Skip Navigation

Forestry 1993 66(1):83-96; doi:10.1093/forestry/66.1.83
© 1993 by Institute of Chartered Foresters
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SOUTH, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by MASON, W. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Influence of Differences in Planting Stock Size on Early Height Growth of Sitka Spruce

D. B. SOUTH1 and W. L. MASON2

1 School of Forestry and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Statio, Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849-5418, USA
2 Forestry Commission, Northern Research Station Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9SY, Scotland

The results from various studies with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) in Scotland and Northern England were analysed to determine the effect of initial planting stock size on early field growth. In most cases (21 of 22), the taller stock at planting was also taller after 6 years of field growth. For example when stock 30 cm tall was planted instead of stock 20 cm tall, the average height differential after 6 years had increased to approximately 27 cm. On sites of average fertility (where the 6-year height of 20 cm trees would be 160 cm), this would equate to a 17 per cent gain in height at year 6. The gains in height at 10 years were similar to those found at 6 years. These results suggest that most of the height gains were achieved during the first 6 years of establishment. Even when seemingly small differences in average size exist at time of planting, researchers evaluating early growth responses due to various treatments (e.g. stock type, genetics, physiology, fertilization) should account for these differences in their analyses.

Received 13 April 1992.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.