fd0600c3bc04b710dfc08d55be3e
8614 F20110331_AADCIW eckstein_r_Page_15thm.jpg
9aea2c74cdc033263295b5d255784dc7
aa520defc837fba39f54eb7f9f2c2f42dbbcff71
F20110331_AADCBB eckstein_r_Page_23.tif
77abcf7c782b65ff866f983d15906858
16428862eb771302359f7841e6c03035e7e6765b
10563 F20110331_AADCDZ eckstein_r_Page_28.pro
e5ae6f379e278c5f2f6522f9bd446d80
1aac6ff895f1d91ca05f6ac9ea1583a7238089c8
297 F20110331_AADBUD eckstein_r_Page_27.txt
b9ef77fa73591845065d01095c4dc126
d903f8b009152177b245f8603aaf114d182b561b
6902 F20110331_AADCIX eckstein_r_Page_16thm.jpg
9d068a0d0e9628d064b7fb379925410a
34aaa72211dc6d52a2fd61949bc322d41e3ed3b4
F20110331_AADBZB eckstein_r_Page_03.tif
e723ba2755f235525cf137323cbb07db
2bebf329f8219d97bb278ffd6e01b7eee20b55c7
F20110331_AADCBC eckstein_r_Page_28.tif
41fbac1655d560498ae0702aade29ae3
25921a6551b94f0e1c30383b35e999811552334e
F20110331_AADBUE eckstein_r_Page_08.tif
a6c64b21cf898a92ac19d9d2dbe3843b
dad7ee6ac6e2fb97d2799ba01b62ef06f0c17209
8758 F20110331_AADCIY eckstein_r_Page_18thm.jpg
a5d8f5b84a59dd766cf7dd69df753aa7
b9ae6c27581000ff95ba6b93987fc811013605de
7165 F20110331_AADBZC eckstein_r_Page_50thm.jpg
d95725589a4b41481fa08b844558c371
e636323547a66e40eb264d8f299b53b6b34fb426
F20110331_AADCBD eckstein_r_Page_29.tif
39b30d068217f50f1f0b65810c44e08e
c7f6e314dc7a30055c04cddf3035b09de13fe79b
4148 F20110331_AADBUF eckstein_r_Page_36thm.jpg
844bd8afd21accdf1a5bcbf68449c198
1e29232e71487229c192f98cb880f3e0994c01d0
23029 F20110331_AADCGA eckstein_r_Page_26.jpg
6266ff6b478032c273d5f9e8db911a80
29c7188d384d061bcefdc52e974063ffda5ec139
8546 F20110331_AADCIZ eckstein_r_Page_19thm.jpg
8f187cf62302bc22fbd0c7ea09fbd9a6
1fdd4913633fc820feab920dca1242053950b85d
F20110331_AADBZD eckstein_r_Page_22.tif
7f1f06d6d004cd4bfcfefca357c61c1f
23b43d3c55d0d0e9516c3920f974115d71873f7b
F20110331_AADCBE eckstein_r_Page_31.tif
edeacc06350c2ea1ebb5e0199314e1c9
b13c52d11793e1adc5336d33fc24a609d1767e51
3606 F20110331_AADBUG eckstein_r_Page_31.pro
1cbcb4433ac0419085603f595816634e
8c5dc7752a87ceee9f144bac5ee614a12e76e8ef
41237 F20110331_AADCGB eckstein_r_Page_27.jpg
64f7bb030aa0dff158bc825cd7f02a14
ff8afaf211abaf75069dd11846d62de195f80377
4473 F20110331_AADBZE eckstein_r_Page_37thm.jpg
35f7fc352fc6445f2fb1f9bd887d54eb
0d4246ce62357da0bbced5889487e110c1220ac4
F20110331_AADCBF eckstein_r_Page_32.tif
c4d63343988327c6f1c6670332b88ab0
ac8487d2c394e4324945022798578f7135c4604f
505785 F20110331_AADBUH eckstein_r_Page_38.jp2
3b444c5cb0f4ef13740585165f0af9e0
cba1491e6015f8abc1f2b07d590ec4f26b553ded
21375 F20110331_AADCGC eckstein_r_Page_28.QC.jpg
c3fd9004add18eaaa4b8fe65f13edf84
7c6725c6978520395aa42b7d4669efd5a02a9708
48863 F20110331_AADBZF eckstein_r_Page_57.jpg
1089c94fd4beb9e99bda085b3cdf6c73
2abf79a52425d413c2c615a6cccc6472439057aa
F20110331_AADCBG eckstein_r_Page_36.tif
db4abb7188bff859fd475681c7a411b5
8ab85467fadf696087ba3dcc281cabb8f3c3f748
110640 F20110331_AADBUI eckstein_r_Page_34.jpg
e17e4f513d2ce7d1f3cb051dfc525838
5b4655e5e891603137c6b10ee6f09cc465b50323
22170 F20110331_AADCGD eckstein_r_Page_29.QC.jpg
a8c445a9c7fb6778e8499f475743a961
bce8c155b8ceba9d78a2664c2a46eaae4219e3d9
55050 F20110331_AADBZG eckstein_r_Page_12.pro
9861171e1c9fdf6ea7b6c457eebbd338
135f99933692c3454a6032c892bd62373c7283ad
F20110331_AADCBH eckstein_r_Page_38.tif
2e9555ee787a1465e9069ec82ac4fcb5
6c97b1662cd4acf03bc2481512905337fc529385
68051 F20110331_AADBUJ eckstein_r_Page_51.jpg
cb35772a315dd3b9d46d45ccb198cc7c
b33b0554aeca40b015f22ba6fd0f181a9260fe2b
54130 F20110331_AADCGE eckstein_r_Page_30.jpg
c0041bb1299dd8807feea4ac488a49e5
79eb4854127b62c19b9796f8c5481becf1b904b4
8393 F20110331_AADBZH eckstein_r_Page_17thm.jpg
bc5561a86dc3e6ca74eacf15e434663a
59ed4ce0f301aa7e6b364a07ae6d6b2e1df9e4ba
42940 F20110331_AADBUK eckstein_r_Page_31.jpg
529edf6bb640bb133376f4651ea893c6
5cb7d27e04655d68caba7c20df9ac1204c75c574
16792 F20110331_AADCGF eckstein_r_Page_30.QC.jpg
57c6c6d4d0d16f3a33098fd52ad1d092
35566c3d96dabd913ddf2b4a88c2e1ba1536461c
97021 F20110331_AADBZI eckstein_r_Page_43.jpg
1e46e37639e3d54e40eee6e236876412
a3811a35817eb15925a3b2696ac629985c5265db
F20110331_AADCBI eckstein_r_Page_39.tif
d7f904c51b251d65fc93feccc77f3bc5
9034830a4f472f500c8c3a8f0328908f630f03eb
1952 F20110331_AADBUL eckstein_r_Page_32.txt
60f20175336cca1069e65b909631480e
9ebce82851080ad5d0e77f2e3f2e3c88765987b0
12586 F20110331_AADCGG eckstein_r_Page_31.QC.jpg
6769992879d4720a2088a21246883ce5
396fe90049c3b04e04acc75bce4d77d3ab1e6330
F20110331_AADBZJ eckstein_r_Page_33.jp2
720ba0fdfc01e7ccde77cf02253e50eb
05c3ab2df8a21fc4f1c915414e0f819f3a032625
F20110331_AADCBJ eckstein_r_Page_40.tif
4246f88e2c520f71756d4f9579d34780
c57d92f11ebb5c22604aec666b5dcee10e0e98af
831056 F20110331_AADBUM eckstein_r_Page_52.jp2
502021e8195890ef8f873e0d1620d6e9
7ba68b54a1f7175bc8721aec85578f5f24894790
32963 F20110331_AADCGH eckstein_r_Page_32.QC.jpg
0d344f29bd5f23610b6b1de97b8364b3
7c25541dacbed26453f2118d283af7fda6eba167
52558 F20110331_AADBZK eckstein_r_Page_04.jpg
452ea819ee28a868035d0c8b9bf9e6b4
1a34b7288800124e590c4462b6299e58f5ef8f63
F20110331_AADCBK eckstein_r_Page_41.tif
8cc04cbd631de59e9cbf832a1904337f
016e7350cfabfeab0eeba4a2aad4563ecc93de6e
1004 F20110331_AADBUN eckstein_r_Page_04.txt
3d7770dc2c480d654ba2aa62184719dd
19f10c12f544d215f0ba0babb74cd2194316454f
33526 F20110331_AADCGI eckstein_r_Page_33.QC.jpg
b2f03a350550eff759318a8cf949590b
32a99df7c5776c07cc18d1d56cdbc67a1ff6a3c8
F20110331_AADBZL eckstein_r_Page_21.tif
849e1b1f140a40cb8dcec879ba932dff
c63f5df57a776eab3290d8192c132eed21501b8e
F20110331_AADCBL eckstein_r_Page_42.tif
b60e45059555139e12d4a32a7d60ea4b
90922dbf1c7d94bbbc5a18646a241adaa2a57b66
54828 F20110331_AADBUO eckstein_r_Page_24.pro
11de4c79a3e305383a60827d2c95b7ed
c28a57d080508e087489d37664bf1dfc9ed9c983
49362 F20110331_AADCGJ eckstein_r_Page_36.jpg
70c4ec987d24c7827d4d6af8dbba7785
f82a7dd3457bcb547c104991ba33d783ed5b956f
8998 F20110331_AADBZM eckstein_r_Page_13thm.jpg
1932c85e72cf764d54c471b017e040ed
8509213495409a87dfc5e0f35516a91c1603e1b0
F20110331_AADCBM eckstein_r_Page_43.tif
ff1bcfe259c4d580228534bfd0681e74
5863269965dca39a57b34367aa6fe58335f998f7
13201 F20110331_AADBUP eckstein_r_Page_51.pro
a23bee53c4ce3e3f6c2df076debad056
4c17869220c94a163c5000c7a4c669a47cd50b53
54314 F20110331_AADCGK eckstein_r_Page_37.jpg
e6e1b363d8e7dbeb3e82fc72fe8d2c25
2075aa6ffeb070a25205adeadda719d179e8356e
8876 F20110331_AADBZN eckstein_r_Page_12thm.jpg
e50aaf6ed3816fc5424f4b92ad382ded
30a00b8beca352e3f0ec4bb5aa910e99342875df
F20110331_AADCBN eckstein_r_Page_44.tif
8d561f1304f128f27efded2a1776e4df
de88dab6fc09f8a34ea405126bdfc70ec6d879d0
8960 F20110331_AADBUQ eckstein_r_Page_46thm.jpg
babf2fd2b74b41dd7a15f44cf6af8ab4
2864fe525b503933cbd9b4761b7d6b2d691fa38e
17387 F20110331_AADCGL eckstein_r_Page_37.QC.jpg
e11add10086af75f25c1768e302cea78
a1446d117da5c5360faaa228ad3758be057ecf2a
2167 F20110331_AADBZO eckstein_r_Page_34.txt
ac4f2c180f772334391a45915341964c
57aeec131c47d1d753ea20f3d177f18b34ea6872
F20110331_AADCBO eckstein_r_Page_46.tif
b4eff939d7575fb1664448103e3494fb
df4a4045e80f3d29151fc8103860c4ff6bf78c48
24512 F20110331_AADBUR eckstein_r_Page_58.pro
6c60b12d824b917850699851a22e42a9
c678cd96e2b8ab1aea49a8dbf283e198368506c1
47339 F20110331_AADCGM eckstein_r_Page_38.jpg
811f218cae316b0272f592ff2352d68d
ad51cc2748739aadcadb36ff060686c582b2c9cb
48675 F20110331_AADBZP eckstein_r_Page_55.jpg
97c7e15114b5dff97d66c189b134f812
ce67f9f2b78df8d568c73eb00d1665d61507af93
F20110331_AADCBP eckstein_r_Page_47.tif
7133367eda9809a04cec07385dbfd8ca
e8c7f23012d9760988c3986eb6316122c302572c
F20110331_AADBUS eckstein_r_Page_45.tif
8a8b25c35fe8e452389082c511941ec2
3ea775c270f6d9c37c16df0714e5032792cf3130
7901 F20110331_AADBZQ eckstein_r_Page_32thm.jpg
019d339e4d576bdbb788446fb92e1083
9c6728d47d8f6aded6d33b7095d7a4c8e19b530b
F20110331_AADCBQ eckstein_r_Page_48.tif
dff3c0071362de9214178f27ad08878c
81dac5001d4d2040dbffa7fb3afdb7dd89621669
36608 F20110331_AADBUT eckstein_r_Page_56.QC.jpg
dbac1d0dd294f5e6b3ea35316a5e6bd1
08918d0a73e1b5a563622d20916d4e7006056919
32611 F20110331_AADCGN eckstein_r_Page_40.QC.jpg
7f9db3ee9c40d6690a50172170177305
5e62d82d34800484b63fafc450ea159ee7d10d1c
9102 F20110331_AADBZR eckstein_r_Page_20thm.jpg
dae896f45ba7424fd156720cd33ee8ae
63d2ee2a3d4d795345f8a2504511856e2085cb72
F20110331_AADCBR eckstein_r_Page_49.tif
0900649a6e663d75568d733377ac08ae
1511641c0fdc8e3e5ceb3e02cb6a721f57bf90e7
81515 F20110331_AADBUU eckstein_r_Page_48.jpg
8fae848305ad4335c6f676ccf53143fc
bb69e8e6bd6fbe2c4dd3aeb9894a8767d3f90522
32704 F20110331_AADCGO eckstein_r_Page_41.QC.jpg
bfdfee3bdf5973ef7725aed41a2554d4
da21580c4820d3f3d489ae293bccbd5faea57fd8
F20110331_AADCBS eckstein_r_Page_51.tif
418d052a1aa2bc3c8b7ea898d59694f7
ba981e22470a62a6f9c466582c35ce54176cf12d
26614 F20110331_AADBUV eckstein_r_Page_48.QC.jpg
194aff592c3cd79bf5d62c6a9114b90f
d9dfc934ace09919088a02e52a220e12d9f0370f
102411 F20110331_AADCGP eckstein_r_Page_42.jpg
1c798789bdbaa8970bfc9279c8eb1cfe
fc2a5cbce0431911d0c73fcede9cd032ee2e22f5
F20110331_AADBZS eckstein_r_Page_06.tif
e6d9daddd47067f8007f3813b8fb0e88
6939bd1e7201eb1d3096bdf68565ca76fc412c1d
F20110331_AADCBT eckstein_r_Page_52.tif
f1a555460970225b80495cb0dea93f1d
85deab1ce5aaa074dad6bf5db2c50a29424400f2
61090 F20110331_AADBUW eckstein_r_Page_49.jpg
e1c528fc0afcf32ee3a762db2788df4f
3957ae83becea61248eb3af1ba802e3889f68b93
33922 F20110331_AADCGQ eckstein_r_Page_42.QC.jpg
3c2b94f531ce004e9c813ccf388604c4
d6fcb6ea7114321fb81d462e3dc81f0b9f78188a
F20110331_AADBZT eckstein_r_Page_15.tif
21af990d04a8abb3d6b273b7f9b1ec5b
f794215c58d0baa27b3fbb393d2872b93e507726
F20110331_AADCBU eckstein_r_Page_53.tif
53a4e1982423068af24b4d721bcaf6e6
7b2c8176fee130189e081e17acf335a4410341be
F20110331_AADBUX eckstein_r_Page_50.tif
f3753015a3ce91fff379d80ef0fa93d2
ee1a84ae1726dd859ac78756b0aec9e9a1603d74
35986 F20110331_AADCGR eckstein_r_Page_44.QC.jpg
53ac0a3668ee8a26ebd91813d7a5a77e
38807b295f6e5472be847f340c86beaabbc8b1ba
56330 F20110331_AADBZU eckstein_r_Page_52.jpg
0010be6975a96623d906374864bce4fb
7718b6a1bfc192bd3c71a9793a67ed3da3908146
F20110331_AADCBV eckstein_r_Page_55.tif
50328d890b40173e654382a634b6480f
38e484e81d27e8043c07f9cfc21fc6c32f87af7e
2117 F20110331_AADBUY eckstein_r_Page_45.txt
bb77ca905abc71a2129506792b7e7ecd
fecc6142a6d4a82f26a935bce6dbc7297d941e78
34889 F20110331_AADCGS eckstein_r_Page_45.QC.jpg
5d1721e8a8eeb4d30c8debb3ed905403
106bf4a58a931487e8c622e64d00d9e21135a559
106597 F20110331_AADBZV eckstein_r_Page_44.jpg
3b85d9ec4ef08ebfc02c9de93d3cd0e1
8f03b385ed605f07aed329f5aac3e2bf2fc3339b
F20110331_AADCBW eckstein_r_Page_56.tif
3fa2c28d9fe3e112f8a50bb9dce50baf
9b56112d31380a9efd2daa36d650fe56102a68e9
22590 F20110331_AADBUZ eckstein_r_Page_57.pro
ae69cecae97813fc5b06b2a45f838652
caa6994227b58b5b9a8f2a2c1379d3f05fc1e617
108552 F20110331_AADCGT eckstein_r_Page_46.jpg
1a8b48bedf0d35b741234edb8aba2583
9748ee0d8153e686592dfe56943226e63b9136e0
23945 F20110331_AADBZW eckstein_r_Page_51.QC.jpg
47efb087deb2fa25abe89df73040746e
7bf5041fa5cc145f453fcd37bd6280b39e6f5321
F20110331_AADCBX eckstein_r_Page_57.tif
96811656fe869eb37f424c478c8096cc
c47b061bdf8035cb6129586d42caa31ac6b7fcec
35154 F20110331_AADCGU eckstein_r_Page_46.QC.jpg
f7373118e2fd7fb14216b586f500558c
b545468fb2a4be5754001649821216435d893cf0
887 F20110331_AADBZX eckstein_r_Page_02.pro
4383f52f81e7454dfa9b8f382257f9c8
9931a9a259112a28ed09718316962f39d3da2337
F20110331_AADCBY eckstein_r_Page_58.tif
8fee082dac7c038fdbc0b3def4ff1c79
162b2dd4b3d044cc6f9ad936d366defbdc30ae90
10021 F20110331_AADCGV eckstein_r_Page_47.QC.jpg
422b0d354b10dc79e95e591869c96290
00f70511d4d89fdb06843f973d5c68e4e91a17ce
2084 F20110331_AADBZY eckstein_r_Page_07thm.jpg
2e3900f8df852a9a8d98e2059dc282a5
1a8ae1a79c13c95d603dcb44795c84592f416466
20211 F20110331_AADCGW eckstein_r_Page_49.QC.jpg
be4add5901e2485778ae899da1d7f97d
38d456a542751062bab851e2ca5d011694d4bb23
32909 F20110331_AADBXA eckstein_r_Page_17.QC.jpg
cc745fc54978cd3963dae23d649548f8
64ded943d334f80e80dce1d88877f905a1aaa785
606 F20110331_AADBZZ eckstein_r_Page_26.txt
36493916ee216f48f4389d49c4bb8358
c2de6078e26c9e16d235999610fb27ea08f75382
415 F20110331_AADCBZ eckstein_r_Page_01.txt
246787ac633090a57f4a3cb9a80bc851
b201ba814e87fa8acac5ca55c9113cf4c60c3632
69403 F20110331_AADCGX eckstein_r_Page_50.jpg
e9239dbb5e626c164922be2bcfd69723
06f8e752c83a89d43270a0ff8eaeabd506ead6f0
53733 F20110331_AADBXB eckstein_r_Page_35.pro
cac43dcf8dde3df8d5c86db8cc8674b9
fd3b27972b2c43b9914942f5886aab0ac25366e7
4592 F20110331_AADCEA eckstein_r_Page_29.pro
c50f4b2597b93d2723907b6d700b9b9e
bc7bdbef46ac9a36c97bfd2036cb55d16ca459e5
24328 F20110331_AADCGY eckstein_r_Page_50.QC.jpg
c216aec0e6b5e21b2f070ec61cd5e300
de9f47b1d0426a212328f85989cbce3a8f6783f6
32364 F20110331_AADBXC eckstein_r_Page_43.QC.jpg
892a1a060d9c6763249ea09b3c86a210
a5dd7ad7bf70e8bc988ad19766362c75dbc18ad4
45881 F20110331_AADCEB eckstein_r_Page_32.pro
f594f779d3da91c4358905bd47a24748
bf14f35a1aaeca91b96f81d1558e59825772a8a2
19885 F20110331_AADCGZ eckstein_r_Page_52.QC.jpg
3141e10ff9d12fd722da94988cb46d22
085cff80b5262050b0aec083d4ae2a94c9074c23
213836 F20110331_AADBXD eckstein_r_Page_01.jp2
01bc38d502e978f754ba0d5d8a9c85bf
4e14aff2062a7b9fe32d86220f9f92e01aeabc0e
22807 F20110331_AADCEC eckstein_r_Page_36.pro
9fec4aa5053cea66fdae579d7036246f
46a03d957539dac8ae122f93506419b654143b47
848673 F20110331_AADBXE eckstein_r_Page_28.jp2
5c8f48b9a327a088fcaa95a3b710aa12
86f1c0c79fe567a262c2d117f1fc988f63fa2c0d
32555 F20110331_AADCED eckstein_r_Page_37.pro
4bf34385f46b5b0dc9219ed5dae9fd28
c086a70e44399f1f11471fa4e6a5844868177181
F20110331_AADBXF eckstein_r_Page_11.tif
06cce22628b5534d0aa5619f60e17e72
5735050c70ad85748cf6148aef02eb58de28740d
8176 F20110331_AADCJA eckstein_r_Page_21thm.jpg
aac3c12bb9ebb641b6cd7b951037ee61
154f7013b8e1705393e7ba7d01a1c253e4131054
31781 F20110331_AADCEE eckstein_r_Page_38.pro
c3614638ff0221efd7acb7d346aae741
d22b3ef2e70742ed6d61eb051960125bc1aeb6c7
36404 F20110331_AADBXG eckstein_r_Page_12.QC.jpg
00083da2dd67221f12bad7284847dc14
b758f9c29d41c83183cd85defdec36385741a587
8696 F20110331_AADCJB eckstein_r_Page_22thm.jpg
c8cdd31065e35cc301c0944bac99edb9
557eee33c45c1fecac7ebff2c3aa330ac1c15fb3
50002 F20110331_AADCEF eckstein_r_Page_39.pro
97268534204b49e5de800bba4ac8959e
12ac14750e0df2c5e56073516a7445fac8797b96
898 F20110331_AADBXH eckstein_r_Page_52.txt
37336082a2f7c2cb8c424dbeac978c95
1c0d537b4a240121e9dd914eb116399bac365dcf
8465 F20110331_AADCJC eckstein_r_Page_23thm.jpg
d80c96d1eefb732bd397b7263487fe85
bd3dd91d6c39d07df332e44fd0a61d9cc09050a5
48063 F20110331_AADCEG eckstein_r_Page_40.pro
506f1c3d61b37edca1bf594f7ce641f4
58f34b9217a2538d324367699c23d8883cd48cd7
107481 F20110331_AADBXI eckstein_r_Page_11.jpg
9c1e964895d0b3c6679bcdbbf317d00b
fc851438564099b2f9712e115d0b96442029b98b
F20110331_AADCJD eckstein_r_Page_24thm.jpg
8d42f8c04be2d9df328e46f3fd9815b0
780632add8926823e2352b64cd3e5826fc2c981c







EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE TREE STABILIZATION SYSTEMS


By

RYAN J. ECKSTEIN


















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008

































2008 Ryan J. Eckstein

































To all those tree hugging dirt worshipers, and my parents









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I thank Dr. Gilman, for his wisdom and experience has proven to be

invaluable throughout the course of this experimental process. I would also like to give special

thanks Chris Harchick and the University of Florida Tree Unit Staff for their generous help and

support. To my committee members, Dr. Reinhardt Adams and Dr. Masters, I greatly appreciate

your perspective and opinions helping to keep me focused throughout this experience. The Great

Southern Tree Conference and the Tree Fund were instrumental in providing support for this

project and a debt of gratitude is owed to them as well. The manufacturers of the stabilization

systems included in this study also deserve special thanks for donating their systems to the

project for testing. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for helping me get

through this challenging, but enormously rewarding, experience.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IS T O F T A B L E S .................................................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

ABSTRAC T .........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................. ............................. 10

Literature R review .................................... .................. .......... .......... .............. 11
Physiological Im pacts .................. ............................. .... ... .... .............. .. 11
P product and M ethod R research ........................................................................... ......12
W ind L oad Stresses on T rees ........................................................................ ...................13
Sim u lasting W in d ................................................................................ 14
R rationale of P pulling T ests ....................................................................... .................. 14
R research Objectives ......................... ............. ............ ......... 15

2 M A TER IA L S A N D M ETH O D S ........................................ .............................................17

Tree Stabilization System s ............................................ .. .. .... ......... ......... 17
2 x 2 s .........................................................................1 7
Arborbrace ............. ...................... ........................17
B rooks Tree B race .............................................................................................. 18
Dowel s ........................................................................ 18
D u c k b ill ....................................................................................................1 8
Rebar & ArborTie ..............................................................19
Terra ToggleTM ................................. ............ ........ ................. 19
Tree StapleTM ......................................................................... ........ 20
T S ta k e s ...........................................................................................................................2 1
T re e S p e c im e n s ................................................................................................................. 2 1
D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................................. 2 1
P pulling E quipm ent ................................................................22
Experim mental D design .................................................................. 23
Experim ental Procedure.............................................. 23
P lantin g .................................... ............................................................2 3
Tree Stabilization System Installation........................................... 23
Irrig atio n ................................................................................2 4
P u llin g T e st ......................................................................................................................2 4
Statistical Rationale .................. .............................................. .............. 25










3 R E SU L T S A N D D ISCU SSIO N ...................................................................... ..................32

D ata A naly sis............................... ...............................32
M ode of Tree Stabilization System Failure...................................... ................. ........ 33

4 C O N C L U SIO N S ................. ....... ........ ............................ .. .. .... .. ........ ........39

Tree Stabilization System Design Improvement Suggestions .............................................39
2 x 2 s .................................................................................. 3 9
A rborbrace ........... ...... ..... ........ ...... ....................... ............... 40
Brooks Tree Brace ......... .......................... .. ............ .... ..... 40
D ow els ........... ......... ..... .......... ..... ...................... ............... 40
Duckbill ............................................................... 41
Rebar & ArborTie .................................... ..... .......... ....... ..... 41
T e rra T o g g le TM ............................................................................................................ 4 2
Tree StapleTM ............ ... ...... ...............................................................................42
T-Stakes ............... ......... ............................. 43
L im stations of the R research ....................................................................................... 43
F u tu re R research ...................... ........................................... ................ 4 4
Correlating Pulling Forces to W ind Speeds ........................................... ............... 44
Testing of Additional TSS and Different Tree Sizes and Species..............................45
Further Testing on Influence of Direction......................... ...............45
Final Recommendations ................... ...................................... 46

APPENDIX: TSS FORCE VS. ANGLE GRAPHS ............................................. ...............48

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... ...... ........... ................. ...........................................................56

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................... .....................58






















6









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Center of M ass Data ............... ................ ....................... ............ 26

3-1 A analysis of variance table ............................................................................ ............. 37

3-2 Force to failure for each tree stabilization system. ................................. .................37

3-3 Force to failure by direction for each tree stabilization system......................................38









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

1-1 "Wire-in-hose". Photograph of a wire-in-hose tree staking application............................16

2-1 Tree stabilization system illustrations................................................................... ....... 27

2-2 Diagram showing the two directions each TSS was pulled during the pulling tests........28

2-3 Load cell positioned in-line of pulling ........................................................... .... .......... 28

2-4 Photograph showing the inclinometer fixed on the root ball via the fabricated
m counting plate. ............................................................................29

2-5 Data acquisition system and laptop computer. ...................................... ............... 29

2-6 Winch and pulley fastened to the fabricated mounting plate ...........................................30

2-7 Diagram illustrating the location of the experimental plots, centered around the
co n create p illar............. ......... .. .. ......... .. .. .................................................. 3 0

2-8 Watering station made of PVC and low-profile sprinkler heads, shown here with the
A rborbrace stabilization system ............................................ ............................ 31









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE TREE STABILIZATION SYSTEMS

By

Ryan J. Eckstein

August 2008

Chair: Edward F. Gilman
Major: Horticultural Science

We conducted pull tests on newly planted 7 cm (2.7 in) caliper container grown Quercus

virginiana 'SDLN' PP#12015, Cathedral Oak to evaluate wind loading on nine commonly

used landscape tree stabilization systems. Maximum force required to rotate the root ball 200 was

used to compare systems. Terra ToggleTM, Brooks Tree Brace@, and 2x2s anchoring the root ball

withstood the largest forces. T-stakes, dowels, and Tree StapleTM performed no better than non-

staked controls. The three guying systems tested, Arborbrace, Duckbill, and rebar &

ArborTie were statistically similar and required more force to failure than controls but less than

the group that withstood the largest forces. Direction of pulling had no influence on force to

failure for any stabilization system tested.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Despite 30 years of research showing that tree stabilization systems (TSS) can adversely

affect tree development (Harris et al. 1976; Stokes et al. 1995; Mayhead and Jenkins, 1992), the

practice of post-installation tree staking1 continues to grow. Cost predominantly drives this

decision; it is more expensive for a worker to return to the site and stand the tree back up after it

has deflected than it is to install a TSS at the time of planting.

The TSS available on the market today are more sophisticated than the old "wire-in-garden

hose" technique (Fig. 1-1). The low cost and ease of installation of this stabilization method

made it the standard TSS for half a century, and likely is the reason TSS are collectively referred

to as tree "staking" systems despite whether or not stakes are actually involved. The popularity

of the "wire-in-hose" is evident by its preference even to this day. While still commonly used as

a reliable tree stabilizer by homeowners and municipalities alike, the "wire-in-hose" method has

been proven to hinder growth and development of the tree (Harris et al. 1976).

A major disadvantage of TSS is the potential risk of causing damage to the tree; therefore

post-installation inspection is necessary. To avoid trunk girdling, TSS inspection generally

occurs six to twelve months after installation. Aboveground TSS, such as guying systems that

wrap around the trunk, are especially vulnerable to girdling the trunk, which physically restricts

the flow of nutrient and water resources. Many of the aboveground TSS on the market attach to

the trunk with guylines that wrap around the trunk above the first major limb. When left

installed, the guylines act as a physical barrier to cambial growth. Trunk growth is then forced

around the barrier enclosing the guyline within the trunk, which seriously jeopardizes the

survival of the already stressed newly planted tree.









Literature Review


Physiological Impacts

Harris et al. (1976) showed that staking trees can hinder development of trunk taper which,

in extreme cases, can result in trees that are sometimes unable to stand upright without support.

The proper development of trunk taper involves periodic loading from natural wind force events

or feathering. Trunk feathering initiates reaction wood growth, which counteracts forces in

tension (produced by angiosperms) or compression (produced by conifers). Thus, mechanical

restriction of trunk movement prohibits feathering and ultimately hinders trunk taper

development by interfering with natural processes.

Leiser et al. (1972) showed experimentally that mechanical restriction of trunk movement

reduces trunk caliper and taper while increasing tree height. The upright position of the tree

eventually becomes dependent on the mechanical restriction of the trunk as a means of artificial

support. As a result of dependency, resources allocated to trunk caliper and taper growth (for

stability) decrease, and the source-sink relationship of the tree shifts. Growth in height then

increases, as a result of increased resource availability from the shifted source-sink relationship.

A similar response was produced by the use of tree shelters (Leiser et al. 1972). While tree

shelters can protect trees in the urban environment, their use can produce trees that are too tall

(Burger et al. 1996) with slender, untapered trunks that need support (Burger et al. 1991).

Mayhead and Jenkins (1992) also reported reduced trunk caliper and taper and increased tree

height from tree shelters and stabilization systems that limited trunk movement.

Stokes et al. (1995) found that the restriction of trunk movement also negatively impacts

root development. The root system of a tree is a belowground physiological structure that

uptakes water and nutrients from the soil. Tree roots also aid in supporting the tree upright by

anchoring it to the ground, providing stability. Artificial support of the tree reduces the









gravitational force load placed on the tree and increases the stability of the trunk. Providing

artificial support to the trunk changes the allocation of resources within a tree; the priority of the

root system, providing tree stability, is decreased and root growth is retarded in favor of other

structures.

Svihra et al. (1999) conducted a study to compare three aboveground TSSs to examine the

influence on trunk taper. The trunk taper of staked trees were found to be less than unstaked

counterparts, and increasing the rigidity of the staking system was also shown to exacerbate this

condition. The results provided by Svihra et al. (1999) are consistent with the results of earlier

experiments (Harris et al. 1976; Burger et al. 1991; Burger et al. 1996), further supporting the

argument against using a TSS unless necessary.

Product and Method Research

Prior research involving landscape TSSs has primarily concentrated on the resultant

physiological impacts, with little focus on comparing or determining the effectiveness of them.

Leiser and Kemper (1968) determined that landscape trees should be staked no higher than two-

thirds of the tree height, and that trees should ideally be staked no higher than necessary. To

determine the height on the tree to stake no higher than necessary, they recommend holding the

trunk in one hand at increasing heights moving up the trunk until a position is found where the

tree is able to support itself upright on its own. Attaching at this position on the trunk allows for

maximum trunk feathering while maintaining an upright orientation of the tree.

Smiley et al. (2003) showed that extraction forces of wooden guying anchors differed

among the three directions they were driven. They determined that wooden guying anchors were

the most effective when they were driven straight down into the soil. Anchors oriented in this

manner required the most amount of force for extraction from the soil. Anchors driven at an

angle either towards or away from the guyline were only able to withstand half the amount of









force required to extract the anchors driven straight down. The wooden guying anchors included

in the study would more appropriately be referred to as wooden guying stakes.

When installed, a guying stake remains slightly above-grade so that guylines can be attached.

Guying anchor refers to an anchor that is driven completely below-grade at installation. The

most popular guying systems available now follow a similar design concept. First, the anchor is

driven to a depth of about 45-60 cm (18-24 in) below ground level. Guying anchors are designed

with an orientation that produces the least amount of resistance during installation, minimally

disrupting the soil profile as well as making installation easier. Once driven, pulling the guyline

attached to the anchor causes a reorientation to a position that is designed so that the anchor

produces the maximum amount of resistance within the soil profile.

One of the most comprehensive series of TSS experiments conducted by Appleton (2004),

examined several above ground and below ground systems. Caliper change at two levels on the

trunk and qualitatively assessed trunk damage were observed. Considerable differences among

systems in trunk caliper at both levels for the staked trees were found. She also reported slight

trunk damage from the above ground staking after one year.

Wind Load Stresses on Trees

Wind-induced stresses on a tree result from complex dynamic pressure fields that shift as

the tree interacts with the wind. Forcing is difficult to accurately characterize, however several

theories have been proposed through the literature attempting to model these stresses. Static

loads placed on trees can be calculated with greater confidence than dynamic loads because they

are constant, unlike an ever-changing dynamic load. Niklas and Spatz (2000) suggest that wind-

load stresses in the crown depend on trunk taper and crown size and shape. This view is

supported by Peltola et al. (1993) who found that tree swaying is not directly correlated to wind

speed.









Simulating Wind

Several attempts have been made over the years attempting to simulate natural wind

loading of a tree (Gilman et al. 2006a & 2006b; Niklas and Spatz, 2000). Due to limited

availability and costs associated with machines capable of generating hurricane force winds,

other techniques are used to simulate wind loading. Pulling tests are a commonly accepted means

of simulating wind forces (Peltola et al. 2000). Conducting pulling tests reduces the complexity

of dynamic forces from wind loading to a static force, which is easier to measure, calculate, and

comprehend. Pulling tests are a practical, cost effective, and scientifically acceptable way to

simulate wind forces.

Rationale of Pulling Tests

Pulling tests are used as a means to simulate wind load forces on trees. The tests are

conducted by pulling on a cable or rope (pulling line), attached to the trunk of a tree, with a

pulling device. A measuring device positioned in-line of the pulling records the amount of force

that is exerted on the tree during the test. Pulling devices vary from experiment to experiment,

but pulling with a tractor or winch and pulley systems are the most common. The height from

ground level to where the pulling line attaches to the trunk also differs among experiments,

depending on the nature of the research, but typically the center of mass (COM) is used.

Forestry researchers first pioneered pulling tests on trees. Today pulling tests are generally

considered an acceptable means for testing the stability of trees. The advantage of pulling tests is

that it allows researchers to place a known controlled load on a tree to examine a particular

response of the tree. A disadvantage of pulling tests is that they use a static load to simulate

dynamic forces, potentially oversimplifying wind force loading.









Research Objectives

Motivation for this study was supported by the lack of available published research on

stabilization of landscape trees. Providing further incentive was a complete absence of previous

research comparing the response of TSSs when induced with a controlled load. With an ever-

increasing number of landscape TSSs becoming available on the market, it was clear that an

evaluation of the most commonly used systems was necessary. The largest natural force a tree in

the landscape will encounter comes from wind loading of the crown, and it was therefore

determined that an evaluation of landscape TSSs was to be conducted using response to wind

loading. Evaluation of stabilization system response to wind loading allowed strength of the

systems to be quantified for comparison, which had never been done before in the published

literature. With minimal direction from previous research, a multidisciplinary approach was

taken to conduct a study involving mechanical and horticultural factors. The goal of this

experiment was to evaluate how nine commonly used TSSs react to wind loading. This was

accomplished by subjecting the stabilization systems to pulling tests.

The benefit to installing a TSS is the increased stability, and to a lesser extent as theft

prevention. The drawbacks of TSS are the negative physiological impacts. Decision to install a

TSS occurs when the benefits are determined to outweigh the drawbacks. However, the

physiological impacts differ between aboveground TSS and root ball anchoring TSS.

Aboveground TSS limit feathering by restricting trunk movement while root ball anchoring TSS

allow more natural movement. Considering root ball anchoring TSS allow more feathering than

aboveground TSS, they can be incorporated into a standard protocol for tree plantings without

concern for hampering tree growth and development. The results of pulling tests help determine

which root ball anchoring TSS can withstand the largest forces and how they compare to

aboveground TSS.


































1-1. "Wire-in-hose". Photograph of a wire-in-hose tree staking application. Notice that the wire
girdled the tree despite being shielded with a section of garden hose.









CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tree Stabilization Systems

Nine stabilization systems were evaluated, four that anchored the root ball and five that

stabilized the trunk, plus a control with no stabilization (Fig. 2-1). Each system presented two

angles of orientation, so each was pulled from both directions (Fig. 2-2).

2x2s

The 2x2s stabilization system is a root ball anchoring method that is "homemade",

requiring the use of a saw to section the wood into appropriate lengths (Fig. 2-1A). Two

untreated pine 2x2 wood braces [3.8 cm x 3.8 cm (1.5 in x 1.5 in)] were placed parallel to each

other on top of the root ball 7.6 cm (3 in) away from the trunk. Horizontal braces were cut 7.6

cm (3 in) longer than the root ball diameter [45.7 cm (18 in)]. Four 1.2 m (4 ft) long vertical 2x2s

were cut to a point and driven into the backfilled soil against the side of the root ball with

approximately 7.6 cm (3 in) remaining above ground surface. The horizontal 2x2s were secured

flush to vertical 2x2s with one 7.6 cm (3 in) #8 Phillips head screw. Two 0.24 cm (0.1 in) pilot

holes were drilled through both braces to prevent wood from splitting. The braces were oriented

so that screws were driven parallel to the wood rays where practical.

Arborbrace

The Arborbrace (ATG-R Arborbrace Tree Guying Kit with hardened Nylon Anchors,

Arborbrace, Miami, FL) TSS is an aboveground guying system (Fig. 2-1B). Three polypropylene

guylines wrapped around the trunk on top of the first major limb were secured with cam-lock

quick tensioning metal buckles. The hardened nylon anchors [7.6 cm (3 in) long] were driven

into the ground according to the manufacturers specifications at an angle inline with the guyline

to a depth of 61 cm (24 in). The distance from ground surface to the tie-in point on the trunk was









equal to the distance from the trunk to the point where the anchors penetrated the soil. This

ensured that the anchors were at a 450 angle relative to the trunk. The anchors were equidistant

from each other at angles of 1200 apart.

Brooks Tree Brace

Brooks Tree Brace (Model BTB-2SA, Brooks Tree Brace, Lake Worth, FL) is an

aboveground TSS, consisting of three telescoping metal braces to secure the trunk (Fig. 2-1C).

The braces were extended to their maximum length of 1.7 m (5.5 ft). The rubber pads, hinged at

one end of the brace, were placed on the trunk at a height so that the distance from ground level

to the attachment point on the trunk was the same as the distance from the base of the trunk to

the base plate, hinged at the other end of the brace. This put the braces at a 450 angle relative to

the trunk. Two polypropylene straps were threaded through the three rubber pads, securing the

braces snuggly around the trunk. Metal base plates were secured to the ground by driving the

provided 45.7 cm (18 in) long stakes through the slotted base plate, into the soil. Braces were

positioned equidistant from each other, 1200 apart.

Dowels

The wooden dowel TSS is a root ball stabilization method, completely below grade when

installed (Fig. 2-1D). Three 1.2 m (4 ft) long, 1.9 cm (0.75 in) diameter untreated pine wooden

dowels were driven through the root ball, into the soil below. Dowels were cut to a sharp point

and driven through the root ball until flush with the surface. Dowels were driven into the root

ball 15.2 cm (6 in) away from the trunk, equidistant from each other.

Duckbill

The Duckbill (Model 40DTS, Foresight Products LLC, Commerce City, CO) TSS is an

aboveground guying system (Fig. 2-1E). The kit included three metal anchors, each rated at 135

kg (300 lb) capacity in normal soil and attached to a wire cable guyline. The anchors were driven









into the soil according to manufacturers directions to a depth of 61 cm (24 in), at an angle inline

with the guyline. Anchors were driven into the soil at a distance away from the bottom of the

trunk equal to the distance from ground level to the tie-in point above the first major limb,

creating a 450 angle. Anchors were positioned 1200 apart making them equidistant around the

trunk. The wire-cable guylines were threaded through the provided 45.7 cm (18 in) long plastic

tubing, where they wrapped around the trunk on top of the first major limb. Guylines were

secured using the provided U-bolt cable clamps.

Rebar & ArborTie

The rebar & ArborTie (AT5W ArborTie White, Deep Root Partners, L.P., San Francisco,

CA) TSS is an aboveground guying system consisting of three rebar anchors and ArborTie

polypropylene guylines (Fig. 2-1F). Three ArborTie guylines, rated at 1,135 kg (2,500 lb)

tensile strength, were wrapped around the trunk on top of the first major limb and secured by

tying the end to the guyline with a no-slip knot. The 1.2 m (4 ft) long, 9.5 mm (0.375 in)

diameter rebar were driven into the soil straight down. Rebar had a 900 bend, 5.1 cm (2 in) away

from the top end. The distance from the tree to where the rebar was driven into the ground was

equal to the distance from ground level to the tie-in point. The three pieces of rebar were

equidistant from each other at 1200 apart. Rebar were driven flush with ground level, and the

guylines were wrapped around the 900 bend and secured with a no-slip knot.

Terra ToggleTM

The Terra ToggleTM (Terra ToggleTM Tree Anchor System, Accuplastics, Inc., Brooksville,

FL) TSS is a root ball anchoring system (Fig. 2-1G). Two 3.8 cm x 8.9 cm [1.5 in x 3.5 in (2x4)]

untreated pine braces (not included) were placed on the root ball 5.1 cm (2 in) from the trunk on

opposite sides. Lumber was cut the same length as the width of the root ball [53.3 cm (21 in)]









and were positioned parallel to each other. The Terra ToggleTM earth anchors, rated at 225 kg

(500 lb) breaking strength, are plastic anchors driven to a depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) into the ground, in

accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Anchors were driven into the ground with a

driving tool, provided by the manufacturer, at an angle away from the tree. The manufacturer

recommends installation of the anchors using the water-jet driving tool but the anchors can be

installed using an auger and driving rod. The water-jet driving tool is a steel pipe 1.2 m (4 ft)

long and 1.2 cm (0.5 in) diameter, with a ball valve and threaded garden-hose fitting attached at

one end and a notch at the other end of the pipe secures the anchor during installation. The

anchors were attached to low-stretch plastic strapping. As water pressure is supplied, the driving

rod, with the anchor affixed at the driving end, is pushed into the soil. The water flowing through

the end of the driving tool saturates the soil, washing away soil in the path of the anchor, which

allows the anchor to be installed with less resistance. Lumber was placed so the strapping ran

parallel to the rays. Four total anchors attached to straps were used per tree. Two straps were

connected with a metal buckle, and the slack between the two was removed with a strapping tool,

provided by the manufacturer. Excess strapping was removed.

Tree StapleTM

The Tree StapleTM (TS 36 Tree Staple Stabilizers, Tree Staple, Inc., New Providence, NJ)

TSS is a below grade root ball stabilization system (Fig. 2-1H). Two 91.5 cm (36 in) long Tree

StaplesTM were used to anchor the root ball. Tree StaplesTM were driven so the longer of the two

prongs was driven into the soil below the root ball as it rested against the side of the root ball.

The shorter prong was driven into the top of the root ball. The Tree StaplesTM were positioned so

the shorter prong was driven halfway between the trunk and the opposite side of the root ball.

Tree StaplesTM were driven straight down until they were flush with the top of the root ball.









T-Stakes

Two T-stakes were driven into the undisturbed landscape soil 20.3 cm (8 in) outside of the

backfilled soil (Fig. 2-11). The 1.8 m (6 ft) long T-stakes were positioned 1800 apart with notches

facing away from the tree to prevent strap slippage. The T-stakes were driven in the ground 61

cm (2 ft). Support straps were made of 5 cm (2 in) wide polyester webbing, also known as seat

belt material, and were cut in 1.5 m (5 ft) long sections. The straps were tied to the T-stake,

wrapped around the trunk, and secured to the strapping on the other side with a no-slip knot.

Tree Specimens

One hundred clonally propagated live oak (Quercus virginiana, 'SDLN', PP#12015)

Cathedral Oak were randomly selected from a larger group with similar height [3.8 m (12.5 ft;

S.D. = 0.8)] and caliper [6.6 cm (2.6 in; S.D. = 0.2)]. This tree species was selected for the

experiment because it is commonly planted in the landscape. Trees were originally planted as

liners in a 6.4 cm (2.5 in) diameter round propagation pot May 2003 and pruned to a central

leader. Trees were container grown in #3, then #15 and finally in #45 Accelerator (Nursery

Supplies Inc., Fairless Hills, PA) pots at the University of Florida Environmental Horticulture

Teaching Lab in Gainesville, FL (USDA, 1990 hardiness zone 8b), and were in #45 containers at

time of testing. Root balls were 40.6 cm (16 in) in height and 53.3 cm (21 in) in diameter at the

top. Selected trees showed consistency in their root ball development and presence of circling

roots (Gilman, 2006).

Data Collection

Two instruments were used to collect data during pulling tests to measure force (load cell)

and angle (inclinometer). The 900 kg (2,000 lb) capacity load cell (SSM-AF-2000, Interface

Force, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) was placed in-line of pulling to measure the amount of force exerted

on the tree by the pulling test (Fig. 2-3). The +700 inclinometer (Rieker N4 Inclinometer, Rieker









Inc., Aston, PA) measured rotation of the root ball during pulling tests, and was mounted to a

fabricated steel plate [5.1 cm x 7.6 cm (2 in x 3 in)] with 15.2 cm (6 in) long spikes that were

pushed into the top of the root ball (Fig. 2-4). The inclinometer was positioned 7.6 cm (3 in)

above the root ball and parallel to the direction of pulling. Data from the load cell and

inclinometer was collected by a Data Acquisition System (Compact Fieldpoint, National

Instruments Corporation, Austin, TX) and recorded on a laptop (Fig. 2-5). Data was collected

from both instruments at a rate of 2 Hz (2 samples/sec). Data collected from the instruments was

displayed in real-time during pulling tests on the laptop running Labview (Labview Ver. 7.0,

National Instruments) software. Equipment was powered in the field using an inverter generator

(Honda EU3000is Inverter Generator, American Honda Power Equipment Division, Alpharetta,

GA). The inverter generator produced power with minimal fluctuations.

Pulling Equipment

A concrete pillar was poured as a stationary pulling point. First a 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 1 m (5 ft

x 5 ft x 3 ft) pit was dug by hand. Then a 30 cm (1 ft) high form was constructed around the pit,

and then rebar and 9-gauge wire were positioned within the pit to serve as concrete

reinforcements. Four cylindrical concrete forms [1.5 m (5 ft) long x 25 cm (10 in) diameter] were

connected lengthwise and centered in the pit, extending 1 m (3 ft) above grade. Positioned in the

center of each of the four concrete forms was a 45 cm (18 in) length of 1.25 cm (0.5 in) diameter

threaded rod. Finally, 4.5 m3 (6 yd3) of concrete was poured into the four cylindrical forms and

the pit below.

Bolted to the pillar was a winch (K-2250 Work Winch, W.W. Grainger, Inc., Lake Forest,

Ill.) and two-sheave pulley (RP124, CMI Co., Franklin, WV) mounted on a custom fabricated

steel plate (Fig. 2-6). The load cell was connected to the tree at one end with a clevis and a U-

bolt, the other end was connected to another two-sheave pulley (Rock ExoticaTM Omni-block,









Thompson Manufacturing, AU) using a clevis. No-stretch rope (AM Steel, Samson Rope

Technologies, Inc., Ferndale, WA) 0.6 cm (0.25 in) in diameter was tied to the pulley on the tree,

threaded through the sheaves of both pulleys, and then through the winch.

Experimental Design

Each experimental block in the field contained two of each of the nine TSSs and two

controls (with no staking) for a total of 20 trees per block. Each stabilization system was pulled

once in both directions in each of the five blocks, for a total of 100 trees (10 systems x 2

directions x 5 blocks = 100 trees). Blocking was used to account for changes in environmental

conditions between repetitions and growth of the trees during the experiment.

Each tree was pulled at the same rate until the inclinometer read 200 or the trunk snapped

in half. With a root ball rotation of 200 a tree must be manually straightened and thus, the TSS

has failed. Force to failure for this experiment was defined as the maximum amount of force

recorded by the load cell before the inclinometer measured 20.

Experimental Procedure

Planting

Each block, with the systems in random order, was planted in a 35 m (120 ft) diameter

semi-circle around the pillar (Fig. 2-7). Trees were planted in 41 cm (16 in) deep holes dug prior

to testing with a 61 cm (24 in) diameter auger for consistency in depth and width. This

positioned the top of the root ball and the root flare even with the landscape soil. Trees were

placed in the center of the hole, before adding backfill. Backfilled site soil was uniformly

compacted by having one person walk on the soil around the tree 20 times.

Tree Stabilization System Installation

A new TSS was installed for every repetition and no system was used more than once. To

precisely orient the TSSs at installation, a reference line was strung from the pillar to the tree.









The stabilization system was then installed, in the predetermined orientation (direction 1 or 2),

according to the manufacturers directions. Great care was taken to ensure consistent installation

and symmetrical positioning, relative to the pillar, of stabilization systems among repetitions.

Irrigation

It was determined that soil moisture could potentially impact performance of the TSSs. To

minimize the influence of soil moisture and maintain its consistency, the soil surrounding each

plot was brought to field capacity. To determine the field capacity of the site's soil, the Alachua

County soil survey was used. The soil survey provided data on soil characteristics specific to the

geographic location of the site. Calculations were made using the soil survey data, giving the

amount of water to add [881 L (200 gal)] and the amount of time to wait (6 hours) to bring a 2.4

m x 2.4 m (8 ft x 8 ft) plot, 1.2 m (4 ft) deep, around each tree to field capacity for testing. The

actual amount of water added [1321.5 L (300 gal.)] was 1.5 times the actual amount needed [881

L (200 gal.) x 1.5=1321.5 L (300 gal.)], ensuring soil saturation consistency. Water was applied

thru watering stations made from PVC and low-profile sprinkler heads, and were controlled by

battery-operated timers (Fig. 2-8). Water was supplied to the watering stations through 2.5 cm (1

in) diameter polyethylene irrigation tubing. Each tree was pulled 6-6.5 hours after the end of the

irrigation cycle.

Pulling Test

The center of mass was used as the attachment point on the trunk for the pulling tests. To

calculate center of mass, six trees were randomly selected from a group of 100 to estimate the

center of mass. Branch diameter was the average of two perpendicular diameter measurements

taken on every primary branch [>2.5 mm (0.1 in)] just beyond the collar; the distance from the

media surface to just below the branch collar was recorded for all primary branches. Average

branch diameter was used to calculate the cross-sectional area of each primary branch; these









areas were summed for all primary branches on the tree. The center of mass on each of the six

trees was estimated as the point on the trunk where half the branch cross-sectional area was

above and half was below. Mean center of mass [1.9 m (6.2 ft)] was calculated by averaging

center of mass from all six trees (Table 2-1). The mean center of mass value was the height at

which all trees were connected to the winch and pulley system for pulling tests.

All trees were pulled within two days of planting to minimize the effects of rooting-in.

Trees were pulled by hand cranking the winch (1 revolution/sec) until the inclinometer on the top

of the root ball measured 200, or the tree broke. Maximum force measured by the load cell up to

200 from horizontal was used for comparison among the systems. Once all 20 trees in the block

were pulled, the next block was planted.

Statistical Rationale

The general linear model (GLM) of the Statistical Analysis Systems software (SAS Ver. 9,

SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was used to analyze data. A two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used to compare differences between the TSSs (treatments). Treatment means

were compared for statistical similarities using Duncan's multiple range test. To test the

significance of direction of pull interaction for the TSSs (trt x dir), Tukey-Kramer adjustments

for multiple comparisons were used (P = 0.05).










Table 2-1. Center of Mass Data
Sample Tree Center of Massz (mm2) Center of Mass Heighty [m (ft)]
1 23271 1.8 (5.8)
2 1913 1.8 (5.9)
3 3089 2.1 (7.0)
4 2108 1.7(5.7)
5 2571 1.9(6.4)
6 3445 2.1 (6.8)
Mean Center of Mass Height: 1.9 (6.3)
ZHalf of total cross-sectional area of all primary branches. YHeight whereupon cross-sectional area of primary
branches is equal above and below.



































Figure 2-1. Tree stabilization system illustrations. A) 2x2s, B) Arborbrace, C) Brooks Tree
Brace, D) Dowels, E) Duckbill, F) Rebar & ArborTie, G) Terra Togglel H)
Tree Staplel and I) T-stakes.














/1 2
Arborbrace@
Brooks Tree Brace
Duckbill
Rebar & ArborTie


Dowels


2x2s
Terra Toggle
Tree Staple "




'I0
2i
T-stakes


Figure 2-2. Diagram showing the two directions each TSS was pulled during the pulling tests.
There is no significance to the designation of direction 1 and 2 for the TSS, they were
determined arbitrarily.


Figure 2-3. Load cell positioned in-line of pulling.




























Figure 2-4. Photograph showing the inclinometer fixed on the root ball via the fabricated
mounting plate.


Figure 2-5. Data acquisition system and laptop computer.


























Figure 2-6. Winch and pulley fastened to the fabricated mounting plate.


Figure 2-7. Diagram illustrating the location of the experimental plots, centered around the
concrete pillar.



























Figure 2-8. Watering station made of PVC and low-profile sprinkler heads, shown here with the
Arborbrace stabilization system.









CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data Analysis

Results from the ANOVA (Table 3-1) showed that force to failure differed among TSSs

(Table 3-2, P <.0001). However, analysis also revealed that direction of pull was not statistically

significant for any individual stabilization system tested (Table 3-3). Therefore, stabilization

systems were compared averaged over both directions (Table 3-2). TSS effectiveness was

determined to be the amount of force it was able to withstand.

The Terra ToggleTM, Brooks Tree Brace, and 2x2s withstood the largest forces of all

stabilization systems tested. There was no difference in force to failure between the Terra

ToggleTM and Brooks Tree Brace (Table 3-2); and these two systems had the highest force to

failure means of all systems tested. The amount of force the 2x2s withstood [181 kg (399 lb)]

was statistically similar to Brooks Tree Brace [212.7 kg (468.9 lb)], but less than Terra

ToggleTM [233.7 kg (515.3 lb)].

Of the three guying systems, the rebar & ArborTie withstood the most amount of force

and was statistically no different than the 2x2s. The Duckbill [129.8 kg (286.2)] was also

similar to rebar & ArborTie [143.6 kg (316.7 lb)] but not the 2x2s. Force to failure on the third

guying system, Arborbrace [99.5 kg (219.3 lb)], was statistically similar to the Duckbill, but

lower than rebar & ArborTie.

The Tree StapleTM, dowels, and T-stakes mean force to failure values were statistically no

greater than controls [29.5 kg (65 lb)]. The Tree StapleTM [67 kg (147.8 lb)] and dowels [61.4 kg

(135.4 lb)] were also statistically similar to the Arborbrace. The T-stakes [50.3 kg (111 lb)]

TSS had the lowest force to failure mean of all the systems tested.









Mode of Tree Stabilization System Failure

From observation during the pulling tests, it appeared as though system design and

direction of pulling both influenced system failure. During testing the above ground TSSs,

including Brooks Tree Brace and the three guying systems, and would typically only allow the

tree to bend above where they attached to the trunk. Trunk bending was minimal for the T-

stakes, the other above ground stabilization system, because it could not provide enough support

to do so.

Ease of installation appeared to correlate with the effectiveness of the root ball stabilization

systems. Of the four root ball stabilization systems tested the 2x2s and the Terra ToggleTM were

the two most labor intensive and time consuming systems to install, but they were very effective

at supporting trees during testing The dowels and the Tree StapleTM took the least amount of

effort and time for installation of all the systems tested, they were also statistically no different

than no staking at all (control).

The Terra ToggleTM did not break any trees in half but cracked the trunk at the base on the

side that was in compression (facing direction of pull). None of the Terra ToggleTM earth anchors

came out of the ground during testing and the plastic strapping never broke. The strapping would

usually slice into the lumber supports approximately 15.2 cm (0.5 in), preventing it from sliding

off the top of the wood. Occasionally, as tension on the straps increased, a lumber support would

become displaced, and the strapping would cut into the root ball. This did not appear to impact

strength of the system.

Brooks Tree Brace in direction 2 (Fig. 2-2) broke all five trees at the same spot, just

above where the rubber pads attached to the trunk. Brooks Tree Brace in direction 1 (Fig. 2-2)

was also unique; as the tree was being pulled the front two braces in the direction of pull acted as









lever arms because they were tightly secured around the trunk, and began to lift the root ball out

of the ground. The root ball remained above ground level even after the tension from the pulling

rope was removed. The plastic plate connecting the rubber pads to the metal brace showed the

only visible signs of damage from pulling tests, and was deformed beyond possible further use

three times.

The 2x2s in direction 1 (Fig. 2-2) broke two trees approximately 15.2 cm (6 in) from

ground level. The most common mode of failure for 2x2s in direction 1 was when the vertical

braces were forced up on the tension side (opposite direction of pull) as the root ball rotated. This

reduced the amount of downward force applied to the top of the root ball, allowing it to rotate

more freely. The 2x2s in direction 2 (Fig. 2-2) failed when the horizontal brace on the side of the

direction of pull broke as the trunk of the tree was forced down into it.

The Duckbill stabilization system failed seven times because the wire cable snapped

between the U-bolt cable clamp and the soil surface, and the anchors came out of the ground

three times. The U-bolt cable clamps that came with the Duckbill failed to secure the cable

under high forces, allowing the cable to slip periodically despite being tightened adequately.

The Arborbrace guying system was similar to the Duckbill conceptually. However, the

Arborbrace anchors never came out of the ground like the Duckbill anchors, and the

ArborBrace polypropylene guylines never snapped the way the Duckbill cable guylines

snapped. ArborBrace failed when the guylines stretched and cut through the soil, allowing the

tree to bend more and the root ball to rotate. The ArborBrace cam-lock metal tensioning buckle

securely fastened the guyline and no slipping occurred. The difference between the Duckbill

and ArborBrace was that the amount of force it took to stretch ArborBrace's polypropylene

guylines was less than the breaking strength of Duckbill's wire cables. Therefore, as the tree









was pulled ArborBrace's polypropylene guylines stretched, allowing the root ball to rotate.

Meanwhile, the wire cables of Duckbill had little or no stretch but suddenly broke, or the anchor

was pulled out of the ground.

The third guyline system tested was rebar & ArborTie. Rebar pulled out of the ground

and/or bent as the tree was pulled during each repetition, but the ArborTie never snapped.

From pulling test observations, it appeared as though the rebar slipped out of the ground more in

direction 1 than direction 2. Pulling the rebar & ArborTie stabilization system in direction 1

provided the tree with the support of only one guyline, whereas resistance was supplied by two

guylines when pulled in direction 2. Rebar & ArborTie in direction 2 broke one tree [299.3 kg

(659.8 lb)] at the tie-in point on the trunk.

The dowels root ball anchoring system failed to provide enough resistance to adequately

support the tree, given the relatively low mean force to failure mean. Trunk bending was

minimal during the dowel stabilization system pulling tests. As the trees were pulled, the root

ball typically slipped along the dowels and several of the wood dowels broke as well. The exact

number of dowels that broke as a result of the pulling tests is unknown because retrieval of the

dowels without further damage was not feasible.

The Tree StapleTM root ball stabilization system sliced into the top of the root ball

approximately 15 cm (6 in) deep as trees were pulled in direction 1. The horizontal section of the

Tree StapleTM, connecting the shorter prong penetrating the root ball and the longer prong driven

into the backfilled soil, was 0.6 cm (0.25 in) wide where in contact with the root ball. The Tree

StapleTM sliced through the root ball because the narrow horizontal section, having a low amount

of surface area, concentrated forces from pulling to a confined area, like a blade. Bending of

Tree StapleTM braces from pulling tests in direction 1 was minimal. All Tree StapleTM braces from









pulling tests in direction 2 were bent to some extent, and roughly half were bent beyond possible

future use. Bending occurred along the horizontal section of the Tree StapleTM because it was

torqued, with the two prongs being forced in opposite directions during pulling tests.

The T-stake stabilization system provided the least amount of resistance from the pulling

tests and system failure was consistent, regardless of direction, based on observations made in

the field. Pulling tests forced the T-stakes through the soil towards the direction of pull. The

narrow edge of the steel T-stake [0.6 cm (0.25 in) thick] concentrated pulling forces on a small

surface area, allowing the T-stake to move almost freely with the tree. No problems were

encountered with the polyester webbing support straps as they adequately attached the T-stakes

to the tree trunk.










Table 3-1. Analysis of variance table.
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 19 2560441.824 134760.096 13.96 <.0001
Error 80 772189.319 9652.366
Corrected Total 99 3332631.143

R-Square CoeffVar Root MSE Force Mean
0.768294 36.87037 98.24646 266.4645

Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
trt 9 2216074.335 246230.482 25.51 <.0001
dir 1 53692.721 53692.721 5.56 0.0208
trt*dir 9 290674.768 32297.196 3.35 0.0016


Table 3-2. Force to failure for each tree
Stabilization System


stabilization system.
Meanz Force [kg (lb)]


Terra Toggle 233.7 (515.3)ay
Brooks Tree Brace 212.7 (468.9)ab
2x2s 181.0 (399.0)bc
Rebar & ArborTie 143.7 (316.7)cd
Duckbill 129.8 (286.2)de
Arborbrace 99.5 (219.3)ef
Tree Staplel 67.0 (147.8)fg
Dowels 61.4 (135.4)fg
T-stakes 50.4 (111.0)g
Control 29.5 (65.0)g
ZAverage of two pulling directions (N=10). YMeans with the same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05,
Duncan's MRT).









Table 3-3. Force to failure by direction for each tree stabilization system.
Stabilization System (Direction) Meanz Force [kg (lb)]
Brooks Tree Brace (2) 260.9 (575.3)ay
Terra ToggleTM (1) 247.0 (544.5)ab
Terra ToggleTM (2) 224.9 (495.9)ab
2x2s (1) 212.2 (467.8)ab
Rebar & ArborTie (2) 193.3 (426.2)abc
Brooks Tree Brace (1) 164.4 (362.4)abcd
Duckbill (2) 158.7 (349.8)abcd
2x2s (2) 149.8 (330.2)bcde
Duckbill (1) 101.0 (222.6)cdef
Arborbrace (1) 99.7 (219.8)cdef
Arborbrace (2) 99.3 (218.9)cdef
Rebar & ArborTie (1) 94.0 (207.2)cdef
Tree StapleTM (2) 86.1 (189.9)def
Wood dowels (1) 61.8 (136.3)def
Wood dowels (2) 61.0 (134.4)ef
T-stakes (2) 50.4 (111.1)f
T-stakes (1) 50.3 (110.9)f
Tree StapleTM (1) 48.0 (105.9)f
Control 29.5 (65.1)f
ZAverage of one pulling direction (N=5), except the control (N=10). YMeans with the same letter are not
significantly different (P<0.05, Duncan's MRT).









CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS

Of the three superior performing systems tested, Brooks Tree Brace@ required the least

amount of time to install but was also the most expensive. The Terra ToggleTM was the cheapest

but the recommended installation method required a water source to drive the anchors. And

lastly the 2x2s could be made "in-house" but installation was the most labor intensive. The rebar

& ArborTie, Duckbill, and Arborbrace guying systems were similar, considering cost and

their effectiveness relative to the other systems tested, and installation was time consuming but

not labor intensive. The dowels, T-stakes, and Tree StapleTM were among systems that required

the least amount of effort to install and, probably not coincidentally, the three least effective

systems.

Tree Stabilization System Design Improvement Suggestions

2x2s

Although the 2x2s root ball anchoring system was one of the top three stabilization

systems tested, there are some features that could be modified to make the system more

effective. When the 2x2s system was pulled in direction 1 the vertical braces, driven into the

backfilled soil along the side of the root ball, on the windward side were prone to slipping up and

out of the soil. Slipping of 2x2s vertical braces could be reduced by using longer [> 1.5 m (5 ft)

sections of lumber. Driving the vertical braces further away from the tree into undisturbed soil,

as opposed to the looser backfilled soil, would also reduce brace slipping and increase the

effectiveness of the stabilization system. Driving of the vertical braces for the 2x2s system was

time consuming and extremely labor intensive. Mechanization of vertical brace driving would

reduce the amount of human effort and time needed, and thus cost, to install the 2x2s

stabilization system, making it more suitable for applications involving multiple installations.









Arborbrace

The Arborbrace stabilization system was the least effective of the three guying systems

tested because the polypropylene guylines stretched when placed under a load. The only other

two components of the system, the plastic anchors and the cam-lock tension buckles, never

contributed to system failure during testing. Replacement of the polypropylene guylines with a

material with less capacity for stretching, such as the polyester webbing type of material used

with the T-stakes stabilization system, would greatly increase the force to failure for the

Arborbrace system.

Brooks Tree Brace

The Brooks Tree Brace stabilization system was a very effective system, especially in

direction 2, as all trees tested in this direction broke before root ball rotation or system failure.

Brooks Tree Brace effectively supported trees during testing by firmly securing the trunk

allowing minimal movement, which has been shown to negatively impact tree height (Leiser et

al. 1972; Mayhead and Jenkins, 1992), taper (Svihra et al. 1999), and root growth (Stokes et al.

1995), at least in the short term. In this regard, Brooks Tree Brace stabilization system could be

improved for the wellbeing of the tree by not having the rubber pads attach directly to the trunk,

allowing some degree of natural trunk movement.

Dowels

The dowels root ball stabilization system was among the three most ineffective systems

tested because the smooth surface of the wooden dowels failed to provide enough resistance

against the root ball. Replacing the dowels with rebar or larger diameter [> 2.5 cm (1 in)] dowels

would increase stability while still maintaining a relatively low cost and minimal amount of

effort to install the system. Another improvement that could be made to the dowels stabilization









system would be to attach a flange at the end of the dowel on top of the root ball to further

prevent the root ball from slipping.

Duckbill

Failure of the Duckbill stabilization system was fairly inconsistent as the wire cables

snapped during some repetitions, while anchors pulled out of the ground or U-bolt cable clamps

failed on other occasions. Individual Duckbill anchors were rated at 135 kg (300 lb) capacity,

which was close to the observed mean force to failure of 129.8 kg (286.2 lb) from the pulling

tests. System failure inconsistency between repetitions could be attributed to individual

components of the system having similar load capacities. This suggests that upgrading to the

Duckbill (Model 68DTS) rated for trees up to 15 cm (6 in) in caliper would provide more

support than the system used in the experiment (Model 40DTS) rated for trees up to 7.5 cm (3 in)

in caliper. As for design improvements, the provided U-bolt cable clamps were difficult to use

because of their small size, and could be replaced with hardware that is easier to handle and less

prone to cable slipping. Lastly, the Duckbill wire cables wrap around the trunk through

sections of plastic tubing, which closely resembles the "wire-in-hose" method now known to be

ineffective at protecting the trunk from narrow attachment materials. To prevent girdling, wider

straps should be substituted for the wire cable through tubing provided with the Duckbill

system.

Rebar & ArborTie

The rebar & ArborTie stabilization system was the most effective guying system tested.

The system showed consistency between directions in the way it failed, with the rebar slipping

out of the ground every time. Rebar was driven straight down into the soil, which was shown to

be the orientation that required the most amount of force for extaction (Smiley et al. 2003). The









ArborTie was never the cause of failure for the guying system. Therefore, improvements to the

rebar & ArborTie stabilization system should concentrate on improving the holding capacity of

the rebar in soil. Use of rebar greater than 9.5 mm (0.375 in) in diameter would require more

force to extract from the soil and increase the strength of the stabilization system.

Terra ToggleTM

The Terra ToggleTM stabilization system was the most effective at supporting trees during

the pulling tests of all root ball anchoring systems. The biggest drawback was that the

recommended installation method required the use of a water-jet driving tool, necessitating a

nearby water source with adequate pressure. The alternative installation method to the water-jet

driving tool was the use of a drill and auger bit, which would have required special equipment

including a drill and auger bit, as well as a nearby power source for the drill. Improvements to

the Terra ToggleTM stabilization system could be made to eliminate the need for such specialized

tools for installation, making the system more practical for applications in remote areas.

Simplifying the installation process would also make the system more appealing to those without

the required installation tools at their disposal. Installation could be simplified by using a driving

rod to drive the anchors into the soil, similar to installation of the Arborbrace and Duckbill

anchors.

Tree StapleTM

The Tree StapleTM root ball stabilization system cut into the top of the root ball when pulled

in direction 1. Increasing the surface area of the horizontal section of the Tree StapleTM would

prohibit the system from slicing into the root ball, the downside would be that visibility of the

system would increase which may be undesirable depending on the application. Pulling tests in

direction 2 on the Tree StapleTM caused bending of the horizontal section of the system.









Reinforcing this portion of the stabilization system would require more force to damage the Tree

StapleTM, making it a more effective TSS. The Tree StapleTM could also be improved by

increasing the number of Tree StaplesTM to stabilize the root ball so that all sides of the tree are

supported equally.

T-Stakes

The T-stakes stabilization system was the most ineffective system tested, providing

minimal support for the tree. From observation direction did not seem to influence method of

failure, as the system supported the tree so inadequately that it appeared as though no support

was provided by the system during pulling tests. Sandy soil at the test site could have contributed

to the inability of the T-stakes to remain upright, however this effect would be constant for all

systems tested. The T-stakes would likely provide more support in more compact soil than what

was observed in the site's sandy soil. The polyester webbing support straps never attributed to

the failure of the T-stakes stabilization system. The T-stake stabilization system could be

improved by using longer [> 2.5 m (8 ft)] stakes so that more of the support was in the ground.

The T-stakes could also be replaced with lodgepole pine polls for added rigidity.

Limitations of the Research

The most limiting factor of the research is that the results of the experiment are restricted

to the TSSs that were tested, and only for trees that are of similar size as those used in the

experiment. In addition, site-specific soil characteristics further limit the applicability of the

results.

Another limitation of this experiment was the low sample size that was available to test for

interaction of treatment and direction (N=5). Aided by a larger number of repetitions (N=10),

significant differences between treatments were found. Field observations of TSS mode of









failure differences by direction of pull suggests that significant differences could be proven

experimentally, given a large enough sample size (N=10).

Future Research

Correlating Pulling Forces to Wind Speeds

Results of the pulling test produced force versus angle values that were used as a reference

to compare systems included in the study. However, making inferences on the effectiveness of a

particular stabilization system becomes difficult when wind speed is the preferred unit of

measure. In order to make the results more practical, and comprehendible to industry

professionals, it is essential that pulling force be correlated to wind speed. To correlate wind

speed to force experimentally, another experiment needs to be conducted.

Blowing trees, installed with the nine stabilization systems, with a wind machine would

produce wind speed versus angle results. Using the wind speed versus angle curve generated

from the blowing test, and the force versus angle curve generated from the pulling tests, a third

curve of force versus wind speed could be created. The force versus wind speed curve would be

extremely useful allowing for the conversion of pulling forces to wind speeds, making results

from the pulling tests more useful.

Creation of a force versus wind speed curve would be beneficial for a number of reasons.

First, future pulling test results could immediately be converted into terms that translate more

easily into the vocabulary of the general public, making results from pulling tests more useful. It

is s a challenge reporting results, such as the effectiveness of a TSS, as a force when wind speed

is a more appropriate unit of measure. The ability to convert pulling force to wind speed would

also be beneficial because blowing tests could be substituted with pulling experiments. With

confidence that results can be readily and accurately converted to the desirable units, the

integration of pulling and blowing tests of trees would also save resources, as one person is









capable of conducting a pulling test at a reasonably small cost, whereas blowing tests require

multiple people and expensive machinery with very limited availability.

Over time, as blowing and pulling tests are integrated, the correlation between force and

wind speed will become more accurate and precise. Replacement of blowing tests with pulling

tests would not be appropriate for every circumstance, as some experiments would still require

the use of a wind machine. For example, testing for differences in trunk movement based on

pruning dose or treatment would necessitate a blowing test because the response is dependant on

the crown. Pulling tests aren't capable of replacing blowing tests when the crown of a tree is

involved with treatments because pulling tests are only able to test trunk movement. However,

pulling tests are a great way to simulate wind when testing for differences in trunk movement as

an effect of anything other than the crown.

Testing of Additional TSS and Different Tree Sizes and Species

The results of this experiment provide a catalyst for possible future research projects. A

continuation of this experiment using different TSSs would be extremely valuable, as would a

continuation of this study using the same systems on larger caliper trees. Testing other

stabilization systems on similarly sized trees as those used in this experiment, using the same

experimental protocol, would allow future results to be compared to the results of this

experiment.

Further Testing on Influence of Direction

It is difficult to predict the direction that wind will blow from. It would therefore be

preferred to install a TSS capable of withstanding equal amounts of force, regardless of direction.

This supports the argument for further testing on the significance direction of pull has, if any, on

the ability of TSS to sustain force loading. A retrospective power analysis (RPA) is useful for

planning an experiment to determine the number of repetitions needed to find a significant









difference, based on the results of previous research. An appropriate sample size will have a

power value that approaches one while an insufficient sample size have a power value that

approaches zero. Running a computer generated RPA (Lenth, R. V. 2006) shows that within a

direction, five repetitions per TSS was insufficient (power = 0.301), and that ten (power = 0.917)

would be more adequate to find significant differences, A continuation of this experiment aimed

specifically at testing the significance of direction of pull, including a smaller number of TSS

and at least ten repetitions per direction, would allow its influence to be proven experimentally.

Studying the significance direction of pull has would also be valuable for determining

weaknesses of TSSs and ways to improve them.

Final Recommendations

It has been shown numerous times that the natural process of trunk feathering promotes

proper tree structure development, including trunk taper and caliper (Burger et al., 1991; Harris

et al., 1976; Leiser et al. 1972). It can therefore be concluded that root ball anchoring TSS

provide better performance over aboveground TSS because they allow the most amount of trunk

feathering. Thus, it is recommended that the Terra ToggleTM and the 2x2s provide the most

effective performance of all TSS tested because these TSS are root ball anchoring systems that

withstood the most amount of force during pulling tests. However, occasionally the trunk of a

tree is unable to stand upright without support and an aboveground TSS is necessary. Installation

of the Brooks Tree Brace or a guying TSS is recommended for aboveground applications

because these TSS withstood the most amount of force of all aboveground systems tested.

It is important to remember that installation of a TSS should ideally be done only when

necessary because of the negative influence on physiological growth and development. This is

perhaps more applicable to aboveground TSS than root ball anchoring TSS because they allow









the least amount of trunk feathering. This results in a dilemma; TSS should only be installed

when a tree requires support to maintain an upright trunk, however aboveground TSS hinder

further trunk development and the recommended root ball anchoring TSS do not provide the

required support to the trunk. This dilemma can be avoided by installing only appropriate plant

materials, which includes trees that are able to maintain an upright trunk, so that a root ball TSS

can be installed if desired.











APPENDIX
TSS FORCE VS. ANGLE GRAPHS


25



20



5 15



10



5



0


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (lb)

Force vs. angle graph of all tree stabilization systems tested plus the control. Each line
represents an average of ten repetitions.


- T B2s

- Brooks Tree Brace


- Terra Togge
- Control


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (b)

Force vs. angle graph of the three most effective tree stabilization systems tested plus the
control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions.


- Arborbrace
- Brooks Tree Brace
DoweLs
- Duckbdll
Rebar & ArborTie
- Terr To.ge
Tree Sraple
- T-stakes
- Conirol


25



20



$15



10



5



0
























S1


S- Arborbrae
-- Duckbill

Rear & ArborTie
SControl
.-/ -Control


0 100 200 300 40 500 600 700
Force (Ib)

Force vs. angle graph of the three guying systems tested plus the control. Each line
represents an average of ten repetitions.


25



20



S15



S10



5



0


- Dowels

- Tree Staple

- T-stakes

- Control


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (Ib)

Force vs. angle graph of the three least effective tree stabilization systems tested plus the
control. All treatments shown are statistically similar to the control. Each line represents an
average of ten repetitions.























- Arborbrace
Brooks Tree Brace
- Duckbill
Rebar & ArborTie
- T-slakes
- Control


100 200


400
Force (lb)


Force vs. angle graph of the five aboveground tree stabilization systems tested plus the
control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions.








25



no






1DoweLs

S-- Terra Toggle
Tree StapLe
5 -- control



0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (lb)

Force vs. angle graph of the four root ball stabilization systems tested plus the control.
Each line represents an average of ten repetitions.


20



15



S10



5



0


~4r~

~~ki~~'-r
.-..
.I

















20



,15







0


O


0



average.








25



20












10
5



0 .


BI
-12

B4

B6
-137
Bb
-8 9
10
- Control


100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Force (lb)

'orce vs. angle graph of the 2x2s stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the control


131
BI




113
14O
-- B5
16
--H1:
-- W
1310

-- Control


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (lb)

Force vs. angle graph of the Arborbrace stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the
control average.
















20



15
ps


4 Ml


--Bl
-B2
-~B3
-B4
--85
E16
B6
-- r7

-B9
HI0
--Control
* -- -


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Force (ib)

Force vs. angle graph of the Brooks Tree Brace stabilization system ten repetitions,
plus the control average.


25



20



g 15



10



5



0


-- BI
- B2
B3
B14
-B5
B6
- B7
- B9
BIO
- Control


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 SO
Force (lb)

Force vs. angle graph of the dowels stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the control
average.
















20


-- -d --B!

C Io
134



0 8- 1
1 136



Control

i -LIZ
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Force (Ib)

Force vs. angle graph of the Duckbill stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the
control average.


25



20



915



10



5



0


S. P


- r







B4
-1B35
B6
--B7


310
B- ol
BilO
--Control


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (lb)

Force vs. angle graph of the rebar & ArborTie stabilization system ten repetitions, plus
the control average.
















20



I15



10



5



0


-B2
B3
B4
--B5
B6
-B7

--B9
BIO
- ConIrol


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Force (Ib)

Force vs. angle graph of the T-stakes stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the control
average.


25



20








10



5


BI

B3
B4
-85
B6




BIO
--Conirol


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Force (lb)

Force vs. angle graph of the Terra ToggleTM stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the
control average.






























5



0 .:"
0 100 200 300 400 500
Force (lb)


HI
-B2

B4
-15
116
--B7


H10
- Control


Force vs. angle graph of the Tree StapleTM stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the
control average.


20 +-..


o15


-BI
-- B2
-B3
B4
--B5
- B6
- B7
-BB
-B9
BI0
- Average


0 100 200 300 400
Force (b)


500 600


Force vs. angle graph of the ten control repetitions, plus the average.


700 80









LIST OF REFERENCES


Appleton, B.L. 2004. Tree Stabilization at Installation. SNA Research Conference 49: 437-440.

Burger, D. W., G. W. Forister, and P.A. Kiehl. 1996. Height, caliper growth, and biomass
response of ten shade tree species to treeshelters. Journal of Arboriculture 22:161-166.

Burger, D. W., P. Svihra, and R. W. Harris. 1991. Tree shelter use in producing container-grown
trees. HortScience 27:30-32.

Dean, T.J. 1991. Effect of growth-rate and wind sway on the relation between mechanical and
water-flow properties in Slash Pine seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
21:1501-1506.

Gilman, E.F. 2006. Effect of planting depth on Cathedral Oak growth and quality in containers.
University of Florida Great Southern Tree Conference Research Report, Gainesville, FL.

Gilman, E.F., C. Harchick, and J. Grabosky. 2006a. Effects of pruning dose and type on tree
response in tropical storm winds. University of Florida Great Southern Tree Conference
Research Report, Gainesville, FL.

Gilman, E.F., F. Masters, R. Eckstein, C. Harchick, A. Boydstun, and J. Grabosky. 2006b.
Effects of pruning type on tree response in hurricane force winds. University of Florida
Great Southern Tree Conference Research Report, Gainesville, FL.

Harris, R., A.T. Leiser, and W.B. Davis. 1976. Staking landscape trees. University of California
Agricultural Extension leaflet 2576.

Leiser, A.T. and J.D. Kemper. 1968. A theoretical analysis of a critical height of staking
landscape trees. American Society for Horticultural Science 92:713-720.

Leiser, A.T., R. Harris, P. Neel, D. Long, N. Stice, and R. Maire. 1972. Staking and pruning
influence trunk development of young trees. Journal of American Society Horticultural
Science 97:498-503.

Lenth, R. V. (2006). Java Applets for Power and Sample Size [Computer software]. Retrieved
September 6, 2007, from http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/-rlenth/Power.

Lumis, G.P. and S. A. Struger. 1988. Root tissue development around wire-basket transplant
containers. HortScience 23:401.

Mayhead, G.J. and T. Jenkins. 1992. Growth of young Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong)
Carr) and the effect of simulated browsing, staking, and treeshelters. Forestry 65:453-
462.

Niklas, K.J., and H.C. Spatz. 2000. Wind-induced stresses in cherry trees: Evidence against the
hypothesis of constant stress levels. Trees 14:230-237.









Peltola, H., S. Kellomaki, A. Hassinen, M. Lemettinen, and J. Aho. 1993. Swaying of trees as
caused by wind: Analysis of field measurements. Silva Fennica 27:113-126.

Peltola, H., S. Kellomaki, A. Hassinen, and M. Granander. 2000. Mechanical stability of Scots
pine, Norway spruce and birch: An analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland.
Forest Ecology and Management 135:143-153.

Smiley, E.T., E. LeBrun, and E. Gilbert. 2003. Evaluation of extraction force for wooden guy
anchors. Journal of Arboriculture 29:295-297.

Stokes, A., A.H. Fitter, and M.P. Coutts. 1995. Responses of young trees to wind and shading:
Effects on root architecture. Journal of Experimental Botany 46:1139-1146.

Svihra, P., D. Burger, and D. Ellis. 1999. Effects of 3 trunk support systems on growth of young
Pyrus calleryana trees. Journal of Arboriculture 25:319-324.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ryan J. Eckstein was born and raised in Clearwater, Florida. He earned a Bachelor of

Science degree in environmental science and policy from the University of South Florida and

began working in production and sales in the ornamental horticulture industry. He later accepted

a graduate assistantship position in the Environmental Horticulture Department at the University

of Florida, where he began working with Dr. Gilman toward a Master of Science degree. In

August 2008, he received his Master of Science degree in horticultural science. While with the

university, Eckstein presented his thesis research at the Great Southern Tree Conference (2005 &

2006), Trees Florida (2006), Roots Plus Growers Conference (2005), and the 83rd Annual ISA

International Conference (2007). He was also the first recipient of the John P. White Annual

Memorial Scholarship awarded by the Florida Chapter of the ISA (2006).





PAGE 1

1 EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE TREE STABILIZATION SYSTEMS By RYAN J. ECKSTEIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Ryan J. Eckstein

PAGE 3

3 To all those tree hugging dirt worshipers, and my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and forem ost, I thank Dr. Gilman, for his wisdom and experience has proven to be invaluable throughout the course of this experiment al process. I would also like to give special thanks Chris Harchick and the University of Florida Tree Unit Staff for their generous help and support. To my committee members, Dr. Reinhardt Adams and Dr. Ma sters, I greatly appreciate your perspective and opinions he lping to keep me focused throughout this experience. The Great Southern Tree Conference and the Tree Fund were instrumental in providing support for this project and a debt of gratitude is owed to th em as well. The manufacturers of the stabilization systems included in this study also deserve sp ecial thanks for donating their systems to the project for testing. Lastly, I would like to th ank my friends and family for helping me get through this challenging, but enor mously rewarding, experience.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10Literature Review.............................................................................................................. .....11Physiological Impacts...................................................................................................... 11Product and Method Research......................................................................................... 12Wind Load Stresses on Trees................................................................................................. 13Simulating Wind.............................................................................................................. 14Rationale of Pulling Tests...............................................................................................14Research Objectives........................................................................................................ 152 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................... 17Tree Stabilization Systems.....................................................................................................172x2s..................................................................................................................................17Arborbrace....................................................................................................................17Brooks Tree Brace........................................................................................................18Dowels.............................................................................................................................18Duckbill...................................................................................................................... ..18Rebar & ArborTie......................................................................................................... 19Terra Toggle .................................................................................................................19Tree Staple ....................................................................................................................20T-Stakes...........................................................................................................................21Tree Specimens................................................................................................................. ......21Data Collection.......................................................................................................................21Pulling Equipment.............................................................................................................. ....22Experimental Design............................................................................................................ ..23Experimental Procedure......................................................................................................... .23Planting....................................................................................................................... .....23Tree Stabilization System Installation.............................................................................23Irrigation..........................................................................................................................24Pulling Test......................................................................................................................24Statistical Rationale......................................................................................................... 25

PAGE 6

6 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................. 32Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................32Mode of Tree Stabilization System Failure............................................................................ 334 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 39Tree Stabilization System Design Improvement Suggestions................................................ 392x2s..................................................................................................................................39Arborbrace ....................................................................................................................40Brooks Tree Brace ........................................................................................................40Dowels.............................................................................................................................40Duckbill ........................................................................................................................41Rebar & ArborTie ........................................................................................................41Terra Toggle .................................................................................................................42Tree Staple ....................................................................................................................42T-Stakes...........................................................................................................................43Limitations of the Research.................................................................................................... 43Future Research......................................................................................................................44Correlating Pulling Forces to Wind Speeds.................................................................... 44Testing of Additional TSS and Different Tree Sizes and Species................................... 45Further Testing on Influence of Direction....................................................................... 45Final Recommendations.........................................................................................................46APPENDIX: TSS FORCE VS. ANGLE GRAPHS......................................................................48LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................56BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................58

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Center of Mass Data...........................................................................................................263-1 Analysis of variance table................................................................................................. .373-2 Force to failure for each tree stabilization system............................................................. 373-3 Force to failure by direction for each tree stabilization system......................................... 38

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Wire-in-hose. Photograph of a wire -in-hose tree staking application. ........................... 162-1 Tree stabilization system illustrations................................................................................ 272-2 Diagram showing the two directions each TSS was pulled during the pulling tests......... 282-3 Load cell positioned in-line of pulling............................................................................... 282-4 Photograph showing the inclinometer fi xed on the root ball via the fabricated mounting plate...................................................................................................................292-5 Data acquisition system and laptop computer................................................................... 292-6 Winch and pulley fastened to the fabricated mounting plate............................................. 302-7 Diagram illustrating the location of the experimental plots, centered around the concrete pillar.....................................................................................................................302-8 Watering station made of PVC and low-profile sprinkler heads, shown here with the Arborbrace stabilization system..................................................................................... 31

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE TREE STABILIZATION SYSTEMS By Ryan J. Eckstein August 2008 Chair: Edward F. Gilman Major: Horticultural Science We conducted pull tests on newly planted 7 cm (2.7 in) caliper container grown Quercus virginiana SDLN PP#12015, Cathedral Oak to evaluate wind lo ading on nine commonly used landscape tree stabilization systems. Maxi mum force required to rotate the root ball 20 was used to compare systems. Terra Toggle Brooks Tree Brace and 2x2s anchoring the root ball withstood the largest forces. T-stakes, dowels, and Tree Staple performed no better than nonstaked controls. The three guying systems tested, Arborbrace Duckbill and rebar & ArborTie were statistically similar and required more force to failure than controls but less than the group that withstood the largest forces. Di rection of pulling had no influence on force to failure for any stabilization system tested.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Despite 30 years of research showing that tree stabilization sy stems (TSS) can adversely affect tree development (Harris et al. 1976; St okes et al. 1995; Mayhead and Jenkins, 1992), the practice of post-installation tree staking1 continues to grow. Cost predominantly drives this decision; it is more expensive for a worker to retu rn to the site and stand the tree back up after it has deflected than it is to install a TSS at the time of planting. The TSS available on the market today are more sophisticated than the old wire-in-garden hose technique (Fig. 1-1). The low cost and ease of installation of th is stabilization method made it the standard TSS for half a century, and li kely is the reason TSS are collectively referred to as tree staking systems despite whether or not stakes are actually involved. The popularity of the wire-in-hose is evident by its preference even to this day. While still commonly used as a reliable tree stabilizer by homeowners and mu nicipalities alike, the wire-in-hose method has been proven to hinder growth and devel opment of the tree (H arris et al. 1976). A major disadvantage of TSS is the potential ri sk of causing damage to the tree; therefore post-installation inspec tion is necessary. To avoid trunk girdling, TSS inspection generally occurs six to twelve months after installation. Aboveground TSS, such as guying systems that wrap around the trunk, are especially vulnerable to girdling the trunk, which physically restricts the flow of nutrient and water resources. Many of the aboveground TSS on the market attach to the trunk with guylines that wrap around the tr unk above the first major limb. When left installed, the guylines act as a phys ical barrier to cambial growt h. Trunk growth is then forced around the barrier enclosing the guyline within the trunk, whic h seriously jeopardizes the survival of the already stressed newly planted tree.

PAGE 11

11 Literature Review Physiological Impacts Harris et al. (1976) show ed th at staking trees can hinder de velopment of trunk taper which, in extreme cases, can result in trees that are so metimes unable to stand upright without support. The proper development of trunk ta per involves periodic loading from natural wind force events or feathering. Trunk feathering initiates reactio n wood growth, which counteracts forces in tension (produced by angiosperms) or compressi on (produced by conifers). Thus, mechanical restriction of trunk movement prohibits f eathering and ultimately hinders trunk taper development by interfering with natural processes. Leiser et al. (1972) showed e xperimentally that mechanical restriction of trunk movement reduces trunk caliper and taper while increasi ng tree height. The upright position of the tree eventually becomes dependent on the mechanical re striction of the trunk as a means of artificial support. As a result of dependenc y, resources allocated to trunk caliper and taper growth (for stability) decrease, and the source-sink relationship of the tree shifts. Gr owth in height then increases, as a result of increased resource ava ilability from the shifte d source-sink relationship. A similar response was produced by the use of tree shelters (Leiser et al. 1972). While tree shelters can protect trees in th e urban environment, their use ca n produce trees that are too tall (Burger et al. 1996) with slende r, untapered trunks that need support (Burger et al. 1991). Mayhead and Jenkins (1992) also reported reduced trunk caliper and taper and increased tree height from tree shelters and stabilization systems th at limited trunk movement. Stokes et al. (1995) found that the restriction of trunk movement also negatively impacts root development. The root system of a tree is a belowground physiological structure that uptakes water and nutrients from the soil. Tree roots also aid in suppor ting the tree upright by anchoring it to the ground, providing stability. Artificial supp ort of the tree reduces the

PAGE 12

12 gravitational force load placed on the tree and increases the stability of the trunk. Providing artificial support to the trunk changes the allocation of resources with in a tree; the pr iority of the root system, providing tree stabilit y, is decreased and root growth is retarded in favor of other structures. Svihra et al. (1999) conducted a study to co mpare three aboveground TSSs to examine the influence on trunk taper. The trunk taper of stak ed trees were found to be less than unstaked counterparts, and increasing the rigidity of the staking system was also shown to exacerbate this condition. The results provided by Svih ra et al. (1999) are consistent with the resu lts of earlier experiments (Harris et al. 1976; Burger et al. 1991; Burger et al. 1996), further supporting the argument against using a TSS unless necessary. Product and Method Research Prior research involving landscape TS Ss has primarily concentrated on the resultant physiological impacts, with little focus on compar ing or determining the effectiveness of them. Leiser and Kemper (1968) determin ed that landscape trees should be staked no higher than twothirds of the tree height, and th at trees should ideally be stak ed no higher than necessary. To determine the height on the tree to stake no hi gher than necessary, they recommend holding the trunk in one hand at increasing heights moving up the trunk until a position is found where the tree is able to support itself upright on its own. Attaching at this positi on on the trunk allows for maximum trunk feathering while maintaining an upright orientation of the tree. Smiley et al. (2003) showed that extracti on forces of wooden guying anchors differed among the three directions they were driven. They determined that wooden guying anchors were the most effective when they were driven straight down into the soil. Anchors oriented in this manner required the most amount of force for extr action from the soil. Anchors driven at an angle either towards or away from the guyline we re only able to withstand half the amount of

PAGE 13

13 force required to extract the anchors driven straight down. The wooden guying anchors included in the study would more appropriately be referred to as wooden guying stakes. When installed, a guying stake remains slightly above-grade so that guy lines can be attached. Guying anchor refers to an anc hor that is driven completely below-grade at installation. The most popular guying systems available now follow a si milar design concept. First, the anchor is driven to a depth of about 45-60 cm (18-24 in) below ground level. Guying anchors are designed with an orientation that produ ces the least amount of resistan ce during installation, minimally disrupting the soil profile as we ll as making installation easier Once driven, pulling the guyline attached to the anchor causes a reorientation to a position that is designed so that the anchor produces the maximum amount of resist ance within the soil profile. One of the most comprehensive series of TSS experiments conducted by Appleton (2004), examined several above ground and below ground sy stems. Caliper change at two levels on the trunk and qualitatively assessed trunk damage were observed. C onsiderable differences among systems in trunk caliper at both levels for the st aked trees were found. She also reported slight trunk damage from the above ground staking after one year. Wind Load Stresses on Trees W ind-induced stresses on a tree result from co mplex dynamic pressure fi elds that shift as the tree interacts with the wind. Forcing is difficult to accurately charact erize, however several theories have been proposed through the litera ture attempting to model these stresses. Static loads placed on trees can be calculated with grea ter confidence than dynamic loads because they are constant, unlike an ever-changing dynamic loa d. Niklas and Spatz (2000) suggest that windload stresses in the crown depend on trunk tape r and crown size and shape. This view is supported by Peltola et al. (1993) who found that tree swaying is not directly correlated to wind speed.

PAGE 14

14 Simulating Wind Several attempts have been m ade over th e years attempting to simulate natural wind loading of a tree (Gilman et al. 2006a & 2006b; Niklas and Spatz, 2000). Due to limited availability and costs associated with machin es capable of generati ng hurricane force winds, other techniques are used to simulate wind lo ading. Pulling tests are a commonly accepted means of simulating wind forces (Peltola et al. 2000) Conducting pulling tests reduces the complexity of dynamic forces from wind loading to a static fo rce, which is easier to measure, calculate, and comprehend. Pulling tests are a practical, cost eff ective, and scientifical ly acceptable way to simulate wind forces. Rationale of Pulling Tests Pulling tests are used as a means to simulate wind load forces on trees. The tests are conducted by pulling on a cable or rope (pulling line ), attached to the tr unk of a tree, with a pulling device. A measuring device positioned in-lin e of the pulling records the amount of force that is exerted on the tree duri ng the test. Pulling devices vary from experiment to experiment, but pulling with a tractor or wi nch and pulley systems are the most common. The height from ground level to where the pulling line attaches to the trunk also differs among experiments, depending on the nature of the research, but typically the center of mass (COM) is used. Forestry researchers first pi oneered pulling tests on trees. Today pulling tests are generally considered an acceptable means for testing the stabil ity of trees. The advantage of pulling tests is that it allows researchers to pl ace a known controlled load on a tree to examine a particular response of the tree. A disadvantage of pulling tests is that they use a stat ic load to simulate dynamic forces, potentially oversim plifying wind force loading.

PAGE 15

15 Research Objectives Motivation f or this study was supported by th e lack of available published research on stabilization of landscape trees. Providing furthe r incentive was a complete absence of previous research comparing the response of TSSs when induced with a controlled load. With an everincreasing number of landscape TSSs becoming available on the market, it was clear that an evaluation of the most commonly used systems was necessary. The largest natural force a tree in the landscape will encounter comes from wind loading of the crown, and it was therefore determined that an evaluation of landscape T SSs was to be conducted using response to wind loading. Evaluation of stabilization system re sponse to wind loading allowed strength of the systems to be quantified for comparison, which had never been done before in the published literature. With minimal direction from previous research, a multidisciplinary approach was taken to conduct a study involving mechanical and horticultural factor s. The goal of this experiment was to evaluate how nine commonly used TSSs react to wind loading. This was accomplished by subjecting the stabilization systems to pulling tests. The benefit to installing a TSS is the increa sed stability, and to a lesser extent as theft prevention. The drawbacks of TSS are the negativ e physiological impacts. Decision to install a TSS occurs when the benefits are determined to outweigh the drawbacks. However, the physiological impacts differ between abovegr ound TSS and root ball anchoring TSS. Aboveground TSS limit feathering by restricting tr unk movement while root ball anchoring TSS allow more natural movement. Considering root ball anchoring TSS allow more feathering than aboveground TSS, they can be incorporated into a standard protocol for tree plantings without concern for hampering tree growth and developmen t. The results of pulling tests help determine which root ball anchoring TSS can withstand th e largest forces and how they compare to aboveground TSS.

PAGE 16

16 1-1. Wire-in-hose. Photograph of a wire-in-hose tree staking application. Notice that the wire girdled the tree despite being shielded with a section of garden hose.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS Tree Stabilization Systems Nine stabilization system s were evaluated, four that anchored the root ball and five that stabilized the trunk, plus a contro l with no stabilization (Fig. 2-1). Each system presented two angles of orientation, so each was pulled from both directions (Fig. 2-2). 2x2s The 2x2s stabilization system is a root ba ll anchoring method that is homemade, requiring the use of a saw to section the wood into appropriate lengths (Fig. 2-1A). Two untreated pine 2x2 wood braces [3.8 cm x 3.8 cm (1.5 in x 1.5 in)] were placed parallel to each other on top of the root ball 7.6 cm (3 in) away from the trunk. Horizont al braces were cut 7.6 cm (3 in) longer than the root ba ll diameter [45.7 cm (18 in)]. F our 1.2 m (4 ft) long vertical 2x2s were cut to a point and driven into the backfilled soil against the side of the root ball with approximately 7.6 cm (3 in) remaining above ground surface. The horizontal 2x2s were secured flush to vertical 2x2s with one 7.6 cm (3 in) #8 Phillips head screw. Two 0.24 cm (0.1 in) pilot holes were drilled through both braces to preven t wood from splitting. The braces were oriented so that screws were driven paralle l to the wood rays where practical. Arborbrace The Arborbrace (ATG-R Arborbrace Tree Guying Kit with hardened N ylon Anchors, Arborbrace, Miami, FL) TSS is an aboveground g uying system (Fig. 2-1B). Three polypropylene guylines wrapped around the trunk on top of the fi rst major limb were secured with cam-lock quick tensioning metal buckles. The hardened nyl on anchors [7.6 cm (3 in) long] were driven into the ground according to the manufacturers speci fications at an angle inline with the guyline to a depth of 61 cm (24 in). The distance from ground surface to the tie-in point on the trunk was

PAGE 18

18 equal to the distance from the trunk to the point wher e the anchors penetrated the soil. This ensured that the anchors were at a 45 angle relative to the tr unk. The anchors were equidistant from each other at angles of 120 apart. Brooks Tree Brace Brooks Tree Brace (Model BTB-2SA, Brooks Tree Brace, Lake W orth, FL) is an aboveground TSS, consisting of three telescoping metal braces to secure the trunk (Fig. 2-1C). The braces were extended to their maximum leng th of 1.7 m (5.5 ft). The rubber pads, hinged at one end of the brace, were placed on the trunk at a height so that the distance from ground level to the attachment point on the trunk was the same as the distance from the base of the trunk to the base plate, hinged at the othe r end of the brace. This put the braces at a 45 angle relative to the trunk. Two polypropylene straps were threaded through the three rubber pads, securing the braces snuggly around the trunk. Metal base plates were secured to the ground by driving the provided 45.7 cm (18 in) long stakes through the slotted base plate, into the soil. Braces were positioned equidistant from each other, 120 apart. Dowels The wooden dowel TSS is a root ball stabiliz ation m ethod, completely below grade when installed (Fig. 2-1D). Three 1.2 m (4 ft) long, 1.9 cm (0.75 in) diameter untreated pine wooden dowels were driven through the root ball, into the soil below. Dowe ls were cut to a sharp point and driven through the root ball until flush with the surface. Dowels were driven into the root ball 15.2 cm (6 in) away from the trunk, equidistant from each other. Duckbill The Duckbill (Model 40DTS, Foresight Products LLC, Commerce City, CO) TSS is an abovegroun d guying system (Fig. 2-1E). The kit in cluded three metal anc hors, each rated at 135 kg (300 lb) capacity in normal soil and attached to a wire cable guyline. The anchors were driven

PAGE 19

19 into the soil according to manufactur ers directions to a depth of 61 cm (24 in), at an angle inline with the guyline. Anchors were driven into the soil at a distance away from the bottom of the trunk equal to the distance from ground level to the tie-in point above the first major limb, creating a 45 angle. Anchors were positioned 120 apart making them equidistant around the trunk. The wire-cable guylines were threaded through the provid ed 45.7 cm (18 in) long plastic tubing, where they wrapped around the trunk on t op of the first major limb. Guylines were secured using the provided U-bolt cable clamps. Rebar & ArborTie The rebar & ArborTie (AT5W ArborTie White, Deep Root Partners, L.P., San Francisco, CA) TSS is an aboveground guying system consisting of three rebar anchors and ArborTie polypropylene guylines (Fig. 2-1F). Three Ar borTie guylines, rated at 1,135 kg (2,500 lb) tensile strength, were wrapped around the trunk on top of the first major limb and secured by tying the end to the guyline with a no-slip knot. The 1.2 m (4 ft) long, 9.5 mm (0.375 in) diameter rebar were driven into the soil straight down. Rebar ha d a 90 bend, 5.1 cm (2 in) away from the top end. The distance from the tree to where the rebar was driven into the ground was equal to the distance from ground level to the tie-in point. The three pieces of rebar were equidistant from each other at 120 apart. Reba r were driven flush with ground level, and the guylines were wrapped around the 90 bend and secured with a no-slip knot. Terra Toggle The Terra T oggle (Terra Toggle Tree Anchor System, Accuplastics, Inc., Brooksville, FL) TSS is a root ball anchoring system (Fig. 2-1G). Two 3.8 cm x 8.9 cm [1.5 in x 3.5 in (2x4)] untreated pine braces (not include d) were placed on the root ball 5.1 cm (2 in) from the trunk on opposite sides. Lumber was cut the same length as the width of the root ball [53.3 cm (21 in)]

PAGE 20

20 and were positioned parallel to each other. The Terra Toggle earth anchors, rated at 225 kg (500 lb) breaking strength, are plastic anchors driv en to a depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) into the ground, in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. Anchors were driven into the ground with a driving tool, provided by the manuf acturer, at an angle away fr om the tree. The manufacturer recommends installation of the an chors using the water-jet drivi ng tool but the anchors can be installed using an auger and driv ing rod. The water-jet driving tool is a steel pipe 1.2 m (4 ft) long and 1.2 cm (0.5 in) diameter, with a ball valv e and threaded garden-hos e fitting attached at one end and a notch at the othe r end of the pipe secures the anchor during installation. The anchors were attached to low-st retch plastic strapping. As water pressure is supplied, the driving rod, with the anchor affixed at the driving end, is pushed into the soil. The water flowing through the end of the driving tool saturates the soil, wash ing away soil in the path of the anchor, which allows the anchor to be installed with less re sistance. Lumber was placed so the strapping ran parallel to the rays. Four total anchors attached to straps were used per tree. Two straps were connected with a metal buckle, and the slack between the two was removed with a strapping tool, provided by the manufacturer. Excess strapping was removed. Tree Staple The Tree Staple (TS 36 Tree Stap le Stabilizers, Tr ee Staple, Inc., New Providence, NJ) TSS is a below grade root ball stabilization sy stem (Fig. 2-1H). Two 91.5 cm (36 in) long Tree Staples were used to anchor th e root ball. Tree Staples were driven so the longer of the two prongs was driven into the soil below the root ball as it rested against the side of the root ball. The shorter prong was driven into the t op of the root ball. The Tree Staples were positioned so the shorter prong was driven halfway between th e trunk and the opposite side of the root ball. Tree Staples were driven straight down until they were flush with the top of the root ball.

PAGE 21

21 T-Stakes Two T-stakes were driven into the undisturbed landscape soil 20.3 cm (8 in) outside of the backfilled soil (Fig. 2-1I). The 1.8 m (6 ft) long T-stakes were positioned 180 apart with notches facing away from the tree to pr event strap slippage. The T-stakes were driven in the ground 61 cm (2 ft). Support straps were made of 5 cm (2 in) wide polyester webbing, also known as seat belt material, and were cut in 1.5 m (5 ft) long se ctions. The straps were tied to the T-stake, wrapped around the trunk, and secured to the st rapping on the other side with a no-slip knot. Tree Specimens One hundred clonally propagated live oak (Quercus virginiana, SDLN, PP#12015) Cathedral Oak were random ly selected from a larger group with simila r height [3.8 m (12.5 ft; S.D. = 0.8)] and caliper [6.6 cm (2.6 in; S.D. = 0.2)]. This tree species was selected for the experiment because it is commonly planted in th e landscape. Trees were originally planted as liners in a 6.4 cm (2.5 in) diameter round pr opagation pot May 2003 and pruned to a central leader. Trees were container grown in #3, then #15 and finally in #45 Accelerator (Nursery Supplies Inc., Fairless Hills, PA) pots at the Univ ersity of Florida Environmental Horticulture Teaching Lab in Gainesville, FL (USDA, 1990 hard iness zone 8b), and were in #45 containers at time of testing. Root balls were 40.6 cm (16 in) in height and 53.3 cm (21 in) in diameter at the top. Selected trees showed consistency in their root ball development and presence of circling roots (Gilman, 2006). Data Collection Two instrum ents were used to collect data during pulling tests to measure force (load cell) and angle (inclinometer). The 900 kg (2,000 lb ) capacity load ce ll (SSM-AF-2000, Interface Force, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) was placed in-line of pulling to measure the amount of force exerted on the tree by the pulling test (Fig. 2-3). The inclinometer (Rieker N4 Inclinometer, Rieker

PAGE 22

22 Inc., Aston, PA) measured rotation of the root ball during pulling tests, and was mounted to a fabricated steel plate [5.1 cm x 7.6 cm (2 in x 3 in)] with 15.2 cm (6 in) long spikes that were pushed into the top of the root ball (Fig. 2-4). The inclinomet er was positioned 7.6 cm (3 in) above the root ball and parallel to the direction of pulling. Data from the load cell and inclinometer was collected by a Data Acquisition System (Compact Fieldpoint, National Instruments Corporation, Austi n, TX) and recorded on a laptop (Fig. 2-5). Data was collected from both instruments at a rate of 2 Hz (2 samp les/sec). Data collected from the instruments was displayed in real-time during pulling tests on the laptop runnin g Labview (Labview Ver. 7.0, National Instruments) software. Equipment was power ed in the field using an inverter generator (Honda EU3000is Inverter Generator, American Honda Power Equipment Division, Alpharetta, GA). The inverter generator produced power with minimal fluctuations. Pulling Equipment A concrete pillar was poured as a stationary pulling point. Fi rst a 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 1 m (5 ft x 5 ft x 3 ft) pit was dug by hand. Then a 30 cm (1 ft) high form was constructed around the pit, and then rebar and 9-gauge wire were positi oned within the pit to serve as concrete reinforcements. Four cylindrical concrete forms [1.5 m (5 ft) long x 25 cm (10 in) diameter] were connected lengthwise and centered in the pit, extending 1 m (3 ft) above grade. Positioned in the center of each of the four concre te forms was a 45 cm (18 in) length of 1.25 cm (0.5 in) diameter threaded rod. Finally, 4.5 m3 (6 yd3) of concrete was poured into the four cylindrical forms and the pit below. Bolted to the pillar was a winch (K-2250 Work Winch, W.W. Grainger, Inc., Lake Forest, Ill.) and two-sheave pulley (R P124, CMI Co., Franklin, WV) mounted on a custom fabricated steel plate (Fig. 2-6). The load cell was connected to the tree at one end with a clevis and a Ubolt, the other end was connected to another two-sheave pul ley (Rock Exotica Omni-block,

PAGE 23

23 Thompson Manufacturing, AU) using a clevis. No-stretch rope (AM Steel, Samson Rope Technologies, Inc., Ferndale, WA) 0.6 cm (0.25 in) in diameter was tied to the pulley on the tree, threaded through the sheaves of both pu lleys, and then through the winch. Experimental Design Each experim ental block in the field contai ned two of each of the nine TSSs and two controls (with no staking) for a total of 20 trees per block. Each stabilization system was pulled once in both directions in each of the five bl ocks, for a total of 100 trees (10 systems x 2 directions x 5 blocks = 100 trees ). Blocking was used to account for changes in environmental conditions between repetitions and growth of the trees during the experiment. Each tree was pulled at the same rate until the inclinometer read 20 or the trunk snapped in half. With a root ball rotation of 20 a tree must be manually straightened and thus, the TSS has failed. Force to failure for this experiment was defined as the maximum amount of force recorded by the load cell before the inclinometer measured 20 Experimental Procedure Planting Each block, with the system s in random order, was planted in a 35 m (120 ft) diameter semi-circle around the pillar (Fig. 2-7). Trees were planted in 41 cm (16 in) deep holes dug prior to testing with a 61 cm (24 in) diameter au ger for consistency in depth and width. This positioned the top of the root ball and the root flare even with the landscape soil. Trees were placed in the center of the hole, before adding backfill. Backfilled site soil was uniformly compacted by having one person walk on the soil around the tree 20 times. Tree Stabilization System Installation A new TSS was installed for every repetition an d no system was used more than once. To precisely orient the TSSs at installation, a refere nce line was strung from the pillar to the tree.

PAGE 24

24 The stabilization system was then installed, in th e predetermined orientati on (direction 1 or 2), according to the manufacturers dire ctions. Great care was taken to ensure consistent installation and symmetrical positioning, relative to the pill ar, of stabilization systems among repetitions. Irrigation It was determ ined that soil moisture could pot entially impact performance of the TSSs. To minimize the influence of soil moisture and maintain its consistency, the soil surrounding each plot was brought to field capacity. To determine the field capacity of the sites soil, the Alachua County soil survey was used. The so il survey provided data on soil characteristics specific to the geographic location of the site. Calculations were made using the soil survey data, giving the amount of water to add [881 L (200 gal)] and the amount of time to wait (6 hours) to bring a 2.4 m x 2.4 m (8 ft x 8 ft) plot, 1.2 m (4 ft) deep, ar ound each tree to field capacity for testing. The actual amount of water added [1321.5 L (300 gal. )] was 1.5 times the actual amount needed [881 L (200 gal.) x 1.5=1321.5 L (300 gal.)], ensuring so il saturation consistency. Water was applied thru watering stations made fr om PVC and low-profile sprinkle r heads, and were controlled by battery-operated timers (Fig. 2-8). Water was supplied to the watering sta tions through 2.5 cm (1 in) diameter polyethylene irrigation tubing. Each tree was pulled 6-6.5 hours after the end of the irrigation cycle. Pulling Test The center o f mass was used as the attachment point on the trunk for the pulling tests. To calculate center of mass, six trees were randomly selected from a group of 100 to estimate the center of mass. Branch diameter was the averag e of two perpendicular diameter measurements taken on every primary branch [>2.5 mm (0.1 in)] just beyond the collar; the distance from the media surface to just below the branch collar was recorded for all primary branches. Average branch diameter was used to calculate the cro ss-sectional area of each primary branch; these

PAGE 25

25 areas were summed for all primary branches on the tree. The center of mass on each of the six trees was estimated as the point on the trunk wher e half the branch cross-sectional area was above and half was below. Mean center of ma ss [1.9 m (6.2 ft)] was calculated by averaging center of mass from all six trees (Table 2-1). The mean center of mass value was the height at which all trees were connected to the winch and pulley system for pulling tests. All trees were pulled within tw o days of planting to minimize the effects of rooting-in. Trees were pulled by hand cranking the winch (1 re volution/sec) unt il the inclinometer on the top of the root ball measured 20, or the tree broke. Maximum force measured by the load cell up to 20 from horizontal was used for comparison am ong the systems. Once all 20 trees in the block were pulled, the next block was planted. Statistical Rationale The genera l linear model (GLM) of the Statisti cal Analysis Systems software (SAS Ver. 9, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was used to analyze data. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare differences betw een the TSSs (treatments). Treatment means were compared for statistical similarities using Duncans multiple range test. To test the significance of direction of pull interaction for the TSSs (trt x dir), Tukey-Kramer adjustments for multiple comparisons were used (P = 0.05).

PAGE 26

26 Table 2-1. Center of Mass Data Sample Tree Center of Massz (mm2)Center of Mass Heighty [m (ft)] 1 23271 1.8 (5.8) 2 1913 1.8 (5.9) 3 3089 2.1 (7.0) 4 2108 1.7 (5.7) 5 2571 1.9 (6.4) 6 3445 2.1 (6.8) Mean Center of Mass Height: 1.9 (6.3) zHalf of total cross-sectional area of all primary branches. yHeight whereupon cross-sectional area of primary branches is equal above and below.

PAGE 27

27 Figure 2-1. Tree stabilization system illustratio ns. A) 2x2s, B) Arborbrace, C) Brooks Tree Brace, D) Dowels, E) Duckbill, F) Rebar & ArborTie, G) Terra Toggle H) Tree Staple and I) T-stakes.

PAGE 28

28 Figure 2-2. Diagram showing the two directions each TSS was pulled during the pulling tests. There is no significance to the designation of direction 1 a nd 2 for the TSS, they were determined arbitrarily. Figure 2-3. Load cell positioned in-line of pulling.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2-4. Photograph showing the inclinometer fixed on the root ball via the fabricated mounting plate. Figure 2-5. Data acquisition sy stem and laptop computer.

PAGE 30

30 Figure 2-6. Winch and pulley fastened to the fabricated mounting plate. Figure 2-7. Diagram illustrating the location of th e experimental plots, centered around the concrete pillar.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2-8. Watering station made of PVC and low-profile sprinkler heads, shown here with the Arborbrace stabilization system.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data Analysis Results from the ANOVA (Table 3-1) showed that force to failure differed am ong TSSs (Table 3-2, P .0001). However, analysis also revealed that direction of pull wa s not statistically significant for any individual stabilization system tested (Table 3-3). Therefore, stabilization systems were compared averaged over both di rections (Table 3-2). TSS effectiveness was determined to be the amount of force it was able to withstand. The Terra Toggle Brooks Tree Brace, and 2x2s withstood the largest forces of all stabilization systems tested. There was no difference in force to failure between the Terra Toggle and Brooks Tree Brace (Table 3-2); and th ese two systems had the highest force to failure means of all systems tested. The amount of force the 2x2s withstood [181 kg (399 lb)] was statistically similar to Brooks Tree Br ace [212.7 kg (468.9 lb)], but less than Terra Toggle [233.7 kg (515.3 lb)]. Of the three guying systems, the rebar & Arbor Tie withstood the most amount of force and was statistically no different than the 2x2s. The Duckbill [129.8 kg (286.2)] was also similar to rebar & ArborTie [143.6 kg (316.7 lb)] but not the 2x2s. Force to failure on the third guying system, Arborbrace [99.5 kg (219.3 lb)], was st atistically similar to the Duckbill, but lower than rebar & ArborTie. The Tree Staple dowels, and T-stakes mean force to failure values were statistically no greater than controls [29.5 kg (65 lb)]. The Tree Staple [67 kg (147.8 lb)] and dowels [61.4 kg (135.4 lb)] were also statistic ally similar to the Arborbrace The T-stakes [50.3 kg (111 lb)] TSS had the lowest force to failure mean of all the systems tested.

PAGE 33

33 Mode of Tree Stabilization System Failure From observation during the pulling tests, it appeared as though system design and direction of pulling both influenced system failure. During testing the above ground TSSs, including Brooks Tree Brace and the three guying systems, a nd would typically only allow the tree to bend above where they attached to the trunk. Trunk bending was minimal for the Tstakes, the other above ground stabilization syst em, because it could not provide enough support to do so. Ease of installation appeared to correlate with the effectivenes s of the root ball stabilization systems. Of the four root ba ll stabilization systems tested the 2x2s and the Terra Toggle were the two most labor intensive and time consuming systems to install, but they were very effective at supporting trees during testi ng The dowels and the Tree Staple took the least amount of effort and time for installation of all the systems tested, they were also statistically no different than no staking at all (control). The Terra Toggle did not break any trees in half but cracked the trunk at the base on the side that was in compression (facing direc tion of pull). None of the Terra Toggle earth anchors came out of the ground during testing and the plastic strapping never broke. The strapping would usually slice into the lumber supports approxima tely 15.2 cm (0.5 in), preventing it from sliding off the top of the wood. Occasionally, as tension on the straps increased, a lumber support would become displaced, and the strappi ng would cut into the root ball. This did not appear to impact strength of the system. Brooks Tree Brace in direction 2 (Fig. 2-2) broke all five tr ees at the same spot, just above where the rubber pads attached to the trunk. Brooks Tree Brace in direction 1 (Fig. 2-2) was also unique; as the tree was be ing pulled the front two braces in the direction of pull acted as

PAGE 34

34 lever arms because they were tightly secured arou nd the trunk, and began to lift the root ball out of the ground. The root ball remained above ground level even after the te nsion from the pulling rope was removed. The plastic plate connecting the rubber pads to the metal brace showed the only visible signs of damage fr om pulling tests, and was deform ed beyond possible further use three times. The 2x2s in direction 1 (Fig. 2-2) broke tw o trees approximately 15.2 cm (6 in) from ground level. The most common mode of failure for 2x2s in direction 1 was when the vertical braces were forced up on the tensi on side (opposite direction of pull) as the root ball rotated. This reduced the amount of downward fo rce applied to the top of the r oot ball, allowing it to rotate more freely. The 2x2s in direction 2 (Fig. 2-2) failed when the horizontal brace on the side of the direction of pull broke as the trunk of the tree was forced down into it. The Duckbill stabilization system failed se ven times because the wire cable snapped between the U-bolt cable clamp and the soil su rface, and the anchors came out of the ground three times. The U-bolt cable clamps that came wi th the Duckbill failed to secure the cable under high forces, allowing the cable to slip peri odically despite being tightened adequately. The Arborbrace guying system was similar to the Duckbill conceptually. However, the Arborbrace anchors never came out of the gr ound like the Duckbill anchors, and the ArborBrace polypropylene guylines never snappe d the way the Duckbill cable guylines snapped. ArborBrace failed when the guylines stre tched and cut through the soil, allowing the tree to bend more and the root ball to rotate. The ArborBrace cam-lock metal tensioning buckle securely fastened the guyline and no slipping occurred. The diffe rence between the Duckbill and ArborBrace was that the amount of force it took to stretch ArborBraces polypropylene guylines was less than the breaking strength of Du ckbills wire cables. Therefore, as the tree

PAGE 35

35 was pulled ArborBraces polypropylene guylines st retched, allowing the root ball to rotate. Meanwhile, the wire cables of Duc kbill had little or no stretch but suddenly broke, or the anchor was pulled out of the ground. The third guyline system tested was rebar & ArborTie. Rebar pulled out of the ground and/or bent as the tree was pulled during each repetition, but the ArborTie never snapped. From pulling test observations, it appeared as th ough the rebar slipped out of the ground more in direction 1 than direction 2. Pulling the rebar & ArborTie stabilization system in direction 1 provided the tree with the support of only one guyline, whereas resistance was supplied by two guylines when pulled in directi on 2. Rebar & ArborTie in di rection 2 broke one tree [299.3 kg (659.8 lb)] at the tie-in point on the trunk. The dowels root ball anchoring system failed to provide enough resistance to adequately support the tree, given the rela tively low mean force to fa ilure mean. Trunk bending was minimal during the dowel stabilization system pulli ng tests. As the trees were pulled, the root ball typically slipped along the dowels and several of the wood dowels broke as well. The exact number of dowels that broke as a result of th e pulling tests is unknown because retrieval of the dowels without further damage was not feasible. The Tree Staple root ball stabilization system sli ced into the top of the root ball approximately 15 cm (6 in) deep as trees were pu lled in direction 1. The horizontal section of the Tree Staple connecting the shorter prong penetrating th e root ball and the longer prong driven into the backfilled soil, was 0.6 cm (0.25 in) wide where in contact with the root ball. The Tree Staple sliced through the root ball because the narrow horizontal section, having a low amount of surface area, concentrated forces from pulling to a confined area, like a blade. Bending of Tree Staple braces from pulling tests in direct ion 1 was minimal. All Tree Staple braces from

PAGE 36

36 pulling tests in direction 2 were bent to some extent, and roughl y half were bent beyond possible future use. Bending occurred along the horizontal section of the Tree Staple because it was torqued, with the two prongs being forced in opposite directions during pulling tests. The T-stake stabilization system provided the least amount of resistance from the pulling tests and system failure was consistent, regardle ss of direction, based on observations made in the field. Pulling tests forced the T-stakes throug h the soil towards the direction of pull. The narrow edge of the steel T-stake [0.6 cm (0.25 in) thick] concentrated pulling forces on a small surface area, allowing the T-stak e to move almost freely with the tree. No problems were encountered with the polyester we bbing support straps as they ade quately attached the T-stakes to the tree trunk.

PAGE 37

37 Table 3-1. Analysis of variance table. Source DF Sum of SquaresMean SquareF Value Pr > F Model 19 2560441.824134760.09613.96 <.0001 Error 80 772189.3199652.366 Corrected Total 99 3332631.143 R-Square Coeff VarRoot MSEForce Mean 0.768294 36.8703798.24646266.4645 Source DF Type I SSMean SquareF Value Pr > F trt 9 2216074.335246230.48225.51 <.0001 dir 1 53692.72153692.7215.56 0.0208 trt*dir 9 290674.76832297.1963.35 0.0016 Table 3-2. Force to failure for each tree stabilization system. Stabilization System Meanz Force [kg (lb)] Terra Toggle 233.7 (515.3)ay Brooks Tree Brace 212.7 (468.9)ab 2x2s 181.0 (399.0)bc Rebar & ArborTie 143.7 (316.7)cd Duckbill 129.8 (286.2)de Arborbrace 99.5 (219.3)ef Tree Staple 67.0 (147.8)fg Dowels 61.4 (135.4)fg T-stakes 50.4 (111.0)g Control 29.5 (65.0)g zAverage of two pulling directions (N=10). yMeans with the same letter are not significantly different (P 0.05, Duncans MRT).

PAGE 38

38 Table 3-3. Force to failure by direction for each tree stabilization system. Stabilization System (Direction) Meanz Force [kg (lb)] Brooks Tree Brace (2) 260.9 (575.3)ay Terra Toggle (1) 247.0 (544.5)ab Terra Toggle (2) 224.9 (495.9)ab 2x2s (1) 212.2 (467.8)ab Rebar & ArborTie (2) 193.3 (426.2)abc Brooks Tree Brace (1) 164.4 (362.4)abcd Duckbill (2) 158.7 (349.8)abcd 2x2s (2) 149.8 (330.2)bcde Duckbill (1) 101.0 (222.6)cdef Arborbrace (1) 99.7 (219.8)cdef Arborbrace (2) 99.3 (218.9)cdef Rebar & ArborTie (1) 94.0 (207.2)cdef Tree Staple (2) 86.1 (189.9)def Wood dowels (1) 61.8 (136.3)def Wood dowels (2) 61.0 (134.4)ef T-stakes (2) 50.4 (111.1)f T-stakes (1) 50.3 (110.9)f Tree Staple (1) 48.0 (105.9)f Control 29.5 (65.1)f zAverage of one pulling direction (N=5), except the control (N=10). yMeans with the same letter are not significantly different (P 0.05, Duncans MRT).

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS Of the three superior perfor ming systems tested, Brooks Tree Brace required the least amount of time to install but was also the most expensive. The Terra Toggle was the cheapest but the recommended installation method required a water source to drive the anchors. And lastly the 2x2s could be made in-house but inst allation was the most labor intensive. The rebar & ArborTie Duckbill and Arborbrace guying systems were similar, considering cost and their effectiveness relative to the other systems tested, and in stallation was time consuming but not labor intensive. The dowels, T-stakes, and Tree Staple were among systems that required the least amount of effort to install and, probabl y not coincidentally, the three least effective systems. Tree Stabilization System Design Improvement Suggestions 2x2s Although the 2x2s root ball anc horing system was one of the top three stabilization systems tested, there are some features that could be modified to make the system more effective. When the 2x2s system was pulled in direction 1 the vertical br aces, driven into the backfilled soil along the side of the root ball, on the windward side were prone to slipping up and out of the soil. Slipping of 2x2s vertical braces could be reduced by using longer [> 1.5 m (5 ft) sections of lumber. Driving the vertical braces further away from the tree into undisturbed soil, as opposed to the looser backfilled soil, woul d also reduce brace slipping and increase the effectiveness of the stab ilization system. Driving of the vertical braces for the 2x2s system was time consuming and extremely labor intensive. M echanization of vertical brace driving would reduce the amount of human effort and time n eeded, and thus cost, to install the 2x2s stabilization system, making it more suitable fo r applications involving multiple installations.

PAGE 40

40 Arborbrace The Arborbrace stabilization system was the least effective of the three guying system s tested because the polypropylene guylines stretched when placed under a load. The only other two components of the system, the plastic an chors and the cam-lock tension buckles, never contributed to system failure during testing. Replacement of th e polypropylene guylines with a material with less capacity for stretching, such as the polyester webbing ty pe of material used with the T-stakes stabilization system, would greatly increase the force to failure for the Arborbrace system. Brooks Tree Brace The Brooks Tree Brace stabilization system was a very effective system, especially in direction 2, as all trees tested in this direction broke before root ball rotation or system failure. Brooks Tree Brace effectively supported tree s during testing by firmly securing the trunk allowing minimal movement, which has been shown to negatively impact tree height (Leiser et al. 1972; Mayhead and Jenkins, 1992), taper (Svihra et al. 1999), and root growth (Stokes et al. 1995), at least in the short term. In this regard, Brooks Tree Brace stabilization system could be improved for the wellbeing of the tree by not havi ng the rubber pads attach directly to the trunk, allowing some degree of natural trunk movement. Dowels The dowels root ball stabilization system wa s among the three most ineffective systems tested because the smooth surface of the w ooden dowels failed to provide enough resistance against the root ball. Replacing the dowel s with rebar or larger diameter [ 2.5 cm (1 in)] dowels would increase stability while still maintaining a re latively low cost and minimal amount of effort to install the system. Another improvement that could be made to the dowels stabilization

PAGE 41

41 system would be to attach a flange at the end of the dowel on top of the root ball to further prevent the root ball from slipping. Duckbill Failur e of the Duckbill stabilization system was fairly inconsistent as the wire cables snapped during some repetitions, while anchors pulled out of the ground or U-bolt cable clamps failed on other occasions. Individual Duckbill anchors were rated at 135 kg (300 lb) capacity, which was close to the observed mean force to failure of 129.8 kg (286.2 lb) from the pulling tests. System failure inconsistency between re petitions could be attr ibuted to individual components of the system having similar load ca pacities. This suggests that upgrading to the Duckbill (Model 68DTS) rated for trees up to 15 cm (6 in) in caliper would provide more support than the system us ed in the experiment (Model 40DTS) rated for trees up to 7.5 cm (3 in) in caliper. As for design improvements, the provi ded U-bolt cable clamps were difficult to use because of their small size, and could be replaced with hardware that is easier to handle and less prone to cable slipping. Lastly, the Duckbill wire cables wrap around the trunk through sections of plastic tubing, which closely rese mbles the wire-in-hose method now known to be ineffective at protecting the trunk from narrow at tachment materials. To prevent girdling, wider straps should be substituted for the wire cable through tubing provided with the Duckbill system. Rebar & ArborTie The rebar & ArborTie stabilization system was the most effective guying system tested. The system showed consistency between directions in the way it failed, with the rebar slipping out of the ground every time. Rebar was driven st raight down into the soil, which was shown to be the orientation that required the most amount of force for extaction (Smiley et al. 2003). The

PAGE 42

42 ArborTie was never the cause of failure for the guying system. Therefore, improvements to the rebar & ArborTie stabilization system should concentr ate on improving the holding capacity of the rebar in soil. Use of rebar greater than 9.5 mm (0.375 in) in diameter would require more force to extract from the soil and increase the strength of the st abilization system. Terra Toggle The Terra T oggle stabilization system was the most effective at supporting trees during the pulling tests of all root ball anchoring systems. The biggest drawback was that the recommended installation method required the use of a water-jet driving tool, necessitating a nearby water source with adequate pressure. The alternative installation method to the water-jet driving tool was the use of a drill and auger bit, which would have required special equipment including a drill and auger bit, as well as a nearby power source for the drill. Improvements to the Terra Toggle stabilization system could be made to eliminate the need for such specialized tools for installation, making the system more pr actical for applications in remote areas. Simplifying the installation process would also make the system more appealing to those without the required installation tools at their disposal. Installation coul d be simplified by using a driving rod to drive the anchors into the soil, similar to installation of the Arborbrace and Duckbill anchors. Tree Staple The Tree Staple root ball s tabilization system cut into the top of the root ball when pulled in direction 1. Increasing th e surface area of the horizonta l section of the Tree Staple would prohibit the system from slicing into the root ba ll, the downside would be that visibility of the system would increase which may be undesirable depending on the application. Pulling tests in direction 2 on the Tree Staple caused bending of the horizon tal section of the system.

PAGE 43

43 Reinforcing this portion of the stabilization system would require more force to damage the Tree Staple making it a more effective TSS. The Tree Staple could also be improved by increasing the number of Tree Staples to stabilize the root ball so that all sides of the tree are supported equally. T-Stakes The T-stakes stabilizatio n system was the most ineffective system tested, providing minimal support for the tree. From observation direction did not seem to influence method of failure, as the system supported the tree so inad equately that it app eared as though no support was provided by the system during pu lling tests. Sandy soil at the test site could ha ve contributed to the inability of the T-stakes to remain upright however this effect w ould be constant for all systems tested. The T-stakes would likely provide more support in more compact soil than what was observed in the sites sandy soil. The polye ster webbing support straps never attributed to the failure of the T-stakes stabilization system. The T-stake stabilization system could be improved by using longer [ 2.5 m (8 ft)] stakes so that more of the support was in the ground. The T-stakes could also be replaced with lodgepole pine polls for added rigidity. Limitations of the Research The m ost limiting factor of the research is that the results of the experiment are restricted to the TSSs that were tested, and only for trees that are of similar size as those used in the experiment. In addition, site-specific soil characteristics furthe r limit the applic ability of the results. Another limitation of this experiment was the lo w sample size that was available to test for interaction of treatment and dire ction (N=5). Aided by a larger number of repetitions (N=10), significant differences between treatments were found. Field observation s of TSS mode of

PAGE 44

44 failure differences by direction of pull suggests that significant differe nces could be proven experimentally, given a large enough sample size (N=10). Future Research Correlating Pulling Forces to Wind Speeds Results of the pulling test produced f orce versus angle values that were used as a reference to compare systems included in the study. However, making inferences on the effectiveness of a particular stabilization system becomes diffic ult when wind speed is the preferred unit of measure. In order to make the results more practical, and comprehendible to industry professionals, it is essential that pulling for ce be correlated to wind speed. To correlate wind speed to force experimentally, another experiment needs to be conducted. Blowing trees, installed with the nine stab ilization systems, with a wind machine would produce wind speed versus angle results. Using the wind speed versus angle curve generated from the blowing test, and the force versus angl e curve generated from the pulling tests, a third curve of force versus wind speed could be creat ed. The force versus wi nd speed curve would be extremely useful allowing for the conversion of pulling forces to wind speeds, making results from the pulling tests more useful. Creation of a force versus wind speed curve wo uld be beneficial for a number of reasons. First, future pulling test results could immediately be converted into terms that translate more easily into the vocabulary of the general public, making results from pulling tests more useful. It is s a challenge reporting results, such as the effectiveness of a TSS, as a force when wind speed is a more appropriate unit of measure. The abil ity to convert pulling force to wind speed would also be beneficial because blowing tests could be substituted with pulling experiments. With confidence that results can be readily and accu rately converted to the desirable units, the integration of pulling and blowing tests of trees would also save resources, as one person is

PAGE 45

45 capable of conducting a pulling test at a reasonably small cost, whereas blowing tests require multiple people and expensive machinery with very limited availability. Over time, as blowing and pulling tests are in tegrated, the correla tion between force and wind speed will become more accurate and precise. Replacement of blowing tests with pulling tests would not be appropriate for every circumst ance, as some experiments would still require the use of a wind machine. For example, testin g for differences in trunk movement based on pruning dose or treatment would necessitate a blow ing test because the response is dependant on the crown. Pulling tests arent cap able of replacing bl owing tests when the crown of a tree is involved with treatments because pulling tests are only able to test trunk movement. However, pulling tests are a great way to si mulate wind when testing for differences in trunk movement as an effect of anything other than the crown. Testing of Additional TSS and Different Tr ee Siz es and Species The results of this experiment provide a catal yst for possible future research projects. A continuation of this experiment using different TSSs would be extremely valuable, as would a continuation of this study using the same systems on larger caliper trees. Testing other stabilization systems on similarly sized trees as those used in this experiment, using the same experimental protocol, would allow future resu lts to be compared to the results of this experiment. Further Testing on Influence of Direction It is difficult to predict the direction that wind will blow from. It would therefore be preferred to install a TSS capable of withstanding equal amounts of force, regardless of direction. This supports the argument for further testing on the significance direction of pull has, if any, on the ability of TSS to sustain force loading. A re trospective power analysis (RPA) is useful for planning an experiment to determine the number of repetitions needed to find a significant

PAGE 46

46 difference, based on the results of previous res earch. An appropriate sample size will have a power value that approaches one while an insu fficient sample size have a power value that approaches zero. Running a computer generated RP A (Lenth, R. V. 2006) shows that within a direction, five repetitions per TSS was insuffici ent (power = 0.301), and that ten (power = 0.917) would be more adequate to find significant differences, A continuation of this experiment aimed specifically at testing the significance of direction of pull, including a smaller number of TSS and at least ten repetitions per direction, would allow its influence to be proven experimentally. Studying the significance direction of pull has would also be valuable for determining weaknesses of TSSs and ways to improve them. Final Recommendations It has been shown num erous times that the natural process of trunk feathering promotes proper tree structure development, including trunk taper and caliper (Burger et al., 1991; Harris et al., 1976; Leiser et al. 1972). It can therefore be concluded that root ball anchoring TSS provide better performance over aboveground TSS because they allow the most amount of trunk feathering. Thus, it is recomme nded that the Terra Toggle and the 2x2s provide the most effective performance of all TSS tested because these TSS are root ball anchoring systems that withstood the most amount of fo rce during pulling tests. However, occasionally the trunk of a tree is unable to stand upright without support and an aboveground TSS is necessary. Installation of the Brooks Tree Brace or a guying TSS is recommended for aboveground applications because these TSS withstood the most amount of force of all above ground systems tested. It is important to remember that installati on of a TSS should ideally be done only when necessary because of the negativ e influence on physiological grow th and development. This is perhaps more applicable to aboveground TSS than root ball anchoring TSS because they allow

PAGE 47

47 the least amount of trunk feathe ring. This results in a dilemma ; TSS should only be installed when a tree requires support to maintain an upright trunk, however aboveground TSS hinder further trunk development and the recommended root ball anchoring TSS do not provide the required support to the trunk. This dilemma can be avoided by installing only appropriate plant materials, which includes trees that are able to ma intain an upright trunk, so that a root ball TSS can be installed if desired.

PAGE 48

48 APPENDIX TSS FORCE VS. ANGLE GRAPHS Force vs. angle graph of all tr ee stabilization systems tested plus the control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions. Force vs. angle graph of the three most effec tive tree stabilization sy stems tested plus the control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions.

PAGE 49

49 Force vs. angle graph of the three guying systems tested plus the control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions. Force vs. angle graph of the three least effec tive tree stabilization sy stems tested plus the control. All treatments shown are statistically si milar to the control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions.

PAGE 50

50 Force vs. angle graph of the five aboveground tree stabilization syst ems tested plus the control. Each line represents an average of ten repetitions. Force vs. angle graph of the four root ball st abilization systems tested plus the control. Each line represents an av erage of ten repetitions.

PAGE 51

51 Force vs. angle graph of the 2x2s stabilization system ten re petitions, plus the control average. Force vs. angle graph of the Arborbrace stabilization system te n repetitions, plus the control average.

PAGE 52

52 Force vs. angle graph of the Brooks Tree Brace stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the control average. Force vs. angle graph of the dowels stabiliza tion system ten repetitions, plus the control average.

PAGE 53

53 Force vs. angle graph of the Duckbill stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the control average. Force vs. angle graph of the rebar & ArborTie stabilization system ten repetitions, plus the control average.

PAGE 54

54 Force vs. angle graph of the T-stakes stabiliz ation system ten repetitions, plus the control average. Force vs. angle graph of the Terra Toggle stabilization system te n repetitions, plus the control average.

PAGE 55

55 Force vs. angle graph of the Tree Staple stabilization system te n repetitions, plus the control average. Force vs. angle graph of the ten cont rol repetitions, plus the average.

PAGE 56

56 LIST OF REFERENCES Appleton, B.L. 2004. Tree Stabilization at Inst allation. SNA Research Conference 49: 437-440. Burger, D. W., G. W. Forister, and P.A. Ki ehl. 1996. Height, caliper growth, and biom ass response of ten shade tree species to treeshelters. Journal of Arboriculture 22:161-166. Burger, D. W., P. Svihra, and R. W. Harris. 199 1. Tree shelter use in pr oducing container-grown trees. HortScience 27:30-32. Dean, T.J. 1991. Effect of growth-rate and wind sway on the relation be tween mechanical and water-flow properties in Slash Pine seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21:1501-1506. Gilman, E.F. 2006. Effect of planting depth on Cath edral Oak growth and quality in containers. University of Florida Great Southern Tree Conference Research Report, Gainesville, FL. Gilman, E.F., C. Harchick, and J. Grabosky. 2006a. Effects of pruning dose and type on tree response in tropical storm winds. University of Florida Great Southern Tree Conference Research Report, Gainesville, FL. Gilman, E.F., F. Masters, R. Eckstein, C. Harchick, A. Boydstun, and J. Grabosky. 2006b. Effects of pruning type on tree response in hurricane force winds. University of Florida Great Southern Tree Conference Research Report, Gainesville, FL. Harris, R., A.T. Leiser, and W.B. Davis. 1976. Staking landscape trees. University of California Agricultural Extension leaflet 2576. Leiser, A.T. and J.D. Kemper. 1968. A theoretical analysis of a critical height of staking landscape trees. American Society fo r Horticultural Science 92:713-720. Leiser, A.T., R. Harris, P. Neel, D. Long, N. Stice, and R. Maire. 1972. Staking and pruning influence trunk development of young trees. Jo urnal of American Society Horticultural Science 97:498-503. Lenth, R. V. (2006). Java Applets for Power and Sample Size [Computer software]. Retrieved September 6, 2007, from http://www. stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power. Lumis, G.P. and S. A. Struger. 1988. Root ti ssue development around wire-basket transplant containers. HortScience 23:401. Mayhead, G.J. and T. Jenkins. 1992. Growth of young Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong) Carr) and the effect of simulated browsing, staking, and treeshelters. Forestry 65:453462. Niklas, K.J., and H.C. Spatz. 2000. Wind-induced st resses in cherry trees: Evidence against the hypothesis of constant stre ss levels. Trees 14:230-237.

PAGE 57

57 Peltola, H., S. Kellomaki, A. Hassinen, M. Lemettinen, and J. Aho. 1993. Swaying of trees as caused by wind: Analysis of field me asurements. Silva Fennica 27:113-126. Peltola, H., S. Kellomaki, A. Hassinen, and M. Granander. 2000. Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: An analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 135:143-153. Smiley, E.T., E. LeBrun, and E. Gilbert. 2003. Evaluation of extraction force for wooden guy anchors. Journal of Arboriculture 29:295-297. Stokes, A., A.H. Fitter, and M.P. Coutts. 1995. Responses of young trees to wind and shading: Effects on root architecture. Journa l of Experimental Botany 46:1139-1146. Svihra, P., D. Burger, and D. Ellis. 1999. Effect s of 3 trunk support systems on growth of young Pyrus calleryana trees. Journa l of Arboriculture 25:319-324.

PAGE 58

58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ryan J. Eckstein was born and raised in Clearwater, Florida. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental science and polic y from the University of South Florida and began working in production and sales in the orna mental horticulture industry. He later accepted a graduate assistantship position in the Environmen tal Horticulture Department at the University of Florida, where he began working with Dr. Gi lman toward a Master of Science degree. In August 2008, he received his Master of Science de gree in horticultural sc ience. While with the university, Eckstein presented his thesis research at the Great S outhern Tree Conference (2005 & 2006), Trees Florida (2006), Roots Plus Growers Conference (2005), and the 83rd Annual ISA International Conference (2007). He was also the first recipient of the John P. White Annual Memorial Scholarship awarded by the Florida Chapter of the ISA (2006).