**1. Introduction**

Nurseries over the years have produced trees in increasingly larger container sizes [1,2]. Retail garden centers and even large box stores, such as Walmart®, Lowe's®, and Home Depot®, now sell trees in up to 378.5 L (#100) containers. While debate continues over the relative merits of different container sizes [2], this could in part be due to the appreciation that commercial and residential customers have for the instant impact large trees can provide, such as greater aesthetic value of larger trees [3,4], greater biomass present to withstand environmental anomalies [5], less potential for accidental or malicious mechanical damage [6], instant shade [3,4], and increase in property value [7]. However, these larger trees cost more to grow and occupy a greater amount of nursery space per tree over longer time frames than smaller trees resulting in higher costs of production for growers and higher prices for consumers [6]. Smaller container sizes are ultimately less expensive for consumers as nurseries expend less materials, maintenance costs, and allocate less square footage to produce smaller trees. Also, smaller container sizes, once transplanted to the field, have been reported to experience reduced transplant shock [2], are in a phase of growth more closely aligned with the exponential growth rate of young seedlings [8], have been in containers for shorter times and transplanted to larger container sizes fewer times potentially reducing the chances of circling root development [9], and their smaller size makes for easier handling and staking [6]. The economic benefits and costs of varying container

sizes have yet to be fully evaluated to determine which container size affords the most advantageous opportunity for consumers.

The value of a tree, defined as its monetary worth, is based on people's perception of the tree [10]. Arborists use several methods to develop a fair and reasonable estimate of the value of individual trees [11,12]. The cost approach is widely used today and assumes that value equals the cost of production [13]. It assumes that benefits inherent in a tree can be reproduced by replacing the tree and, therefore, replacement cost is an indication of value [10]. Replacement cost is depreciated to reflect differences in the benefits that flow from an "idealized" replacement compared with an older and imperfectly appraised tree. The depreciated replacement cost method uses tree size, species, condition, and location factors to determine tree value [14].

The income approach measures value as the future use of a tree such as in fruit or nut production [15]. In the absence of such products, the income approach could be based on the monetary benefits of the future economic, environmental, and health well-being value of the tree [11]. For example, benefits have been shown to improve the value of the tree, including energy savings [16], atmospheric carbon dioxide reductions [17], storm water runoff reductions [18], and aesthetics [19]. Quantifying and totaling these benefits (ecosystems services) over time can provide an idea of a tree's projected value, but require data outside the scope of this project, thus a derivation of the replacement cost method was utilized within this study.

The objective of the current research was to determine the initial cost and replacement cost value of five different container sizes in three tree species at transplant and after two growing seasons in the landscape.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

In analyzing the impact container size has on the value of the tree, the establishment cost of the tree was calculated and then compared to the replacement price of the tree after two growing seasons. Using the difference, it was then possible to see the net change in value for each container size tree over time. For the purposes of this study, price is the selling price paid by the customer buying the product, cost is the cost of care incurred by the homeowner in maintaining the product, and value is the bundle of attributes important to a homeowner in determining the product's overall worth. The three taxa utilized were selected to represent different niches of the landscape industry. Selections of *Vitex agnus-castus* L. (Chaste Tree), *Acer rubrum* L. var. *drummondii* (Hook. & Arn. *ex* Nutt.) Sarg. (Drummond Red Maple), and *Taxodium distichum* (L.) Rich. (Baldcypress) were chosen due to their widespread use in the southern USA nursery trade and their representation of a variety of classes of landscape trees. Additionally, five container sizes, 3.5 L (#1), 11.7 L (#3), 23.3 L (#7), 97.8 L (#25), and 175.0 L (#45), were selected as demonstrative of a range of typical container sizes purchased in the landscape trade. Clonal selections of these trees grown using as similar inputs as possible [20,21] were transplanted and monitored over the course of two growing seasons in a sandy clay loam (66% sand, 8% silt, 26% clay, 6.0 pH) field in College Station, TX (lat. 30◦37'45" N, long. 96◦20'3" W) beginning June 2013. All replicates of the 3.5 L *Acer rubrum var. drummondii* died within the first season due to deer grazing and pathogens and, therefore, are excluded from the cost analysis. Trunk diameters of all three species were within ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Z60.1-2004 specifications [22] for their respective container sizes [20].
