*

Effect of seedling stock on the early stand development and physiology of improved loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings

Shakuntala Sharma (1)   , Joshua P Adams (2), Jamie L Schuler (3), Robert L Ficklin (4), Don C Bragg (5)

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 690-695 (2016)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1725-009
Published: May 12, 2016 - Copyright © 2016 SISEF

Research Articles


This study assessed the effects of spacing and genotype on the growth and physiology of improved loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings from three distinct genotypes planted in Drew County, Arkansas (USA). Genotype had a significant effect on survival and height. Clone CF Var 1 showed greater height and survival compared to other seedlings. Genotype had significant effects on uniformity in height both years and ground line diameter (GLD) first year. However, genotype had no significant effects on leaf water potential and coefficient variation of leaf water potential. These growth and physiology should be further studied to assess potential genetic differences among seedlings and to determine if they can be identified early for improved growth at later ages.

  Keywords


Loblolly Pine, Genotype, Leaf Water Potential, Coefficient of Variation

Authors’ address

(1)
Shakuntala Sharma
University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Athens, GA (USA)
(2)
Joshua P Adams
Louisiana Tech University, School of Forest Resources, Ruston, LA (USA)
(3)
Jamie L Schuler
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV (USA)
(4)
Robert L Ficklin
University of Arkansas at Monticello, Arkansas Forest Resources Center, Monticello, AR (USA)
(5)
Don C Bragg
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Monticello, AR (USA)

Corresponding author

 
Shakuntala Sharma
shakun109@gmail.com

Citation

Sharma S, Adams JP, Schuler JL, Ficklin RL, Bragg DC (2016). Effect of seedling stock on the early stand development and physiology of improved loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings. iForest 9: 690-695. - doi: 10.3832/ifor1725-009

Academic Editor

Alberto Santini

Paper history

Received: May 31, 2015
Accepted: Feb 22, 2016

First online: May 12, 2016
Publication Date: Oct 13, 2016
Publication Time: 2.67 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 7089
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 4884
Abstract Page Views: 228
PDF Downloads: 1503
Citation/Reference Downloads: 31
XML Downloads: 443

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 1285
Overall contacts: 7089
Avg. contacts per week: 38.62

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Aug 2019)

(No citations were found up to date. Please come back later)


 

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

 
(1)
AFC (2014)
AFC Seedlings. Arkansas Forestry Commission, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Online | Gscholar
(2)
Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Dougherty PM, Kress LW, King JS (1998)
Leaf area and above- and belowground growth responses of loblolly pine to nutrient and water additions. Forest Science 44: 317-328.
Gscholar
(3)
Aspinwall MJ, King JS, Domec J-C, McKeand SE, Isik F (2011a)
Genetic effects on transpiration, canopy conductance, stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit, and cavitation resistance in loblolly pine. Ecohydrology 4: 168-182.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(4)
Aspinwall MJ, King JS, McKeand SE, Bullock BP (2011b)
Genetic effects on stand-level uniformity and above-and belowground dry mass production in juvenile loblolly pine. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 609-619.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(5)
Aspinwall MJ, McKeand SE, King JS (2012)
Carbon sequestration from 40 years of planting genetically improved loblolly pine across the southeast United States. Forest Science 58 (5): 446-456.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(6)
Barnett JP, Brissette JC (1986)
Producing southern pine seedlings in containers. General Technical Report no. SO-59, Southern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 71.
Online | Gscholar
(7)
Barnett JP, Brissette JC (2004)
Stock type affects performance of shortleaf pine planted in the Ouachita Mountains through 10 years. General Technical Report no. SRS-71, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC, USA, pp. 420-422.
Online | Gscholar
(8)
Bettinger P, Clutter M, Siry J, Kane M, Pait J (2009)
Broad implications of southern United States pine clonal forestry on planning and management of forests. International Forestry Review 11: 331-345.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(9)
Blum A (2011)
Plant breeding for water-limited environments. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 14.
Gscholar
(10)
Boyer WD (1989)
Response of planted longleaf pine bare-root and container stock to site preparation and release: fifth-year results. General Technical Report SO no.110, Southern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC, USA, pp. 165-168.
Gscholar
(11)
Cram MM, Mexal JG, Souter R (1999)
Successful reforestation of South Carolina sandhills is not influenced by seedling inoculation with Pisolithus tinctorius in the nursery. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 23: 46-52.
Online | Gscholar
(12)
Fox TR, Jokela EJ, Allen HL (2007)
The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. Journal of Forestry 105: 337-347.
Online | Gscholar
(13)
Fox TR (2000)
Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations. Forest Ecology and Management 138: 187-202.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(14)
Gwaze D, Melick R, Studyvin C, Hoss G, others (2006)
Survival and growth of container and bareroot shortleaf pine seedlings in Missouri. In: Proceedings of the “2006 National Meeting of the Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations” (Riley, LE, Dumroese RK, Landis TD eds). Proc. RMRS-P-43, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA, pp. 123-126.
Online | Gscholar
(15)
Hodge GR, White TL, Powell GL, De Souza SM (1989)
Predicted genetic gains from one generation of slash pine tree improvement. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 13: 51-56.
Online | Gscholar
(16)
Jansson G, Li B (2004)
Genetic gains of full-sib families from disconnected diallels in loblolly pine. Silvae Genetica 53: 60-64.
Online | Gscholar
(17)
Larance FC, Gill HV, Fultz CL (1976)
Soil survey of Drew County, Arkansas. USDA Soil Conservation Service and the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, AR, USA, pp. 86.
Gscholar
(18)
Li B, McKeand S, Weir R (1999)
Tree improvement and sustainable forestry-impact of two cycles of loblolly pine breeding in the USA. Forest Genetics 6: 229-234.
Online | Gscholar
(19)
Martin TA, Johnsen KH, White TL (2001)
Ideotype development in southern pines: rationale and strategies for overcoming scale-related obstacles. Forest Science 47: 21-28.
Online | Gscholar
(20)
McKeand SE, Jokela EJ, Huber DA, Byram TD, Allen HL, Li B et al. (2006)
Performance of improved genotypes of loblolly pine across different soils, climates, and silvicultural inputs. Forest Ecology and Management 227: 178-184.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(21)
Nambiar EK (1996)
Sustained productivity of forests is a continuing challenge to soil science. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 1629-1642.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(22)
NOAA (2013)
1981-2010 climate normal for Monticello, Arkansas. National Weather Service Forecast Office, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Online | Gscholar
(23)
PMS (2014)
Conifer trees classified by stress categories. PMS Instrument Company, Albany, OR, USA, pp. 1.
Online | Gscholar
(24)
Prestemon JP, Abt RC (2002)
Southern forest resource assessment highlights: the Southern timber market to 2040. Journal of Forestry 100: 16-22.
Online | Gscholar
(25)
South DB, Mason WL (1993)
Influence of differences in planting stock size on early height growth of Sitka spruce. Forestry 66: 83-96.
Online | Gscholar
(26)
Subedi S, Kane M, Zhao D, Borders B, Greene D (2012)
Cultural intensity and planting density effects on aboveground biomass of 12-year-old Loblolly pine trees in the upper coastal plain and piedmont of the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 267: 157-162.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(27)
Talbert JT, Weir RJ, Arnold RD (1985)
Costs and benefits of a mature first-generation loblolly pine tree improvement program. Journal of Forestry 83: 162-166.
Online | Gscholar
(28)
Zhao D, Kane M, Borders B, Subedi S, Akers M (2011)
Effects of cultural intensity and planting density on stand-level abovegroung biomass production and allocation for 12-year-old Loblolly pine plantations in the upper coastal plain and piedmont of the southern United States. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42 (1): 111-122.
CrossRef | Gscholar
 

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website