Impacts on Growth and Quality of Interplanting Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal Material in the Lower Coastal Plain Travis Norman MSc in Forestry Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 1
30
Embed
Interplanting Lobloly Pine Impacts on Growth Characteristics Norman - S… · Interplanting Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal Material in the Lower Coastal Plain
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Impacts on Growth and Quality of
Interplanting Loblolly Pine (Pinus
taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal
Material in the Lower Coastal Plain
Travis Norman
MSc in Forestry
Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
1
Background
Two clones (C1 & C2) purchased from CellFor
and planted in January and February of 2007.
Somatic embryogenic (SE) seedlings cost
more (~$500/thousand) than OP or full-sib
families.
To test if SE trees should be interplanted with
less expensive OP seedlings to produce a
stand of crop trees that are predominately
high value SE trees.
2
Objectives
To compare the composition of stands
planted as clonal blocks to stands
interplanted with a mixture of clonal
materials and open-pollinated (OP)
seedlings in loblolly pine.
Compare both individual-stem and
stand-level traits and variability.
Assess sawtimber quality and crop-tree
potential of clonal material compared
to the OP genotypes.
3
Hypothesis
In the interplanted treatments the clones
will outperform the OP and SOM
genotypes.
In the pure monoclonal treatments that
were planted, there will be more higher
quality trees because there are more
“good” trees present to compensate for
the trees planted on lower quality micro
sites within a plot.
4
Study Location 5
Site Descriptions
• Established in
January and
February of 2007
• Planted at 436 TPA
(1077 TPH)
• 5 x 20 ft spacing
(1.5 x 6.1 meters)
• Bedded sites
• Lower coastal
plain
• Good competition
control
6
Dry Site
Well Drained
Ditched in 2006
and bedded
Higher site index
(97.2 feet)
7
Wet Site
Poorly drained
Ditched in 2005
and Bedded
Lower site index
(88.8 feet)
8
Study Description 9
Methods
Diameter at breast height (DBH) and total height
of each tree were measured. DBH was measured to the nearest one-hundredth of an inch with diameter tapes.
Total height was measured to the nearest tenth of a foot using Haglof Vertex
Hypsometers.
Each tree was given a mortality rating of 2, 1, or 0. 2 – Healthy
1 – Stressed or defective
0 – Dead
10
Methods Cont. Any trees that were rated with a mortality code of 1 or 0 were
excluded from analysis (~19% at age 6).
DBH and total height were measured during the dormant season, before growth flushing began, at the end of 6 years of growth.
Each tree was given a sawtimber score from 1 to 4.
1 – High-quality crop-tree
2 – Crop-tree (minor defects)
3 – Pulpwood
4 – non-merchantable/non-crop tree
Judging criteria mentioned later
Total volume outside bark (cu. ft.) was calculated using a prediction volume equation from Sherrill et al., 2011.
𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑏 = 0.2571 + 0.00237 𝐷2𝐻
Projected site index (base age 25) values were calculated using a site index model from Dieguez-Aranda et al., 2006.
11
Survival Rates 12
98.61 98.44 98
96.94
95.5
91.27
83.94 83.5
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 4 6 1 2 4 6
Dry Wet
Surv
ival
(%
)
Age by Site
Summary Statistics
13 Site Treatment Family N DBH (in) THT (ft)
Dry
OP Clone 1 OP 195 5.85 (0.85) 29.87 (3.77)
Clone 1 71 5.20 (0.81) 29.52 (3.38)
OP Clone 2 OP 189 5.74 (0.92) 30.05 (3.57)
Clone 2 71 5.21 (0.98) 30.83 (3.35)
Clone 1 Pure Clone 1 264 5.40 (0.80) 28.95 (3.10)
Clone 2 Pure Clone 2 272 5.43 (0.88) 31.06 (3.76)
SOM Clone 1 Clone 1 68 5.12 (0.74) 29.88 (3.36)
SOM 212 5.85 (0.86) 28.34 (2.95)
SOM Clone 2 Clone 2 64 5.36 (0.88) 31.44 (3.33)
SOM 204 5.87 (0.70) 28.36 (2.82)
Wet
OP Clone 1 OP 147 5.55 (0.99) 28.31 (4.01)
Clone 1 57 4.97 (1.10) 27.66 (4.31)
OP Clone 2 OP 142 5.22 (1.19) 25.13 (4.18)
Clone 2 52 4.23 (1.14) 24.09 (4.81)
Clone 1 Pure Clone 1 222 5.15 (1.04) 27.54 (4.24)
Clone 2 Pure Clone 2 223 4.59 (1.17) 25.85 (4.99)
SOM Clone 1 Clone 1 55 4.73 (1.25) 25.87 (4.51)
SOM 154 5.18 (1.20) 24.68 (3.68)
SOM Clone 2 Clone 2 57 4.38 (1.04) 25.18 (4.17)
SOM 171 5.31 (1.09) 24.70 (3.89)
Total Volume per Acre 14
165.50 160.65 167.46
164.65
145.91
162.71
112.05
84.83
95.22 102.12
111.28
90.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200O
P_C
lone
1
OP
_C
lone
2
SO
M_C
lone
1
SO
M_C
lone
2
Clo
ne
1_P
ure
Clo
ne
2_P
ure
OP
_C
lone
1
OP
_C
lone
2
SO
M_C
lone
1
SO
M_C
lone
2
Clo
ne
1_P
ure
Clo
ne
2_P
ure
Dry Wet
Volu
me
(ft3
ac-1
)
Site Index Assessment 15
90.2
93.2
82.8
92.5
89.4
85.0
89.5 87.6
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
OP Clone
1
Clone
2
Clone
1
Clone
2
SOM Clone
1
Clone
2
OP Pure SOM
Wet
Sit
e In
dex
(ft
)
98.0
96.1
99.6
94.9
100.1
92.6
96.9
99.5
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
OP Clone
1
Clone
2
Clone
1
Clone
2
SOM Clone
1
Clone
2
OP Pure SOM
Dry
Sit
e In
dex
(ft
)
Clone Level Analysis
Response variables: DBH, total height, and coefficients of variation.