J. For. Sci., 2009, 55(11):511-517 | DOI: 10.17221/21/2009-JFS

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

J. Leugner, A. Jurásek, J. Martincová
Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Strnady, Opočno Research Station, Opočno, Czech republic

High quality of planting material is an essential prerequisite for successful artificial forest regeneration. We carried out a detailed investigation aimed at differences between plantable bareroot and container plants of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Based on the results of this experiment, there exist marked differences in basic morphological traits between bareroot plants and plugs. The largest differences were observed in root collar diameter and root system volume. Differences in physiological quality (nutrient content, function of assimilatory organs) were also great. The results document that container seedlings of Norway spruce produced by intensive technology in controlled conditions of plastic greenhouses have very good predispositions for successful growth in difficult mountain conditions.

Keywords: plugs; bareroot transplants; containerized seedlings; morphological and physiological quality; Norway spruce

Published: November 30, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Leugner J, Jurásek A, Martincová J. 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. J. For. Sci. 2009;55(11):511-517. doi: 10.17221/21/2009-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    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. Go to original source...
    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. Go to original source...
    4. CALL M.B., BUTTERWORTH J.A., RODEN J.S., CHRISTIAN R., EGERTON J.J., 1994. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence to forest ecology. Austrian Journal Plant Physiology, 22: 311-319. Go to original source...
    5. ČAŇOVÁ I., 2002. Health condition of young spruce stands growing in Pol'ana in different altitudes. Journal of Forest Science, 48: 469-474. Go to original source...
    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: Proccedings, 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), Proccedings 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. Go to original source...
    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), Proccedings Canadian Containerized Tree Seedling Symposium, Toronto, September 14-16, 1981. Sault Sainte Marie, Great Lakes Forest Research Centre: 321-330. 321-330.
    12. MAUER O., 1999. Zásady pěstování sadebního materiálu v umělých krytech (fóliovnících). In: Pěstování a užití krytokořenného sadebního materiálu. Sborník referátů z mezinárodní 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, 51: 659-668. Go to original source...
    14. McDONALD P.M., 1991. Container seedlings outperform bareroot stock: Survival and growth after 10 years. New Forest, 5: 147-156. Go to original source...
    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. Go to original source...
    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. Go to original source...
    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. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content