The future of tree improvement in the Southeastern United States: Alternative visions for the next decade

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 88-95

  Byram, T D ^a   Mullin, T J ^b   White, T L ^c   van Buijtenen, J P ^d  

^a Texas Forest Service   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^d TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Breeding objectives; Economics; Forest certification; Forest genetics; Intellectual property; Tree improvement cooperatives

Indexed keywords

GENETIC ENGINEERING; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; INDUSTRY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; NATURAL FIBERS; PHYSIOLOGY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; WOOD PRODUCTS;

BREEDING OBJECTIVES; FOREST CERTIFICATION; TREE IMPROVEMENT COOPERATIVES;

FORESTRY;

BIOLOGY; BREEDING; CERTIFICATION; ECONOMICS; FOREST GENETICS; FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY; NATURAL FIBERS; ORGANIZATIONS; PHYSIOLOGY; RESEARCH; WOOD PRODUCTS;

EID: 25444487983     PISSN: 01484419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sjaf/29.2.88     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Block, N.E., and A. Sample. 2001. Industrial timberland divestitures and investments: Opportunities and challenges in forestland conservation. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 50 p.
2. Bornman, C.H., and A.M. Botha. 2000. Somatic seed: Balancing expectations against achievements. P. 76-79 in Proc. IUFRO Work. Party, For. Gen. For the Next Millennium. Durban, South Africa. Oct. 8-13.
3. Burdon, R. 2003. Genetically modified forest trees. International Forestry Review. 5(1):58-63.
4. Byram, T.D., F.E. Bridgwater, G.D. Gooding, D.P. Gwaze, W.J. Lowe, and J.H. Myszewski. 2000. 48th Progress report of the cooperative forest tree improvement program. Texas Forest Service Circular 401. 28 p.
5. Clutter, M. 2002. Timberland on the block. http://www.forestry.uga.edu/ warnell/research/html/forestry/timberland.html/; last accessed September, 2002.
6. Falconer, D.S., and T.F.C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed., Longman Group, LTD., London. 464 p.
7. Greenwood, M.S. 1978. Flowering induced on young loblolly pine grafts by out-of-phase dormancy. Sci. 201(4354):443-444.
8. Greenwood, M.S. 1981. Reproductive development in loblolly pine. II. The effect of age, gibberellin plus water stress and out-of-phase dormancy on long shoot growth behavior. Am. J. Bot. 68(9): 1184-1190.
9. Grossnickle, S.C., D. Cyr, and D.R. Polonenko. 1996. Somatic embryogenesis tissue culture for the propagation of conifer seedlings: A technology comes of age. Tree Planters' Notes. 47:48-57.
10. Li, B., S.E. McKeand, and R.J. Weir. 1999. Tree improvement and sustainable forestry -impact of two cycles of loblolly pine breeding in the U.S.A. For. Genet. 6(4):229-234.
11. Li, B., S.E. McKeand, and R.J. Weir. 2000. Impact of forest genetics on sustainable forestry -results from two cycles of loblolly pine breeding in the U.S. J. Sus. For. 10:79-85.
12. Libby, W.J., and M.R. Ahuja. 1993. Clonal forestry. P. 1-8 in Clonal forestry II. Ahuja, M.R., and W.J. Libby (eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
13. Lowe, W.J., and J.P. Van Buijtenen. 1980. Tree improvement philosophy and strategy for the Western Gulf Forest Tree Improvement Program. P. 43-50 in Proc. 16th North American Quantitative Forest Genetics Group Workshop, Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. Aug. 6-8.
14. McKeand, S.E., and F.E. Bridgwater. 1998. A strategy for the third breeding cycle of loblolly pine in the southeastern U.S. Sil. Genet. 47(4):223-234.
15. McKeand, S.E., T.J. Mullin, T.D. Byram, and T.L. White. 2003. Deployment strategies for loblolly and slash pines in the southern US. J. For. 101(3):32-37.
16. McKeand, S.E., and R.J. Weir. 1983. Economic benefits of an aggressive breeding program. P. 99-105 in Proc. 17th South. For. Tree. Improv. Conf. Athens, GA. June 7-9.
17. Mullin, T.J. 1994. Evaluating the economics of alternative breeding and deployment strategies for northeastern conifers. Proc. Can. Tree Improv. Assoc. Part 2, (24):82-105.
18. Mullin, T.J., and S. Bertrand. 1998. Environmental release of transgenic trees in Canada -potential benefits and assessment of biosafety. For. Chron. 74(2):203-219.
19. National Research Council. 2002. National capacity in forestry research. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 144 p.
20. Park, Y.S., J.M Bonga, and T.J. Mullin. 1998. Chapter 8, Clonal forestry, P. 143-167 in Forest genetics and tree breeding. Mandal, A.K., and G.L. Gibson (eds.). CBS Publishers, New Delhi, India.
21. Pew Initiative On Food and Biotechnology. 2001a. Biotech branches out: A look at the opportunities and impacts of forest biotechnology. Proc. from a workshop sponsored by Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Society of American Foresters and Ecol. Soc. Am. 28 p.
22. Pew Initiative On Food and Biotechnology. 2001b. Genetically modified crops in the United States. Factsheet. http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/ factsheets; last accessed September, 2002.
23. Porterfield, R.L., B.J. Zobel, and F.T. Ledig. 1975. Evaluating the efficiency of tree improvement programs. Sil. Genet. 24(2/3):33-44.
24. Russell, J.H., and W.J. Libby. 1986. Clonal testing efficiency: The trade-offs between clones tested and ramets per clone. Can. J. For. Res. 16(5):925-930.
25. Shaw, D.V., and J.V. Hood. 1985. Maximizing gain per effort by using clonal replicates in genetic tests. Theor. Appl. Genet. 71(3):392-399.
26. Todd, D., J. Pait, and J. Hodge. 1995. The impact and value of tree improvement in the South. P. 7-16 in Proc. 23rd South. For. Tree Improv. Conf, Asheville, NC. June 20-22.
27. White, T.L., and T.D. Byram. Slash pine tree improvement. In: Slash Pine Symposium General Technical Report-2003, E.D. Dickens et al (eds). Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-P-000. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station (in press).
28. White, T.L., G.R. Hodge, and G.L. Powell. 1993. Advance-generation breeding strategy for slash pine in the southeastern United States. Sil. Genet. 42:359-371.
29. Williams, C.G. 1998. Integrating biotechnology and tree breeding in the southern United States. Report to the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, August 31, 1998. 22 p.
30. Williams, C.G., and T.D. Byram. 2001. Forestry's third revolution: Integrating biotechnology into Pinus taeda L. breeding programs. South. J. Appl. For. 25(3):116-121.
31. Williams, C.G., and J.E. De Steiguer. 1990. Value of production orchards based on two cycles of breeding and testing. For. Sci. 36(1):156-168.