Genetic effects on stand-level uniformity and above- and belowground dry mass production in juvenile loblolly pine

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 262, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 609-619

  Aspinwall, Michael J ^a   King, John S ^a,b   McKeand, Steven E ^a   Bullock, Bronson P ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Dry mass production; Genetic variation; Pinus taeda L. clone; Stand uniformity

Indexed keywords

ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS; ALLOMETRIC RELATIONSHIP; BELOWGROUND BIOMASS; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; DRY MASS; ECOSYSTEM PROCESS; ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY; ENVIRONMENTAL HETEROGENEITY; GENETIC DIFFERENCES; GENETIC EFFECTS; GENETIC VARIATION; GROUND-LEVEL; HEIGHT GROWTH; JUVENILE LOBLOLLY PINE; LOBLOLLY PINE; OPEN-POLLINATED FAMILIES; OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT; PINE PLANTATIONS; PINUS TAEDA; PLANTING DENSITY; SEED ORCHARD; SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS; STAND UNIFORMITY; THREE CLONES; TREE HEIGHT;

CLONING; ECOSYSTEMS; GENES; MACHINE TOOLS; PLANTS (BOTANY); PRODUCTION ENGINEERING; PRODUCTIVITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

FORESTRY;

CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CLONE; CONIFEROUS FOREST; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; HETEROGENEITY; JUVENILE; PHYTOMASS; PLANTATION; SILVICULTURE; STAND STRUCTURE; SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY;

CARBON; CLONES; GENETIC ENGINEERING; PINUS TAEDA; PLANTATIONS; PRODUCTIVITY; SILVICULTURE; SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT;

PINUS ECHINATA; PINUS TAEDA;

EID: 79957911857     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.029     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Adams W.T., Roberds J.H., Zobel B.J. Intergenotypic interactions among families of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 1973, 43:319-322.
2. Adegbidi H.G., Jokela E.J., Comerford N.B., Barros N.F. Biomass development for intensively managed loblolly pine plantations growing on Spodosols in the southeastern USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 2002, 167:91-102.
3. Adegbidi H.G., Jokela E.J., Comerford N.B. Factors influencing production efficiency of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations in a 1- to 4-year-old chronosequence. For. Ecol. Manage. 2005, 218:245-258.
4. Albaugh T.J., Allen H.L., Dougherty P.M., Kress L.W., King J.S. Leaf area and above- and below-ground growth responses of loblolly pine to nutrient and water additions. For. Sci. 1998, 44:317-328.
5. Allen H.L., Campbell R.G. Wet site pine management in the southeastern United States. The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. vol. 2. Management, Use, and Value of Wetlands 1988, 173-184. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
6. Allen H.L., Dougherty P.M., Campbell R.G. Manipulation of water and nutrients - practice and opportunity in Southern US pine forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 1990, 30(1-4):437-453.
7. Aspinwall, M.J., 2010. Genetic Variation in Water Relations, Physiology, Biochemistry, and Biomass Partitioning in Loblolly Pine. PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 273p.
8. Aspinwall M.J., King J.S., McKeand S.E., Domec J.-C. Leaf-level gas-exchange uniformity and photosynthetic capacity among loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) genotypes of contrasting inherent genetic variation. Tree Physiol. 2011, 31:78-91.
9. Aspinwall M.J., King J.S., Domec J.-C., McKeand S.E., Isik F. Genetic effects on transpiration, canopy conductance, stomatal sensitivity to vapor pressure deficit, and cavitation resistance in loblolly pine. Ecohydrology 2011, 4:168-182.
10. Avery T.E., Burkhart H.E. Forest Measurements 2002, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 456p. fifth ed.
11. Baltunis B.S., Martin T.A., Huber D.A., Davis J.M. Inheritance of foliar stable carbon isotope discrimination and third-year height in Pinus taeda clones on contrasting sites in Florida and Georgia. Tree Genet. Genomes 2008, 4:797-807.
12. Baskerville G.L. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can. J. For. Res. 1972, 2:49-53.
13. Bettinger P., Clutter M., Siry J., Kane M., Pait J. Broad implications of southern United States pine clonal forestry on planning and management of forests. Int. For. Rev. 2009, 11(3):331-345.
14. Binkley D., Stape J.L., Baurle W.L., Ryan M.G. Explaining growth of individual trees: light interception and efficiency of light use by Eucalyptus at four sites in Brazil. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010, 259:1704-1713.
15. Bongarten B.C., Teskey R.O. Dry weight partitioning and its relationship to productivity in loblolly pine seedlings from seven sources. For. Sci. 1987, 33(2):255-267.
16. Borders B.E., Bailey R.L. Loblolly pine - pushing the limits of growth. South. J. Appl. For. 2001, 25(2):69-74.
17. Boyden S., Binkley D., Stape J.L. Competition among Eucalyptus trees depends on genetic variation and resource supply. Ecology 2008, 89(10):2850-2859.
18. Bridgwater F., Kubisiak T., Byram T., McKeand S. Risk management with current deployment strategies for genetically improved loblolly and slash pines. South. J. Appl. For. 2005, 29:80-87.
19. Burkes E.C., Will R.E., Barron-Gafford G.A., Teskey R.O., Shiver B. Biomass partitioning and growth efficiency of intensively managed Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii stands of different planting densities. For. Sci. 2003, 49(2):224-234.
20. Cannell M.G.R., Sheppard L.J., Ford E.D., Wilson R.H.F. Clonal differences in dry matter distribution, wood specific gravity and foliage " efficiency" in Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Silvae Genet. 1983, 32(5-6):195-202.
21. Chmura D.J., Rahman M.S., Tjoelker M.G. Crown structure and biomass allocation patterns modulate aboveground productivity in young loblolly pine and slash pine. For. Ecol. Manage. 2007, 243:219-230.
22. Colbert S.R., Jokela E.J., Neary D.G. Effects of annual fertilization and sustained weed control on dry matter partitioning, leaf area, and growth efficiency of juvenile loblolly and slash pine. For. Sci. 1990, 36(4):995-1014.
23. Day M.E., Greenwood M.S., Diaz-Sala C. Age- and size-related trends in wood plant shoot development: regulatory pathways and evidence for genetic control. Tree Physiol. 2002, 22:507-513.
24. DeBell D.S., Harrington C.A. Productivity of Populus in monoclonal and polyclonal blocks at three spacings. Can. J. For. Res. 1997, 27:978-985.
25. DeBell D.S., Harrington C.A. Density and rectangularity of planting influence 20-year growth and development of red alder. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32:1244-1253.
26. Devine W.D., Harrington C.A., DeBell D.S. Intra-annual growth and mortality of four Populus clones in pure and mixed plantings. New. For. 2010, 39:287-299.
27. Harms W.R., Langdon O.G. Development of loblolly pine in dense stands. For. Sci. 1976, 22(3):331-337.
28. Houghton J.T., Ding Y., Griggs D.J., Noguer M., van der Linden P.J., Dai X., Maskell K., Johnson C.A. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
29. Isik F., Goldfarb B., LeBude A., Li B., McKeand S. Predicted genetic gains and testing efficiency from two loblolly pine clonal trials. Can. J. For. Res. 2005, 35:1754-1766.
30. Johnsen K.H., Wear D., Oren R., Teskey R.O., Sanchez F., Will R., Butnor J., Markewitz D., Richter D., Rials T., Allen H.L., Seiler J., Ellsworth D., Maier C., Katul G., Dougherty P.M. Meeting global policy commitments: carbon sequestration and southern pine forests. J. For. 2001, 99(4):14-21.
31. Johnsen K.H., Teskey B., Samuelson L., Butnor J., Sampson D., Sanchez F., Maier C., McKeand S. Carbon sequestration in loblolly pine plantations: methods, limitations, and research needs for estimating storage pools. Southern Forest Science: Past, Present and Future 2004, 373-381. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-75. H.M. Rauscher, K. Johnson (Eds.).
32. Jokela E.J., Dougherty P.M., Martin T.A. Production dynamics of intensively managed loblolly pine stands in the southern United States: a synthesis of seven long-term experiments. For. Ecol. Manage. 2004, 192:117-130.
33. King J.S., Albaugh T.J., Allen H.L., Kress L.W. Stand-level allometry in Pinus taeda as affected by irrigation and fertilization. Tree Physiol. 1999, 19:769-778.
34. King J.S., Albaugh T.J., Allen H.L., Buford M., Strain B.R., Dougherty P. Below-ground carbon input to soil is controlled by nutrient availability and fine root dynamics in loblolly pine. New Phytol. 2002, 154:389-398.
35. 2. New Phytol. 2005, 168:623-636.
36. Kilpeläinen A., Routa J., Peltola H., Gerendiain A.Z., Pulkkinen P., Kellomäki S. Effects of genetic entry and competition on above ground biomass production of Norway spruce grown in southern Finland. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010, 259:2327-2332.
37. Lambeth C., Endo M., Wright J. Genetic-analysis of 16 clonal trials of Eucalyptus grandis and comparisons with seedling checks. For. Sci. 1994, 40:397-411.
38. Larocque G.R. Performance and morphological response of the hybrid poplar DN-74 (Populus deltoides×nigra) under different spacings on a 4-year rotation. Ann. For. Sci. 1999, 56:275-287.
39. Li B., McKeand S.E., Allen H.L. Nitrogen and family effects on biomass allocation of loblolly pine seedlings. For. Sci. 1991, 37(1):271-283.
40. Li B., McKeand S., Weir R. Tree improvement and sustainable forestry - impact of two cycles of loblolly pine breeding in the USA. For. Genet. 1999, 6:229-234.
41. Liu J., Burkhart H.E. Spatial characteristics of diameter and total height in juvenile loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations. For. Sci. 1994, 4:774-786.
42. Lopez-Upton J., White T.L., Huber D.A. Effects of site and intensive culture on family differences in early growth and rust incidence of loblolly and slash pine. Silvae Genet. 1999, 48:284-293.
43. Martin T.A., Johnson K.H., White T.L. Ideotype development in southern pines: rationale and strategies for overcoming scale-related obstacles. For. Sci. 2001, 47:21-28.
44. Martin T.A., Dougherty P.M., Topa M.A., McKeand S.E. Strategies and case studies for incorporating ecophysiology into southern pine tree improvement programs. South. J. Appl. For. 2005, 29:70-79.
45. McCrady R.L., Jokela E.J. Growth phenology and crown structure of selected loblolly pine families planted at two spacings. For. Sci. 1996, 42:46-57.
46. McCrady R.L., Jokela E.J. Canopy dynamics, light interception, and radiation use efficiency of selected loblolly pine families. For. Sci. 1998, 44:64-72.
47. McKeand S., Mullin T., Byram T., White T. Deployment of genetically improved loblolly and slash pine in the South. J. For. 2003, 101:32-37.
48. Mckeand S.E., Jokela E.J., Huber D.A., Byram T.D., Allen H.L., Li B., Mullin T.J. Performance of improved genotypes of loblolly pine across different soils, climates, and silvicultural inputs. For. Ecol. Manage. 2006, 227:178-184.
49. Miller J.H., Zutter B.R., Shepard S.M., Edwards M.B., Haywood J.D., Newbold R.A. A regional study on the influence of wood and herbaceous competition on early loblolly pine growth. South. J. Appl. For. 1991, 15:169-179.
50. Namkoong G., Snyder E.B., Stonecypher R.W. Heritability and gain concepts for evaluating breeding systems such as seedling orchards. Silvae Genet. 1966, 15:76-84.
51. Nelson L.R., Pederson R.C., Autry L.L., Dudley S., Walstad J.D. Impacts of herbaceous weeds in young loblolly pine plantations. South. J. Appl. For. 1981, 5:153-156.
52. Nilsson U., Allen H.L. Short- and long-term effects of site preparation, fertilization and vegetation control on growth and stand development of planted loblolly pine. For. Ecol. Manage. 2003, 175:367-377.
53. Retzlaff W.A., Handest J.A., O'Malley D.M., McKeand S.E., Topa M.A. Whole-tree biomass and carbon allocation of juvenile trees of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda): influence of genetics and fertilization. Can. J. For. Res. 2001, 31:960-970.
54. Roth B.E., Jokela E.J., Martin T.A., Huber D.A., White T.L. Genotype×environment interactions in selected loblolly and slash pine plantations in the Southeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 2007, 238:175-188.
55. Ryan M.G., Stape J.L., Binkley D., Fonseca S., Loos R.A., Takahashi E.N., Silva C.R., Silva S.R., Hakamada R.E., Ferreira J.M., Lima A.M.N., Gava J.L., Leite F.P., Andrade H.B., Alves J.M., Silva G.G.C. Factors controlling Eucalyptus productivity: how water availability and stand structure alter production and carbon allocation. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010, 259:1695-1703.
56. Ryan M.G., Harmon M.E., Birdsey R.A., Giardina C.P., Heath L.S., Houghton R.A., Jackson R.B., McKinley D.C., Morrison J.F., Murray B.C., Pataki D.E., Skog K.E. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for US forests. Iss. Ecol. 2010, 13:1-16.
57. Samuelson L.J., Johnsen K., Stokes T. Production, allocation, and stemwood growth efficiency of Pinus taeda L. stands in response to 6years of intensive management. For. Ecol. Manage. 2004, 192:59-70.
58. Samuelson L.J., Butnor J., Maier C., Stokes T.A., Johnsen K., Kane M. Growth and physiology of loblolly pine in response to long-term resource management: defining growth potential in the southern United States. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38:721-732.
59. SAS/STAT software version 9.2. SAS Institute Inc. Copyright 2002-2008. Cary, NC, USA.
60. Sharma M., Burkhart H.E., Amateis R.L. Modeling the effect of density on growth of loblolly pine trees. South. J. Appl. For. 2002, 26:124-133.
61. Sharma R.K., Mason E.G., Sorenson C.T. Productivity of radiata pine (Pinus radiata D. Don) clones in monoclonal and clone mixture plots at age 12 years. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008, 255:140-148.
62. Sherrill, J.R., Bullock, B.P., Mullin, T.J., McKeand, S.E., Purnell, R.C., in press. Total and merchantable stem volume equations for mid-rotation loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). South. J. App. For.
63. Stape J.L., Binkley D., Ryan M.G., Fonseca S., Loos R.A., Takahashi E.N., Silva C.R., Silva S.R., Hakamada R.E., Ferreira J.M.de.A., Lima A.M.N., Gava J.L., Leite F.P., Andrade H.B., Alves J.M., Silva G.G.C., Azevedo M.R. The Brazil Eucalyptus potential productivity project: influence of water, nutrients, and stand uniformity on wood production. For. Ecol. Manage. 2010, 259:1684-1694.
64. Staudhammer C.L., Jokela E.J., Martin T.A. Competition dynamics in pure- versus mixed-family stands of loblolly and slash pine in the southeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 2009, 39:396-409.
65. Svensson J.C., McKeand S.E., Allen H.L., Campbell R.G. Genetic variation in height and volume of loblolly pine open-pollinated families during canopy closure. Silvae Genet. 1999, 48:204-208.
66. Wullschleger S.D., Yin T.M., DiFazio S.P., Tschaplinski T.J., Gunter L.E., Davis M.F., Tuskan G.A. Phenotypic variation in growth and biomass distribution for two advanced-generation pedigrees of hybrid poplar. Can. J. For. Res. 2005, 35(8):1779-1789.
67. Zobel B.J., Talbert J. Applied Forest Tree Improvement 1984, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 413p.