Assessment of beech scale resistance in full- and half-sibling American beech families

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 265-272

  Koch, Jennifer L ^a   Carey, David W ^a   Mason, Mary E ^b   Dana Nelson, C ^c  

^a Northern Research Station   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL REGENERATION; BEECH TREES; BROAD-SENSE HERITABILITY; EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT; LEAST SQUARE; MICHIGAN; MIXED METHOD; NATURAL REGENERATION; NON-NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; SILVICULTURAL TREATMENTS; UPPER LIMITS;

NORMAL DISTRIBUTION;

REFORESTATION;

DECIDUOUS TREE; DISEASE CONTROL; DISEASE RESISTANCE; FUNGAL DISEASE; HERITABILITY; LEAST SQUARES METHOD; REGENERATION; SILVICULTURE;

BARK; DISEASES; DISTRIBUTION; FAGUS; REFORESTATION;

MICHIGAN; UNITED STATES;

CRYPTOCOCCUS FAGISUGA; FAGACEAE; FAGUS; FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA; HEXAPODA;

EID: 77049115226     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X09-189     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Castlebury, L.A., Rossman, A.Y., and Hyten, A.S. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships of Neonectria/Cylindrocarpon on Fagus in North America. Can. J. Bot. 84(9): 1417-1433. doi:10.1139/B06-105.
2. Ehrlich, J. 1934. The beech bark disease: a nectria disease of Fagus, following Cryotococcus fagi (Bair.). Can. J. Res. 10: 593-692.
3. Falconer, D.S., and Mackay, T.F.C. 1996. Introduction to quantitative qenetics. Edition 4. Longmans Green, Harlow, Essex, U.K.
4. Farrar, A., and Ostrofsky, W.D. 2006. Dynamics of American beech regeneration 10 years following harvesting in a beech bark disease-affected stand in Maine. North. J. Appl. For. 23: 192-196.
5. Houston, D.B., and Houston, D.R. 1994. Variation in American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.): isozyme analysis of genetic structure in selected stands. Silvae Genet. 43: 277-284. Available from http://www.bfafh.de/inst2/sg-pdf/43_5-6_277.pdf.
6. Houston, D.B., and Houston, D.R. 2000. Allozyme genetic diversity among Fagus grandifolia trees resistant or susceptible to beech bark disease in natural populations. Can. J. For. Res. 30(5): 778-789. doi:10.1139/cjfr-30-5-778.
7. Houston, D.R. 1982. A technique to artificially infest beech bark with the scale, Cryptococcus fagisuga (Lindinger). U.S. For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-507 Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp507.pdf.
8. Houston, D.R. 1983. American beech resistance to Cryptococcus fagisuga. In Proceedings, IUFRO Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37. pp. 38-41.
9. Houston, D.R. 1994. Major new tree disease epidemics: beech bark disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 32(1): 75-87. doi:10.1146/annurev.py.32.090194.000451.
10. Houston, D.R. 2001. Effects of harvesting regime on beech root sprouts and seedlings in a north-central Maine forest long affected by beech bark disease. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Paper NE-717. Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/2001/rpne717.pdf.
11. Houston, D.R., and Valentine, H.T. 1988. Beech bark disease: the temporal pattern of cankering in aftermath forests of Maine. Can. J. For. Res. 18(1): 38-42. doi:10.1139/x88-007.
12. Koch, J.L., and Carey, D.W. 2004. Control cross-pollinations with American beech trees that are resistant to beech bark disease. In Proceedings of the 14th Central Hardwoods Forest Conference. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316. Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2004/316papers/KochGTR316.pdf.
13. Koch, J.L., and Carey, D.W. 2005. The genetics of resistance of American beech to beech bark disease: knowledge through 2004. In Beech Bark Disease: Proceedings of the Beech Bark Disease Symposium. Edited by E.C. Evans, J.A. Lucas, and M.J. Twery. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-331. Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2005/331papers/koch331.pdf.
14. Leak, W.B. 2006. Fifty-year impacts of the beech bark disease in the Bartlett Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. North. J. Appl. For. 23: 141-143.
15. Miller-Weeks, M. 1983. Current status of beech bark disease in New England and New York. In Proceedings, IUFRO Beech Bark Disease Working Party Conference. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-37. pp. 21-23.
16. O'Brien, J.G., Ostry, M.E., Mielke, M.E., Mech, R., Heyd, R.L., and McCullough, D.G. 2001. First report of beech bark disease in Michigan. Plant Dis. 85(8): 921. doi:10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.8.921A.
17. Ramirez, M., Loo, J., and Krasowski, M.J. 2007. Evaluation of resistance to the beech scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga) and propagation of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) by grafting. Silvae Genet. 56: 163-169. Available from http://www.bfafh.de/inst2/sg-pdf/56_3-4_163.pdf.
18. Roberds, J.H., and Strom, B.L. 2006. Repeatability estimates for oleoresin yield measurements in three species of the southern pines. For. Ecol. Manag. 228(1-3): 215-224. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.005.
19. Thomsen, M., Buchwald, N.F., and Hauberg, P.A. 1949. Angreb af Cryptococcus fagi, Nectria galligena, og andre parasiter paa bog I Danmark 1939-43. Forstl. Forsogsvaes. Dan. 18: 97-326.