SLIDE 1
Material in the Lower Coastal Plain Travis Norman MSc in Forestry - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Material in the Lower Coastal Plain Travis Norman MSc in Forestry - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Impacts on Growth and Quality of Interplanting Loblolly Pine ( Pinus taeda L.) Seedlings with Clonal Material in the Lower Coastal Plain Travis Norman MSc in Forestry Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources North Carolina State
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Objectives
To compare the composition of stands planted as clonal blocks to stands interplanted with a mixture of clonal materials and open-pollinated (OP) seedlings in loblolly pine. Compare both individual-stem and stand-level traits and variability. Assess sawtimber quality and crop-tree potential of clonal material compared to the OP genotypes.
3
SLIDE 4
Hypothesis
In the interplanted treatments the clones will outperform the OP and SOM genotypes. In the pure monoclonal treatments that were planted, there will be more higher quality trees because there are more “good” trees present to compensate for the trees planted on lower quality micro sites within a plot.
4
SLIDE 5
Study Location
5
SLIDE 6
Site Descriptions
- Established in
January and February of 2007
- Planted at 436 TPA
(1077 TPH)
- 5 x 20 ft spacing
(1.5 x 6.1 meters)
- Bedded sites
- Lower coastal
plain
- Good competition
control
6
SLIDE 7
Dry Site
Well Drained Ditched in 2006 and bedded Higher site index (97.2 feet)
7
SLIDE 8
Wet Site
Poorly drained Ditched in 2005 and Bedded Lower site index (88.8 feet)
8
SLIDE 9
Study Description
9
SLIDE 10
Methods
Diameter at breast height (DBH) and total height
- f each tree were measured.
DBH was measured to the nearest one-hundredth of an inch with diameter tapes. Total height was measured to the nearest tenth of a foot using Haglof Vertex Hypsometers.
Each tree was given a mortality rating of 2, 1, or 0.
2 – Healthy 1 – Stressed or defective 0 – Dead
10
SLIDE 11
Methods Cont.
Any trees that were rated with a mortality code of 1 or 0 were excluded from analysis (~19% at age 6). DBH and total height were measured during the dormant season, before growth flushing began, at the end of 6 years of growth. Each tree was given a sawtimber score from 1 to 4. 1 – High-quality crop-tree 2 – Crop-tree (minor defects) 3 – Pulpwood 4 – non-merchantable/non-crop tree Judging criteria mentioned later Total volume outside bark (cu. ft.) was calculated using a prediction volume equation from Sherrill et al., 2011. 𝑊
𝑢𝑝𝑐
= 0.2571 + 0.00237 𝐸2𝐼 Projected site index (base age 25) values were calculated using a site index model from Dieguez-Aranda et al., 2006. 11
SLIDE 12
Survival Rates
12
98.61 98.44 98 96.94 95.5 91.27 83.94 83.5 75 80 85 90 95 100 1 2 4 6 1 2 4 6 Dry Wet
Survival (%) Age by Site
SLIDE 13
Summary Statistics
13
Site Treatment Family N DBH (in) THT (ft) Dry OP Clone 1 OP 195 5.85 (0.85) 29.87 (3.77) Clone 1 71 5.20 (0.81) 29.52 (3.38) OP Clone 2 OP 189 5.74 (0.92) 30.05 (3.57) Clone 2 71 5.21 (0.98) 30.83 (3.35) Clone 1 Pure Clone 1 264 5.40 (0.80) 28.95 (3.10) Clone 2 Pure Clone 2 272 5.43 (0.88) 31.06 (3.76) SOM Clone 1 Clone 1 68 5.12 (0.74) 29.88 (3.36) SOM 212 5.85 (0.86) 28.34 (2.95) SOM Clone 2 Clone 2 64 5.36 (0.88) 31.44 (3.33) SOM 204 5.87 (0.70) 28.36 (2.82) Wet OP Clone 1 OP 147 5.55 (0.99) 28.31 (4.01) Clone 1 57 4.97 (1.10) 27.66 (4.31) OP Clone 2 OP 142 5.22 (1.19) 25.13 (4.18) Clone 2 52 4.23 (1.14) 24.09 (4.81) Clone 1 Pure Clone 1 222 5.15 (1.04) 27.54 (4.24) Clone 2 Pure Clone 2 223 4.59 (1.17) 25.85 (4.99) SOM Clone 1 Clone 1 55 4.73 (1.25) 25.87 (4.51) SOM 154 5.18 (1.20) 24.68 (3.68) SOM Clone 2 Clone 2 57 4.38 (1.04) 25.18 (4.17) SOM 171 5.31 (1.09) 24.70 (3.89)
SLIDE 14
Total Volume per Acre
14
165.50 160.65 167.46 164.65 145.91 162.71 112.05 84.83 95.22 102.12 111.28 90.00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 OP_Clone 1 OP_Clone 2 SOM_Clone 1 SOM_Clone 2 Clone 1_Pure Clone 2_Pure OP_Clone 1 OP_Clone 2 SOM_Clone 1 SOM_Clone 2 Clone 1_Pure Clone 2_Pure Dry Wet Volume (ft3 ac-1)
SLIDE 15
Site Index Assessment
15
90.2 93.2 82.8 92.5 89.4 85.0 89.5 87.6 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 OP Clone 1 Clone 2 Clone 1 Clone 2 SOM Clone 1 Clone 2 OP Pure SOM Wet Site Index (ft) 98.0 96.1 99.6 94.9 100.1 92.6 96.9 99.5 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 OP Clone 1 Clone 2 Clone 1 Clone 2 SOM Clone 1 Clone 2 OP Pure SOM Dry Site Index (ft)
SLIDE 16
Clone Level Analysis
Response variables: DBH, total height, and coefficients
- f variation.
Model: 𝑧𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚𝑛 = 𝜈 + 𝛽𝑗 + 𝛾(𝛽)𝑘 𝑗 + 𝛿𝑙 + (𝛽𝛿)𝑗𝑙 + (𝛾(𝛽)𝛿)𝑘 𝑗 𝑙 +𝜀𝑚 + (𝛽𝜀)𝑗𝑚 + (𝛿𝜀)𝑙𝑚 + (𝛽𝛿𝜀)𝑗𝑙𝑚 + (𝛾(𝛽)𝜀)𝑘 𝑗 𝑚+(𝛾(𝛽)𝛿𝜀)𝑘 𝑗 𝑙𝑚+𝜁𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚𝑛
𝜈 is the overall grand mean 𝛽 is the main effect of site 𝑗. 𝛾(𝛽) is the random effect of replication within site 𝛿 is the main effect of clonal variety 𝜀 is the main effect of mixture (SOM, OP, Pure)
16
SLIDE 17
Clone Level Individual Tree Results
DBH Total Height
17 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Site 1 7.1633 7.1633 128.46 0.0003 Clone 1 0.5848 0.5848 10.54 0.0315 Site*Clone 1 0.5753 0.5753 10.37 0.0323 Clone*Mixture 2 0.2275 0.1137 2.05 0.2438 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Site 1 264.8059 264.8059 32.91 0.0046 Clone 1 4.5604 4.56047 3.84 0.1217 Site*Clone 1 33.8092 33.8092 28.45 0.006 Clone*Mixture 2 6.9217 3.4609 2.91 0.1658
SLIDE 18
Clone Level CV Results
DBH Total Height
18
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Site 1 701.78535 701.78535 26.96 0.0066 Clone 1 40.222704 40.2227042 2.28 0.2058 Site*Clone 1 9.0897042 9.08970417 0.51 0.5129 Clone*Mixture 2 91.63734 45.81867 2.59 0.1896 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Site 1 359.79398 359.793984 34.07 0.0043 Clone 1 7.232526 7.23252604 0.44 0.5422 Site*Clone 1 20.175834 20.1758344 1.24 0.3287 Clone*Mixture 2 21.437953 10.7189763 0.66 0.5669
SLIDE 19
Mixture Analysis
Compares the clonal varieties with OP and SOM genetics within each treatment. Also compares the coefficients of variation for DBH and total height of the clonal varieties with OP and SOM genetics within each treatment. For this analysis, the pure clonal blocks were dropped from the analysis. Model: 𝑧𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚𝑛 = 𝜈 + 𝛽𝑗 + 𝛾𝑘 + 𝛾(𝛽)𝑘 𝑗 + 𝛿𝑙 + (𝛽𝛿)𝑗𝑙 + 𝜀𝑚 + (𝛿𝜀)𝑙𝑚 + (𝛾(𝛽)𝛿)𝑘 𝑗 𝑙+𝜁𝑗𝑘𝑙𝑚𝑛
𝜈 is the overall grand mean 𝛽 is the main effect of site 𝑗. 𝛾 is the main effect of replication 𝛾(𝛽) is the random effect of replication within site 𝛿 is the main effect of mixture 𝜀 is the main effect of Family (SOM, OP, Clone 1, and Clone 2)
19
SLIDE 20
DBH Total Height 20
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Site 1 6.8797 6.8797 97.63 < .0001 Rep 2 0.1200 0.0600 0.80 0.458 Rep(Site) 2 0.0725 0.0363 0.48 0.622 Mixture 1 0.1042 0.1042 1.39 0.248 Site*Mixture 1 0.0136 0.0136 0.18 0.673 Family 3 5.3408 1.7803 23.71 < .0001 Mixture*Family 1 0.0591 0.0591 0.79 0.381 Rep*Mixture(Site) 4 0.5135 0.1284 1.71 0.172 Error 32 2.4027 0.0543 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Site 1 262.4591 262.4591 116.25 < .0001 Rep 2 15.0115 7.5057 3.32 0.049 Rep(Site) 2 23.7686 11.8843 5.26 0.011 Mixture 1 0.8014 0.8014 0.35 0.556 Site*Mixture 1 0.1293 0.1293 0.06 0.812 Family 3 17.0992 5.6997 2.52 0.075 Mixture*Family 1 1.7542 1.7542 0.78 0.385 Rep*Mixture(Site) 4 29.3653 7.3413 3.25 0.024 Error 32 72.2479 2.2577
Mixture Analysis Individual Tree Results
SLIDE 21
Mixture CV Plot Level Results
21
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F SITE 1 323.52 323.52 44.82 <.0001 REP 2 11.85 5.93 0.82 0.449 REP(SITE) 2 12.11 6.06 0.84 0.4414 MIXTURE 1 2.72 2.72 0.38 0.5436 SITE*MIXTURE 1 5.39 5.39 0.75 0.394 FAMILY 3 12.55 4.18 0.58 0.6326 MIXTURE*FAMILY 1 14.00 14.00 1.94 0.1733 REP*MIXTURE(SITE) 4 58.78 14.70 2.04 0.1129 Error: MS(Error) 32 231.00 7.22
Total Height
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F SITE 1 697.83 697.83 51.79 <.0001 REP 2 11.65 5.82 0.43 0.6528 REP(SITE) 2 41.98 20.99 1.56 0.2262 MIXTURE 1 6.95 6.95 0.52 0.4777 SITE*MIXTURE 1 16.79 16.79 1.25 0.2727 FAMILY 3 114.57 38.19 2.83 0.0537 MIXTURE*FAMILY 1 28.76 28.76 2.13 0.1538 REP*MIXTURE(SITE) 4 101.23 25.31 1.88 0.1384 Error: MS(Error) 32 431.18 13.47
DBH
SLIDE 22
Sawtimber/Crop-Tree Analysis
Each tree was given an assessment score of 1 to 4. Of the 4 scores, 1 and 2 are considered as potential crop-
- trees. Scores 3 and 4 are
considered to be non-crop trees. Things taken into account:
Straightness/sweep Forking Branch size Total height Lean Broken tops Other defects
Determine the likelihood that each of the genetic varieties is a potential crop-tree.
22
SLIDE 23
Clonal Crop-tree Percent
23
30.88 20.75 41.79 17.65 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 OP-Clone 1 OP-Clone 2 SOM-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2
% of Clone Treatment
44.14 32.41 35.19 32.52 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 OP-Clone 1 OP-Clone 2 SOM-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 % of Clone Treatment
Dry Site Wet Site
SLIDE 24
Top 5 Ranking
24
Row Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5 1 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM 2 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 3 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1 4 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 5 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM 6 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 7 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1 8 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 9 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM 10 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 11 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1 12 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 13 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM 14 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 15 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1 16 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 17 SOM C1 SOM C1 SOM 18 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM 19 C1 SOM C1 SOM C1 20 SOM SOM SOM SOM SOM
SLIDE 25
Top 5 Ranking
25
0.8 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.7 0.8 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.6 2.5 1.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 DBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBVDBHTHTOBV OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 Mean No. of Clone 1 and Clone 2 in top 5 for each bed in dry site Treatment 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 DBH THT OBV DBH THT OBV DBH THT OBV DBH THT OBV OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 OP-Clone 1 SOM-Clone 2 Mean No. of Clone 1 and Clone 2 in top 5 for each bed in wet site Treatment
Dry Site Wet Site
SLIDE 26
Summary & Conclusions
Based on these results, The DBH and total heights of the clones differed significantly with respect to site and clonal variety. The clones are not growing differently based
- n mixture.
No significant difference in CVs between mixtures or genotypic families. Overall, the OP and SOM material expressed greater diameter and height growth than the clonal material in the interplanting treatments.
26
SLIDE 27
There are far too few clones ranked as potential crop-trees per bed. Therefore, with these genetics, interplanting clonal loblolly pine material at these sites would not be a worthwhile investment.
27
Summary & Conclusions
SLIDE 28
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Douglas Clark, Sander Denham, Carrie Rosental, Courtney Johnson, and Jadie Andrews for aiding in data collection. Thanks to the Cooperative Tree Improvement Program for providing the study. Funding was provided by NC State University. Thanks to my committee.
Dr. Bronson Bullock Dr. Steven McKeand Dr. Renee Moore
28
SLIDE 29
References
Dieguez-Aranda, U., Burkhart, H. E., and Amateis, R. L.
- 2006. Dynamic Site Model for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda
L.) Plantations in the United States. Forest Science,52(3): 262-272. Sherrill, J. R., Bullock, B. P., Mullin, T. J., McKeand S. E., and Purnell, R. C. 2011. Total and Merchantable Stem Volume Equations for Midrotation Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.). South. J.
- Appl. For. 35(3): 105-108.
29
SLIDE 30