interplanting lobloly pine impacts on growth characteristics norman - s… · interplanting...
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.
Model: 𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚 = 𝜇 + 𝛼𝑖 + 𝛽(𝛼)𝑗 𝑖 + 𝛾𝑘 + (𝛼𝛾)𝑖𝑘 + (𝛽(𝛼)𝛾)𝑗 𝑖 𝑘 +𝛿𝑙 +
(𝛼𝛿)𝑖𝑙 + (𝛾𝛿)𝑘𝑙 + (𝛼𝛾𝛿)𝑖𝑘𝑙 +(𝛽(𝛼)𝛿)𝑗 𝑖 𝑙+(𝛽(𝛼)𝛾𝛿)𝑗 𝑖 𝑘𝑙+휀𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚
𝜇 is the overall grand mean
𝛼 is the main effect of site 𝑖.
𝛽(𝛼) is the random effect of replication within site
𝛾 is the main effect of clonal variety
𝛿 is the main effect of mixture (SOM, OP, Pure)
16
Clone Level Individual Tree Results
DBH
Total Height
17
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Site 1 7.1633 7.1633 128.46 0.0003
Clone 1 0.5848 0.5848 10.54 0.0315
Site*Clone 1 0.5753 0.5753 10.37 0.0323
Clone*Mixture 2 0.2275 0.1137 2.05 0.2438
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Site 1 264.8059 264.8059 32.91 0.0046
Clone 1 4.5604 4.56047 3.84 0.1217
Site*Clone 1 33.8092 33.8092 28.45 0.006
Clone*Mixture 2 6.9217 3.4609 2.91 0.1658
Clone Level CV Results
DBH
Total Height
18
Source DF Type III
SS
Mean
Square
F
Value Pr > F
Site 1 701.78535 701.78535 26.96 0.0066
Clone 1 40.222704 40.2227042 2.28 0.2058
Site*Clone 1 9.0897042 9.08970417 0.51 0.5129
Clone*Mixture 2 91.63734 45.81867 2.59 0.1896
Source DF Type III
SS
Mean
Square
F
Value Pr > F
Site 1 359.79398 359.793984 34.07 0.0043
Clone 1 7.232526 7.23252604 0.44 0.5422
Site*Clone 1 20.175834 20.1758344 1.24 0.3287
Clone*Mixture 2 21.437953 10.7189763 0.66 0.5669
Mixture Analysis
Compares the clonal varieties with OP and SOM genetics within each treatment.
Also compares the coefficients of variation for DBH and total height of the clonal varieties with OP and SOM genetics within each treatment.
For this analysis, the pure clonal blocks were dropped from the analysis.
Model: 𝑦𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚 = 𝜇 + 𝛼𝑖 + 𝛽𝑗 + 𝛽(𝛼)𝑗 𝑖 + 𝛾𝑘 + (𝛼𝛾)𝑖𝑘 + 𝛿𝑙 + (𝛾𝛿)𝑘𝑙 + (𝛽(𝛼)𝛾)𝑗 𝑖 𝑘+휀𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚
𝜇 is the overall grand mean
𝛼 is the main effect of site 𝑖.
𝛽 is the main effect of replication
𝛽(𝛼) is the random effect of replication within site
𝛾 is the main effect of mixture
𝛿 is the main effect of Family (SOM, OP, Clone 1, and Clone 2)
19
DBH
Total Height
20
Source DF Type III
SS
Mean
Square
F
Value Pr > F
Site 1 6.8797 6.8797 97.63 < .0001
Rep 2 0.1200 0.0600 0.80 0.458
Rep(Site) 2 0.0725 0.0363 0.48 0.622
Mixture 1 0.1042 0.1042 1.39 0.248
Site*Mixture 1 0.0136 0.0136 0.18 0.673
Family 3 5.3408 1.7803 23.71 < .0001
Mixture*Family 1 0.0591 0.0591 0.79 0.381
Rep*Mixture(Site) 4 0.5135 0.1284 1.71 0.172
Error 32 2.4027 0.0543
Source DF Type III
SS
Mean
Square
F
Value Pr > F
Site 1 262.4591 262.4591 116.25 < .0001
Rep 2 15.0115 7.5057 3.32 0.049
Rep(Site) 2 23.7686 11.8843 5.26 0.011
Mixture 1 0.8014 0.8014 0.35 0.556
Site*Mixture 1 0.1293 0.1293 0.06 0.812
Family 3 17.0992 5.6997 2.52 0.075
Mixture*Family 1 1.7542 1.7542 0.78 0.385
Rep*Mixture(Site) 4 29.3653 7.3413 3.25 0.024
Error 32 72.2479 2.2577
Mixture Analysis Individual Tree Results
Mixture CV Plot Level Results 21
Source DF Type III
SS
Mean
Square
F
Value Pr > F
SITE 1 323.52 323.52 44.82 <.0001
REP 2 11.85 5.93 0.82 0.449
REP(SITE) 2 12.11 6.06 0.84 0.4414
MIXTURE 1 2.72 2.72 0.38 0.5436
SITE*MIXTURE 1 5.39 5.39 0.75 0.394
FAMILY 3 12.55 4.18 0.58 0.6326
MIXTURE*FAMILY 1 14.00 14.00 1.94 0.1733
REP*MIXTURE(SITE) 4 58.78 14.70 2.04 0.1129
Error: MS(Error) 32 231.00 7.22
Total Height
Source DF Type III
SS
Mean
Square
F
Value Pr > F
SITE 1 697.83 697.83 51.79 <.0001
REP 2 11.65 5.82 0.43 0.6528
REP(SITE) 2 41.98 20.99 1.56 0.2262
MIXTURE 1 6.95 6.95 0.52 0.4777
SITE*MIXTURE 1 16.79 16.79 1.25 0.2727
FAMILY 3 114.57 38.19 2.83 0.0537
MIXTURE*FAMILY 1 28.76 28.76 2.13 0.1538
REP*MIXTURE(SITE) 4 101.23 25.31 1.88 0.1384
Error: MS(Error) 32 431.18 13.47
DBH
Sawtimber/Crop-Tree Analysis
Each tree was given an assessment score of 1 to 4.
Of the 4 scores, 1 and 2 are considered as potential crop-trees. Scores 3 and 4 are considered to be non-crop trees.
Things taken into account:
Straightness/sweep
Forking
Branch size
Total height
Lean
Broken tops
Other defects
Determine the likelihood that each of the genetic varieties is a potential crop-tree.
22
Clonal Crop-tree Percent 23
30.88
20.75
41.79
17.65
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
OP-Clone 1 OP-Clone 2 SOM-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2
% o
f C
lone
Treatment
44.14
32.41 35.19
32.52
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
OP-Clone 1 OP-Clone 2 SOM-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2
% o
f C
lone
Treatment
Dry Site Wet Site
Top 5 Ranking 24
Row Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5
1 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM
2 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
3 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1
4 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
5 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM
6 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
7 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1
8 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
9 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM
10 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
11 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1
12 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
13 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM
14 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
15 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1
16 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
17 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM
18 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
19 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1
20 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
Top 5 Ranking 25
0.8
1.3
0.9 0.6
1.7
0.8 0.8
1.5
0.9 0.6
2.5
1.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
DBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBV
OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2
Mea
n N
o. o
f C
lone
1 a
nd C
lone
2 i
n t
op 5
for
each
bed
in d
ry s
ite
Treatment
0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
DB
H
TH
T
OB
V
DB
H
TH
T
OB
V
DB
H
TH
T
OB
V
DB
H
TH
T
OB
V
OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2M
ean
No
. o
f C
lon
e 1 a
nd C
lone
2 i
n t
op 5
for
each
bed
in
wet
sit
e Treatment
Dry Site Wet Site
Summary & Conclusions Based on these results,
The DBH and total heights of the clones
differed significantly with respect to site and
clonal variety.
The clones are not growing differently based
on mixture.
No significant difference in CVs between
mixtures or genotypic families.
Overall, the OP and SOM material expressed
greater diameter and height growth than the
clonal material in the interplanting treatments.
26
There are far too few clones ranked as
potential crop-trees per bed.
Therefore, with these genetics,
interplanting clonal loblolly pine material
at these sites would not be a worthwhile
investment.
27 Summary & Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Douglas Clark, Sander
Denham, Carrie Rosental, Courtney
Johnson, and Jadie Andrews for aiding
in data collection. Thanks to the
Cooperative Tree Improvement Program
for providing the study. Funding was
provided by NC State University.
Thanks to my committee.
Dr. Bronson Bullock
Dr. Steven McKeand
Dr. Renee Moore
28
References
Dieguez-Aranda, U., Burkhart, H. E., and Amateis, R. L.
2006. Dynamic Site Model for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda
L.) Plantations in the United States. Forest Science,52(3):
262-272.
Sherrill, J. R., Bullock, B. P., Mullin, T. J., McKeand S. E., and
Purnell, R. C. 2011. Total and Merchantable Stem
Volume Equations for Midrotation Loblolly Pine (Pinus
taeda L.). South. J. Appl. For. 35(3): 105-108.
29
Thank you!
Questions?
30