Comparison of morphological and physiological parameters of the planting material of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) from intensive nursery technologies with current bareroot plants

Journal of Forest Science

Volumn 55, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 511-517

  Leugner, J ^a   Jurasek A ^a   Martincova J ^a  

^a FORESTRY AND GAME MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Bareroot transplants; Containerized seedlings; Morphological and physiological quality; Norway spruce; Plugs

Indexed keywords

CONTAINERS; LANDFORMS; PHYSIOLOGICAL MODELS; PHYSIOLOGY; REFORESTATION;

CONTAINERIZED SEEDLINGS; CONTROLLED CONDITIONS; MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS; NORWAY SPRUCE; NORWAY SPRUCE (PICEA ABIES [L.] KARST.); PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PLUGS; ROOT-COLLAR DIAMETERS;

PLANTS (BOTANY);

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVERGREEN FOREST; GROWTH RATE; MORPHOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; REGENERATION; ROOT SYSTEM; TRANSPLANTATION;

AGRICULTURE; PICEA ABIES; PLUGS; REFORESTATION; SEEDLINGS;

PICEA ABIES;

EID: 73249135133     PISSN: 12124834     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17221/21/2009-jfs     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. ALM A. A., 1983. Black and white spruce plantings in Minnesota: Container vs bareroot stock and fall vs spring planting. Forest Chronicle, 59:189-191.
2. BERNIER P. Y., LAMHAMEDI M. S., SIMPSON D. G., 1995. Shoot:root ratio is of limited use in evaluating the quality of container conifer stock. Tree Planters' Notes, 46:.102-106.
3. BURDETT A. N., HERRING L. J., THOMPSON C. F., 1984. Early growth of planted spruce. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 14: 644-651.
4. CALL M. B., BUTTERWORTH J. A., RODEN J. S., CHRIS-TIAN R., EGERTON J. J., 1994. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence to forest ecology. Austrian Journal Plant Physiology, 22: 311-319.
5. ČAŇOVÁ I., 2002. Health condition of young spruce stands growing in Pol'ana in different altitudes. Journal of Forest Science, 48: 469-474.
6. DUDDLES R. E., OWSTON P. W., 1990. Performance of conifer stock types on national forests in the Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges. In: Ed. ROSE R., CAMPBELL S. J., LANDIS T. D. (eds), Target Seedling Symposium: Proceedings, Combined Meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Association, August 13-17, 1990. Rosenburg, General Technical Report, RM-200. Fort Collins, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Stations: 263-268.
7. GARDNER A. C., 1982. Field performance of containerized seedlings in interior British Columbia. In: SCARRAT J. B., GLERUM C., PLEXMAN C. A. (eds), Proceedings Canadian Containerized Tree Seedling Symposium, Toronto, September 14-16, 1981. Sault Sainte Marie, Great Lakes Forest Research Centre: 299-305.
8. LANDIS T. D., TINUS R. W., McDONALD S. E., BARNETT J. P., 1993. The Container Tree Nursery Manual. Volume 2. Containers and Growing Media. In: LANDIS T. D. (ed.) et al., Washington, D. C., USDA: 41-85.
9. LICHTENTHALER H. K., BUSCHMANN C., KNAPP M., 2005. How to correctly determine the different chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and the chlorophyll fluorescence decrease ratio RFd of leaves with the PAM fluorometer. Photosynthetica, 43: 379-393.
10. LOKVENC T., 1975. Vliv nadmořské výšky na růst smrku (Picea excelsa Link) v juvenilním stadiu. Opera Corcontica, 12: 91-107.
11. MATTICE C. R., 1982. Comparative field performance of paperpot and bareroot planting stock in northeastern Ontario. In: SCARRAT J. B., GLERUM C., PLEXMAN C. A. (eds), Proceedings Canadian Containerized Tree Seedling Symposium, Toronto, September 14-16, 1981. Sault Sainte Marie, Great Lakes Forest Research Centre: 321-330.
12. MAUER O., 1999. Zásady pěstovǎní sadebního materiálu v umělých krytech (fóliovnících). In: Pěstování a užití krytokořenného sadebního materiálu. Sborník referátů z meziná rodní konference, Trutnov, 26.-28.5.1999. Brno, Mendelova zemědělská a lesnická univerzita: 73-85.
13. MAXWELL K., JOHNSON G. J., 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence - a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany, 52: 659-668.
14. McDONALD P. M., 1991. Container seedlings outperform bareroot stock: Survival and growth after 10 years. New Forest, 5:147-156.
15. MENES P. A., ODLUM K. D., PATERSON J. M., 1996. Comparative performance of bareroot and container-grown seedlings: an annotated bibliography. Forest Research Information Paper No. 132. Sault Sainte Marie, Ontario Forest Research Institute: 151.
16. MOHAMMED G. H., ZARCO-TEJADA P., MILLER J. R., 2003. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence in forestry and ecophysiology. In: Practical applications of chlorophyll fluorescence in plant biology. DELL J. R., TOIVONEN P. M. A.. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 79-124.
17. MONITORING, 2004. Monitoring stavu lesa v České republice 1984-2003. Praha, Ministerstvo zemědělství České republiky, Výzkumný ústav lesního hospodářství a myslivosti.
18. RITCHIE G., LANDIS T. D., 2005. Seedling quality tests: Chlorophyll fluorescence. Forest Nursery Notes, USDA Forest Service, Winter 2005. Portland, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region: 12-16.
19. SEEMEN H., JAARATAS A., 2005. The quality of Pine and Spruce planting stock in Estonia. Baltic Forestry, 11: 54-63.
20. VYSE A., 1981. Growth of young spruce plantations in interior British Columbia. Forest Chronicle, 57:174-180.
21. WOOD J. E., 1990. Black spruce and jack pine plantation performance in boreal Ontario: 10-year results. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 7:175-179.