HORTSCIENCE 48(4):448452. 2013.

Optimal Growing Substrate pH for

Five Sedum Species
Youbin Zheng1 and Mary Jane Clark
School of Environmental Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, 50 Stone
Road W., Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada; and Vineland Research and
Innovation Centre, Vineland Station, Ontario, Canada
Additional index words. green roof, Sedum album, Sedum reflexum Blue Spruce, Sedum
spurium Dragons Blood, Sedum hybridum Immergrunchen, Sedum sexangulare
Abstract. To determine the optimal growing substrate pH values for Sedum plants, Sedum
album, Sedum reflexum Blue Spruce, Sedum spurium Dragons Blood, Sedum
hybridum Immergrunchen, and Sedum sexangulare were grown in containers using
peatmoss and perlite-based substrates at five target pH levels (i.e., 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, and
8.5). Optimal pH levels, calculated from dry weight regression models, were 6.32, 6.43,
5.71, 6.25, and 5.91 for S. album, S. reflexum, S. spurium, S. hybridum, and S. sexangulare,
respectively, and 5.95 overall. Sedum spurium dry weight varied the most among pH
treatments (i.e., 9.5 times greater at pH 6.3 vs. 8.3), whereas S. reflexum varied the least
(i.e., 1.3 times greater at pH 6.3 vs. 4.4), indicating species-specific growth responses to
growing substrate pH. These findings identified a narrow range of optimal growing
substrate pH levels within a wider pH range tolerated by five Sedum spp. Therefore, by
adjusting substrate pH to optimal levels, Sedum growth can be maximized.

Sedum plants have been used in rock

gardens and other landscape settings as
groundcovers for many years. However, the
high demand for Sedum plants only started
recently when green roof installations became increasingly popular in North America
(Getter and Rowe, 2007; Monterusso et al.,
2005). Green roof installations often require
green roof plant producers to provide plant
materials with only a short timeframe from
ordering to delivery. Understanding the ideal
growing conditions for Sedum will allow for
efficient Sedum plant production to meet the
increasing industry demand.
Growing substrate pH influences plant
growth and performance, and different plant
species have optimal substrate pH ranges that
are unique (Reed, 1996). Substrate pH levels
below or above optimal ranges may reduce
plant root and shoot growth, influence nutrient uptake, and may even cause plant failure
(Marschner, 1986).
Many Sedum species are able to grow in
a wide range of soil conditions (Stephenson,
1994) and even under extreme environments
such as on the edge of cement driveways.
However, a wide tolerance of soil conditions,
including different soil pH levels, does not
necessarily indicate plants thrive in a wide

Received for publication 26 Dec. 2012. Accepted

for publication 28 Feb. 2013.
This work was financially supported by the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs/
University of Guelph Research Program, Landscape Ontario, LiveRoof Ontario, Sedum Master,
and Carrot Common.
We thank Linping Wang, Katherine Vinson, and
Siobhan Dunets for their technical assistance.
1
To whom reprint requests should be addressed;
e-mail [email protected].

448

substrate pH range. Given that Sedum plants

are in high demand for green roof installations, there is an urgent need for recommendations regarding optimal growing conditions,
including growing substrate pH, for Sedum
species.
The objective of this study was to evaluate
the hypothesis that Sedum species have optimal growing substrate pH levels or ranges.
Specifically, this study aimed to determine the
optimal growing substrate pH levels or ranges
for the growth of five Sedum species commonly used in green roof installations.
Materials and Methods
Plant material and treatments. The research was conducted under greenhouse conditions with air temperatures of 27 C day/
22 C night 2 C, and 55% relative humidity,
with roof shade curtains programmed to close
and open when global radiation was greater
than 500 Wm2 and less than 150 Wm2,
respectively. The following five common
green roof Sedum species were evaluated
for plant growth response to substrate pH:
Sedum album, Sedum reflexum Blue Spruce,
Sedum spurium Dragons Blood, Sedum
hybridum Immergrunchen, and Sedum
sexangulare.
Sedum plants were propagated directly
into pH-adjusted substrate by planting 4-cm
cuttings. Three cuttings of one species were
planted per container (400-mL round, green
plastic pots, 10 cm top and 6.8 cm bottom
diameters) and thinned to one representative
cutting per container once rooted. The growing substrate was a mixture of 80% Canadian
sphagnum peat and 20% perlite (Therm-ORock East, New Eagle, PA). A 60-L batch of
substrate was mixed and 250 g (i.e., 0.67 g
nitrogen/L) of Polyon Homogenous NPK

plus Minors 16N2.6P10.8K, 34 month

controlled release fertilizer (Agrium Advanced
Technologies, Brantford, Ontario, Canada) was
incorporated evenly. To adjust the substrate pH
to five target treatment levels (i.e., 4.5, 5.5, 6.5,
7.5, and 8.5), hydrated lime (61.1% CaOH2,
37.1% MgOH2, 0.4% silica and insoluble
components, 0.4% iron and aluminum oxides,
0.3% sulfur trioxide, 140 calcium carbonate
equivalency; Graymont Dolime Spray Lime,
Genoa, OH) was added at rates pre-determined
by regression analysis following laboratory
titrations (data not shown). To reduce experimental error in this study, rates of hydrated lime
were separately incorporated into pre-measured
volumes of substrate for each container, and
containers were filled and uniformly compacted. Substrate-filled containers were placed
in the greenhouse and covered with translucent
white shadecloth for 7 d before planting to
facilitate the pH-adjustment reaction. Plants
were watered as needed for the duration of
the experiment using deionized water (pH 7.0
0.5). Containers were spaced 3 cm apart in
a completely randomized design on the greenhouse bench surrounded by a border of identical, planted, non-treatment containers to reduce
edge effects. There were five replicates (i.e.,
containers) and five Sedum species for each
substrate pH level. Treatment containers were
re-randomized biweekly to reduce location
effects.
Data collection. To ensure treatment pH
and electrical conductivity (EC) conditions
were within the target range for the duration
of the experiment, a pour-through extraction,
adapted from Wright (1986), was conducted
at 1, 3, 5, and 6 weeks after planting. Leachate
obtained from the pour-through extraction was
analyzed using a portable pH and EC meter
(Oakton PC 300; Oakton Instruments, Vernon
Hills, IL). At 3 and 6 weeks after planting,
plant height, number of shoot branches, and
plant width in two perpendicular directions
(for calculating elliptical plant canopy area)
were measured. Six weeks after planting,
photographs were taken before plants were
destructively harvested and fresh weight of
the aboveground tissue was measured. Aboveground tissue was placed in paper bags in
a drying oven at 60 C and dry weight was
measured after 7 d once a constant weight
was achieved.
Dried aboveground tissue was ground to
fit through a 1-mm screen, dry-ashed in a
450 C oven, digested using a HCl solution,
and analyzed using the SNL-055 method
to evaluate nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
magnesium, calcium, copper, zinc, manganese, boron, and iron in plant tissue using an
inductively coupled plasma optical emission
spectrometer (University of Guelph Laboratory Services, Guelph, Ontario, Canada).
Statistical analysis. All data sets were
analyzed using GraphPad Prism Version 5.03
(GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA). The
Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test data for
normality. A one-way analysis of variance
with a Tukeys multiple comparison test
was conducted for pH, EC, plant growth,
and tissue nutrient data. Regression analyses
HORTSCIENCE VOL. 48(4) APRIL 2013

were used to relate plant growth and tissue nutrient data to substrate pH and to
estimate parameters for the best-fit regression model (linear or quadratic). Regression models for dry weight were used to
determine optimal pH for maximum plant
growth per Sedum spp. and estimate the pH
range at which 90% of the maximum plant
growth would occur. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare tissue
dry weight with nutrient content. Treatment
effects were evaluated using a significance
level of P < 0.05.
Results
Substrate pH and electrical conductivity.
The combination of the peatperlite substrate and increasing amounts of hydrated
lime did produce substrate pH levels within
the targeted treatment range, and the pH
range was maintained for the duration of the
experiment (Table 1). However, within each
pH treatment, measured pH significantly differed among some time intervals (Table 1).
Measured pH values were used to describe
pH treatment effects.
Substrate EC values were significantly
different among pH treatments at 1, 5, and
6 weeks after transplanting, but not at 3
weeks after planting (Table 2). Although
substrate EC changed over the duration of
the study, EC levels remained adequate for
Sedum growth.
Growth response to pH. Visual differences in plant growth were observed for all
five Sedum species 6 weeks after planting
(Fig. 1). The best overall growth, considering
all species, was observed in the 5.4 and 6.4 pH

treatments; however, responses varied by

species and growth characteristic (Fig. 2).
Dry weight of S. album was greater in the
6.4 pH treatment than the 4.4 and 8.2 pH
treatments. Sedum album fresh weight, branch
number, and plant area were greater in the
6.4 and 7.2 pH treatments than the 8.2 pH
treatment. No difference among treatments
was observed for S. album plant height. Dry
and fresh weights of S. reflexum were greater
for the 5.4, 6.4, and 7.2 pH treatments than
the 4.4 pH treatment. Sedum reflexum branch
number and plant area followed this trend,
but no significant difference in plant height
among pH treatments was observed. For
S. spurium, all vegetative characteristics were
significantly greater in the 5.4 and 6.4 pH
treatments than the 7.2 and 8.2 pH treatments. All S. hybridum vegetative traits were
significantly greater in the 6.4 than the 4.4
and 8.2 pH treatments. Although S. sexangulare plant area was not significantly different
among pH treatments, dry weight was greater
in the 6.4 than the 7.2 and 8.2 pH treatments.
Similarly, S. sexangulare fresh weight and
plant height were greater in the 6.4 than the
8.2 pH treatment. Sedum sexangulare branch
number was greatest in the 6.4 pH treatment
but was not significantly different among all
other pH treatments. Overall, the poorest
plant growth occurred in the 8.2 pH treatment, characterized by four of five Sedum
species (i.e., S. album, S. spurium, S. hybridum,
and S. sexangulare) producing the lowest
dry weight in this pH treatment (Fig. 2). The
magnitude of difference in growth among
pH treatments was the greatest for S. spurium
and least for S. reflexum with 9.5 and 1.7 times
greater dry weight in the 6.4 vs. the 8.2 and the

6.4 vs. the 4.4 pH treatments, respectively.

Dry weights for S. album and S. hybridum
were 2.9 and 3.0 times greater in the 6.4 vs.
the 8.2 pH treatment and 1.4 times greater
for S. sexangulare in the 6.4 vs. the 7.2 pH
treatment.
For each of the five Sedum spp., mean dry
weight among pH treatments followed a quadratic response, as identified by regression
analysis (Fig. 2). A quadratic response to
measured substrate pH was also observed for
fresh weight and plant area for all five Sedum
species as well as plant height and branch
number for S. album, S. reflexum, S. spurium,
and S. hybridum (Fig. 2). Dry weight measurements were selected to calculate the
optimal pH range for maximum Sedum
growth, because dry weight best incorporated
all aspects of plant growth.
From the regression model, the calculated
optimal pH resulting in maximum plant
growth (i.e., dry weight) for all species
combined was 5.95. Optimal pH levels were
lowest for S. spurium (5.71); midrange for
S. album (6.32), S. hybridum (6.25), and

Table 1. Growing substrate pH for five Sedum species over 6 weeks.

Target pH
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
Actual pH per target pH treatmentz
Weeks
Py
1
4.38 0.03 a
5.45 0.05 a
6.63 0.04 a
7.67 0.03 a
8.35 0.03 a
***
3
4.36 0.02 a
5.37 0.05 ab
6.54 0.04 a
7.40 0.04 b
8.25 0.04 a
***
5
4.39 0.06 a
5.21 0.07 b
6.24 0.06 b
6.87 0.05 c
8.10 0.05 b
***
6
4.55 0.05 b
5.45 0.09 a
6.09 0.06 c
6.94 0.07 c
8.31 0.05 a
***
4.42 0.04
5.37 0.06
6.37 0.12
7.22 0.19
8.24 0.06
Allx
z
Data followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at P < 0.05. Data
are means of 25 replications SE.
y
***Significance at P < 0.0001 within week intervals among target pH treatments.
x
Data are means of 6 weeks.
4.5

Table 2. Growing substrate electrical conductivity (EC) for five Sedum species over 6 weeks.
Growing substrate pH
5.4
6.4
7.2
8.2
Growing substrate EC (dSm1) per pH treatmentz
Weeks
Py
1
2.90 0.17 ab
2.67 0.10 a
2.90 0.18 a
2.88 0.16 a
2.24 0.85 b
**
NS
3
3.15 0.25 a
2.98 0.14 a
2.73 0.16 a
2.96 0.23 a
2.75 0.17 a
5
2.56 0.26 b
2.14 0.20 b
1.73 0.25 b
2.60 0.26 a
2.71 0.19 a
*
6
1.94 0.18 c
1.21 0.15 c
0.98 0.17 c
1.68 0.19 b
2.10 0.15 b
***
2.64 0.26
2.25 0.39
2.08 0.45
2.53 0.29
2.45 0.16
Allx
z
Data followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at P < 0.05. Data
are means of 25 replications SE.
y
NS,*, **, *** Nonsignificant, or significant at P < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.0001, respectively, within week
intervals among pH treatments.
x
Data are means of 6 weeks.
4.4

HORTSCIENCE VOL. 48(4) APRIL 2013

Fig. 1. Depiction of five Sedum species grown

under a range of substrate pH levels 6 weeks
after planting in the greenhouse. Substrate pH
levels are indicated below images for each
representative plant per treatment and are
means of five replications over 6 weeks.

449

Table 3. Sedum plant growth (i.e., dry weight measured 6 weeks after planting) response to growing
substrate pH.
90% lower limit 90% upper limit
for pHOptx
for pHOptx
Sedum species
Regression model
R2 Pz pHOpty
S. album
Y = 6.3 + 2.4X 0.19X2 0.50 ** 6.32
5.50
7.14
5.55
7.31
S. reflexum Blue
Y = 4.7 + 1.8X 0.14X2 0.59 *** 6.43
Spruce
4.95
6.48
S. spurium Dragons Y = 7.5 + 3.2X 0.28X2 0.64 ** 5.71
Blood
2
5.46
7.04
S. hybridum
Y = 11.8 + 4.5X 0.36X 0.68 *** 6.25
Immergrunchen
S. sexangulare
Y = 2.5 + 1.3X 0.11X2 0.29 *
5.91
4.81
7.01
5.22
6.69
Overall
Y = 6.3 + 2.5X 0.21X2 0.36 ** 5.95
z
*, **, ***Significant at P < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.0001, respectively.
y
Optimal substrate pH level (pHOpt) calculated as the maximum of the regression model.
x
Substrate pH range, which would yield 90% of the maximum plant growth, as calculated from the
regression model.

Fig. 2. The response of five plant growth attributes

to growing substrate pH for Sedum album (),
S. reflexum Blue Spruce (n), S. spurium
Dragons Blood (s), S. hybridum Immergrunchen (,), and S. sexangulare () measured 6 weeks after planting. Data are means of
five replications SE. Lines indicate calculated
regression relationships are significant at P <
0.05.

S. sexangulare (5.91); and highest for S.

reflexum (6.43; Table 3). In addition, the pH
range calculated to result in 90% of the
maximum plant growth was from 5.22 to
6.69 overall. Sedum sexangulare (i.e., 4.81 to
7.01) and S. spurium (i.e., 4.95 to 6.48)
species had the largest and smallest pH
ranges, respectively (Table 3).
In addition to plant growth, differences
in plant tissue coloration occurred among

450

pH treatments for some Sedum species as

early as 3 weeks after planting. In particular, some S. album and S. sexangulare plants
in the 4.4 pH treatment had slightly yellowish green shoot tips. Also, some S. spurium
plants grown under pH 7.2 and 8.2 showed
a reddish purple stem and leaf coloration
compared with plants grown at all other pH
levels.
Tissue nutrient composition. Differences
in tissue nutrient contents among substrate
pH treatments were observed for some macronutrients but were species-specific (Table 4).
No difference in percent phosphorus (P)
was observed for S. album or S. spurium
tissue among pH treatments, but percent P for
S. reflexum and S. sexangulare tissue in the
5.4, 6.4, and 7.2 pH treatments was higher
than in the 8.2 pH treatment. The percent P
for S. hybridum tissue was higher in the 4.4
and 5.4 pH treatments than the 8.2 pH
treatment. No difference in percent potassium (K) was observed for S. spurium or
S. hybridum tissue among growing substrate
pH treatments, although in S. sexangulare
tissue, percent K was higher in the 7.2 than
the 4.4 pH treatment. For all species, percent
magnesium (Mg) was higher in the 8.2 than
the 4.4, 5.4, and 6.4 pH treatments. For
S. spurium and S. hybridum tissue, the percent calcium (Ca) was the highest in the 6.4
and 7.2 pH treatments and higher in the 6.4
and 7.2 pH treatments than 4.4 and 8.2 pH
treatments for S. album tissue. The percent
Ca for S. sexangulare tissue was the highest
in the 5.4, 6.4, and 7.2 pH treatments. Sedum
reflexum tissue followed the same trend.
Some species-specific differences for tissue
micronutrient concentrations were observed
among pH treatments (Table 4).
Tissue dry weight was positively correlated with P content for S. album and percent
Ca and zinc for S. reflexum when all pH
treatments were combined (r = 0.94, 0.96,
and 0.93, respectively). No other significant
correlations were observed between dry
weight and nutrient content for the Sedum
spp. in this study.
Discussion
Results from the current study clearly outlined how growing substrate pH influenced

Sedum plant growth. Growth responses indicated a preferred pH level for Sedum,
because plant growth was greater within the
preferred pH range compared with plant
growth above or below this range. In addition,
different Sedum species had different optimal pH levels for maximum growth as
measured by dry weight. The overall optimal pH was 5.95 and the optimal pH values
for individual Sedum species were 6.32,
6.43, 5.71, 6.25, and 5.91 for S. album,
S. reflexum, S. spurium, S. hybridum, and
S. sexangulare, respectively. Considering
the magnitude of reduced growth between
optimal and unfavorable pH levels (i.e.,
dry weight reduction of up to 9.5 times),
substrate pH should be considered a critical
factor for Sedum plant growth.
No other published systematic research
was found to identify pH preferences in
growing substrates for Sedum plants. Literature discussing growing substrate pH preferences of Sedum species has been limited to
ecological observations of North American
Sedum spp. (Clausen, 1975) and more specifically for S. nuttallianum and S. pulchellum
(Crow and Ware, 2007; Ware, 1990) as well as
for S. rubrotictum grown in a nutrient solution
(Gudrupa et al., 2002). Reports of soil pH
levels in native environments for Sedum spp.
(Clausen, 1975) does not necessarily indicate
optimal pH levels for Sedum growth. The
findings of the current study form a new point
of reference to guide decisions in maximizing
Sedum growth during production and plant
maintenance in landscape and green roof
industries.
The current study used a peat-based substrate to evaluate Sedum growth, which can
be directly applied to Sedum propagation
and production in soilless organic substrates.
Many green roof substrates resemble mineral
soils (FLL, 2008) and may have slightly
higher optimal pH levels for plant growth
compared with soilless organic substrates.
We conducted a preliminary study using
a commonly available commercial green
roof substrate (with a high mineral content);
however, the high pH value and high acidbuffering capacity of the commercial substrate limited our ability to appropriately
adjust the substrate to lower pH levels. The
difficulty of adjusting high pH mineral
HORTSCIENCE VOL. 48(4) APRIL 2013

Table 4. Tissue nutrient contentz for five Sedum species grown under five growing substrate pH levels.
Tissue nutrient

Growing substrate pHz

5.4
6.4
7.2
S. hybridum Immergrunchen
0.515 ab
0.436 b
0.364 bc
2.348
2.174
2.196
0.663 cd
0.745 bc
0.846 ab
1.593 b
1.966 a
2.022 a
10.55 ab
10.01 ab
8.790 bc
72.26 ab
78.65 a
77.10 a
98.85 b
79.30 b
66.45 bc
19.71 b
13.76 c
10.37 c
56.46 b
47.98 b
51.08 b

4.4

P (%)
K (%)
Mg (%)
Ca (%)
Cu (mgg1)
Zn (mgg1)
Mn (mgg1)
B (mgg1)
Fe (mgg1)

0.651 a
2.470
0.604 d
1.172 c
12.64 a
97.41 a
178.0 a
31.45 a
71.45 a

P (%)
K (%)
Mg (%)
Ca (%)
Cu (mgg1)
Zn (mgg1)
Mn (mgg1)
B (mgg1)
Fe (mgg1)

0.389 ab
1.983 b
0.404 d
0.696 c
13.06 ab
54.38 b
110.6 a
20.73 ab
131.4

P (%)
K (%)
Mg (%)
Ca (%)
Cu (mgg1)
Zn (mgg1)
Mn (mgg1)
B (mgg1)
Fe (mgg1)

0.349
2.725
0.507 c
0.946 c
12.150
73.24 b
167.90 a
20.70 av
92.31

P (%)
K (%)y
Mg (%)
Ca (%)
Cu (mgg1)
Zn (mgg1)
Mn (mgg1)y
B (mgg1)
Fe (mgg1)y

0.428

0.511 d
0.943 d
18.40
39.33 b

23.42

0.517 a
2.794 ab
0.579 c
1.390 a
16.67 ab
101.3 ab
102.3 a
22.66 a
98.48

S. sexangulare
0.493 a
2.708 ab
0.718 b
1.650 a
13.79 ab
91.59 ab
110.5 a
15.55 bc
97.20

0.573 a
3.863 a
0.847 ab
1.560 a
19.95 a
135.6 a
98.60 a
20.19 ab
121.0

8.2
0.244 c
2.028
0.858 a
1.078 c
6.190 c
49.35 b
33.16 c
9.77 c
44.18 b
0.226 b
3.167 ab
0.953 a
1.080 b
9.141 b
73.21 ab
51.86 b
11.21 c
98.98

S. spurium Dragons Blood

0.393
0.315
0.398
3.017
2.521
x
0.605 bc
0.765 b

1.346 b
1.864 a
1.825 a
7.980
7.340

93.21 ab
129.0 a
107.3 ab
86.00 b
96.34 b

17.94 ab
14.94 ab
10.80 b
79.65
64.30

0.241
3.135
0.961 a
1.062 bc
9.150
80.57 b
51.16 b
14.93 abv
60.26

S. album
0.565
3.583
0.818 bc
2.143 ab
18.00
129.4 a
259.3
17.80w
100.2

0.363

1.093 a
1.460 cd
30.51
61.70 ab

17.42

0.531
3.390w
0.651 cd
1.702 bc
25.06
94.22 ab
130.5w
22.13v
83.49w

0.512

0.984 ab
2.476 a
15.63
87.69 ab

12.03

S. reflexum Blue Spruce

P (%)
0.378 ab
0.545 a
0.518 a
0.472 a
0.189 b

2.840v
3.300

2.169w
K (%)y
Mg (%)
0.468 d
0.575 cd
0.690 bc
0.831 b
1.080 a
Ca (%)
0.934 c
1.844 ab
2.159 ab
2.366 a
1.555 bc
18.66
14.14
11.97
18.03
14.96
Cu (mgg1)
48.81 c
85.4 abc
114.7 ab
122.7 a
73.87 bc
Zn (mgg1)

124.2v
117.6

40.30w
Mn (mgg1)y
B (mgg1)
26.65
29.19v
22.09w
13.48
9.450v
Fe (mgg-1)y

74.32v
70.43

53.76w
z
Data are means of three replicates; data in rows followed by the same lowercase letters are not
significantly different P < 0.05.
y
Tukeys multiple comparison test not performed due to missing data.
x,w,v
n = 0, n = 1, and n = 2, respectively; low sample sizes as a result of complications during tissue analysis.
P = phosphorus; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; Ca = calcium; Cu = copper; Zn = zinc; Mn =
manganese; B = boron; Fe = iron.

except for the slightly low level observed in

the 6.4 pH treatment 6 weeks after planting.
The observed increase in substrate EC between 1 and 3 weeks after planting was likely
the result of nutrient release as caused by
warm and moist conditions in the growing
substrate. The observed reduction in EC over
time, especially within the middle pH range,
could have been caused by nutrient uptake in
response to faster plant growth in these pH
treatments. Measured EC values indicate
that the difference in Sedum species growth
among pH treatments was not the result of
salt toxicity or overall lack of nutrients in the
substrate.
Although nutrient availability was not the
focus of the current study, pH-influenced
nutrient availability should not be discounted
as one cause for the differences in Sedum
plant growth. In soilless substrates, the recommended optimum pH range for nutrient
availability is 5.6 to 6.2 (Reed, 1996). Below
this range, availability of Ca and Mg decline,
and above this range, P and other minor
nutrients become decreasingly available to
plants. Observations of light yellowish green
shoot tips suggested Mg deficiency symptoms for some S. sexangulare and S. album
plants grown in the 4.4 pH treatment. Tissue
Mg concentrations in the 4.4 pH treatment
were the lowest for S. sexangulare and
among the lowest for S. album among the
pH treatments. In the 7.2 and 8.2 pH treatments, the typical red color of S. spurium
leaves and stems was visually darker than in
the other pH treatments. Because S. spurium
tissue P concentration did not differ among
pH treatments, the dark red tissue in 7.2 and
8.2 pH treatments might have resulted from
a concentration of red pigments, as a result
of stunted S. spurium growth, rather than
P deficiency. However, further research is
needed to determine factors influencing color
responses and identify nutrient deficiency
symptoms in Sedum spp. Overall, growth of
Sedum species clearly showed a response to
growing substrate pH with different species
having different optimal pH levels. Therefore, it is beneficial to adjust the substrate
pH to the optimal range for individual Sedum
species to promote maximum growth. The
current study has identified the optimal pH
for maximum growth for five Sedum species, which can be used to guide production and maintenance of Sedum species for
horticultural applications including green
roof plantings.
Literature Cited

growing substrates to reach an array of desired lower pH levels may account for the
lack of published data on optimal green roof
substrate pH ranges for Sedum and other
plant species. Optimal pH ranges for the
five Sedum species in the current study could
be slightly higher when grown in mineral
soils or green roof substrates with a high
mineral material content. However, further
research is needed to verify optimal pH levels
HORTSCIENCE VOL. 48(4) APRIL 2013

for Sedum species in different growing

substrates, especially in substrates containing a high percentage of mineral components when grown for a longer period.
Although substrate EC levels were significantly different over time for the duration of
the current study, the overall mean EC for all
treatments was still within the range required
for the majority of container-grown plants
(i.e., 1.0 to 3.5 dSm1; Cavins et al., 2000),

Cavins, T.J., B.E. Whipker, W.C. Fonteno, B. Harden,

I. McCall, and J.L. Gibson. 2000. Monitoring
and managing pH and EC using the PourThru
extraction method. NC State Univ. Hort. Info.
Leaflet 590.
Clausen, R.T. 1975. Sedum of North America north
of the Mexican plateau. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Crow, S.E. and S. Ware. 2007. Soil type tolerance in
rock outcrop plants: Species of non-calcareous
substrates. Southwest. Nat. 52:120125.
FLL [Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau (The Landscape

451

Development and Landscaping Research Society)]. 2008. Guidelines for the planning,
construction, and maintenance of green roofing
Green roofing guideline. Forschungsgesellschaft
Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau, Bonn,
Germany.
Getter, K.L. and D.B. Rowe. 2007. Effect of
substrate depth and planting season on Sedum
plug survival on green roofs. J. Environ. Hort.
25:9599.

452

Gudrupa, I., D. Kruzmane, and G. Ievinsh. 2002.

Effect of CCC and pH on shoot elongation in
Sedum rubrotinctum R.T. Clausen. Plant Sci.
163:647651.
Marschner, H. 1986. Mineral nutrition of higher
plants. Academic Press Inc., London, UK.
Monterusso, M.A., D.B. Rowe, and C.L. Rugh.
2005. Establishment and persistence of Sedum
spp. and native taxa for green roof applications.
HortScience 40:391396.

Reed, D.W. 1996. A growers guide to water,

media, and nutrition for greenhouse crops. Ball
Publishing, Batavia, IL.
Stephenson, R. 1994. Sedum: Cultivated stonecrops. Timber Press, Inc., Portland, OR.
Ware, S. 1990. Adaptation to substrateAnd lack of
itIn rock outcrop plants: Sedum and Arenaria.
Amer. J. Bot. 77:10951100.
Wright, R.D. 1986. The pour through nutrient extraction procedure. HortScience 21:227229.

HORTSCIENCE VOL. 48(4) APRIL 2013