Critical RGC-Expected Survival models for predicting Survival of planted white fir (Abies concolor Lindl.) seedlings

New Forests

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 65-82

  Stone, Edward C ^a   Cavallaro, Janet I ^a   Norberg, Edward A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Nursery cultural practices; Planting site harshness; Root growth capacity; Root growth potential

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; POPULATION STATISTICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEED;

SURVIVABILITY;

FORESTRY;

POPULATION MODELING; PREDICTION; SEEDLING; SURVIVAL;

ABIES CONCOLOR; ABIES GRANDIS;

EID: 0041766784     PISSN: 01694286     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024410023937     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Binder W.D., Scagel R.K. and Krumlik G.J. 1988. Root growth potential: facts, myths, value? In: Landis T.D. (ed.), Proc. Of the 1988 combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Association, Vernon, BC Canada. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-167., pp. 111-118.
2. Buck J.M. and Adams R.S., California Region, Forest Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric., San Francisco 1970. California tree seed zones. Div. Forest., Dep. Conserv. and California Resources Agency, Sacramento, 5 pp.
3. Burdett A.N., Simpson D.G. and Thompson C.F. 1983. Root development and plantation establishment success. Plant and Soil 71: 103-110.
4. Burdett A.N. 1990. Physiological processes in plantation establishment and the development of specifications for forest planting stock. Can. J. Jor. Res. 20: 415-427.
5. Dunsworth B.G. 1988. Impact of lift date and storage on field performance for Douglas-fir and western hemlock. In: Landis T.D. (ed.), Proc. of the 1988 combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations, Vernon, BC Canada. USDA Forest Service General. Technical Report RM-167., pp. 199-206.
6. Feret P.P. and Kreh R.E. 1985. Seedling root growth potential as an indicator of loblolly pine field performance. For. Sci. 31: 1005-1011.
7. Folk R.S. and Grossnickle S.C. 1997. Determining field performance potential with the use of limiting environmental conditions. New Forest 13: 121-138.
8. Hallgren S.W. and Tauer C.G. 1989. Root growth potential, first year survival, and growth of shortleaf pine seedlings show effects of lift date, storage, and family. Southern J. Appl. Forestry 13: 163-169.
9. Jenkinson J.L. and Nelson J.A. 1978. Seed source lifting windows for Douglas-fir in the Humholt Nursery. In: Gustafson R.W. (ed.), Proc. of 1978 Western Forest Nursery Council and Intermountain Nurseryman's Association Combined Nurseryman's Conference and Seed Processing Workshop; 1978 August 7-11; Eureka, CA USA. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. D.A; B77-95., pp. 75-95.
10. Jenkinson J.L., Nelson J.A. and Huddleston M.E. 1993. Improving plant stock quality - the Humboldt experience. General Technical. Report. PSW-GTR-143. U.S.D.A., Forest. Service, 219 pp.
11. Lassheikki M., Puttonen P. and Rasanen P.K. 1991. Planting performance potential of Pinus sylvestris seedlings as evaluated by root growth capacity and triphenyl tetrazolium chloride reduction methods. Scand. J. For. Res. 6: 91-104.
12. Larsen H.S., South D.B. and Boyer J.M. 1986. Root growth potential, seedling morphology and bud dormancy correlate with survival of loblolly pine seedlings planted in December in Alabama. Tree Physiol 1: 253-263.
13. Mattsson R. 1991. Root growth capacity and field performance of Pinus syhstsis and Picea abies seedlings. Scand. J. For. Res. 105-112.
14. McMinn R.G. 1980. Root growth capacity and field performance of various types and sizes of white spruce stock following outplanting in the central interior of British Columbia. In: Schmidt-Vogt H. (ed.), Proc of UFRO working group S1.05-04 (Characterization of plant material) meeting. Freiburg-Br, FRG, pp. 37-41.
15. Ritchie G.A. 1985. Root growth potential: principles, procedures and predictive ability. In: Duryea M.L. (ed.), Proc. of workshop Evaluating seedling quality: principles, procedures, and predictive capability of major tests. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, pp. 93-105.
16. Ritchie G.A. and Tanaka Y. 1990. Root growth potential and the target seedling. In: Rose R., Campbell S.J. and Landis T.D. (eds), Proc. of 1990 combined meeting of Western Forest Nursery Associations. Roseburg OR, USA. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-200., pp. 37-51.
17. Simpson D.G. 1990. Frost hardiness, root growth capacity, and field performance relationships in interior spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and western hemlock seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 20- 566-572.
18. Simpson D.G. and Ritchie G.A. 1997. Does RGP predict field performance? A debate. New Forests 13: 253-277.
19. Simpson D.G., Vyse A. and Thompson C.F. 1988. Root growth capacity effects on field performance. In: Landis T.D. (ed.), Proc. of the 1988 combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations. Vernon, BC Canada. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-167., pp. 119-121.
20. Simpson D.G., Thompson C.F. and Sutherland C.D. 1994. Field performance potential of interior spruce seedlings: effects of stress treatments and prediction by root growth potentials and needle conductance. Can. J. For. Res. 576-586.
21. Stone E.C. 1955. Poor survival and the physiological condition of planting stock. For. Sci. 1: 90-94.
22. Stone E.C. and Jenkinson J.L. 1971. Physiological grading of ponderosa pine nursery stock. J. For. 69: 31-33.
23. Sutton R.F. 1980. Planting stock quality, root growth capacity and field performance of three boreal conifers. New Zealand J. For. Sci. 18: 54-71.
24. van den Driessche R. 1983. Growth, survival, and physiology of Douglas-fir seedlings following root wrenching and fertilization. Can. J. For. Res. 13: 270-278.