Advertisement

New Forests

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Regional differences in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) seedling response to an established nursery protocol

  • Alexander A. Howe
  • Simon M. Landhäusser
  • Owen T. Burney
  • James N. Long
  • Karen E. MockEmail author
Short Communication
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

In seedling-based reforestation operations, seed source is known to be an influential variable affecting outplanting success. Adaptive variation among seed sources may also be an important factor in the effectiveness of standardized nursery protocols for seedling production. Particularly for wide-ranging species, regional optimizations of nursery protocols may be necessary to ensure consistent production of quality seedling stock. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) is one such species, possessing the broadest distribution of any tree in North America. However, research on nursery protocols specific to aspen has focused on seed sources from a limited region in western boreal Canada. A well-established protocol shown to be effective for these boreal aspen uses a shoot growth inhibitor designed to maximize desirable seedling quality traits for outplanting success. We used this protocol on seeds sourced from two different regions in the southwestern portion of the species range (Utah and New Mexico, USA) and compared their response in the same nursery environment to that of a seedlot from Alberta, Canada to determine whether this protocol is also applicable for these very different regions. Seedlings from Utah and New Mexico differed significantly in their response to the protocol from the Alberta source, developing smaller root-to-stem ratios and sequestering less carbohydrate and nutrient reserves. Seedlings from Utah and New Mexico sources also differed from each other, with New Mexico seedlings growing larger according to all metrics. These results indicate that aspen nursery protocols will benefit from regional modification in order to optimize seedling stock quality and trait consistency.

Keywords

Aspen restoration US Intermountain West Growth and carbon allocation Nutrient reserves 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Tammy Parsons, Lorenzo Gallegos, and Joshua Trujillo (New Mexico State University) for nursery assistance and Pak Chow (University of Alberta) for laboratory assistance. Funding for this research was provided by the Utah Agriculture Experiment Station Cedar Mountain Initiative (approved as journal paper number UAES #9166), the USDA McIntire-Stennis program through New Mexico State University (#1002447), the Utah State University Office of Research and Graduate Studies, and the US Department of Agriculture Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate Fellowship Program.

References

  1. Burdett AN (1979) A nondestructive method for measuring the volume of intact plant parts. Can J For 9:120–122Google Scholar
  2. Callahan CM, Rowe CA, Ryel RJ et al (2013) Continental-scale assessment of genetic diversity and population structure in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). J Biogeogr 40:1780–1791.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dumroese RK, Landis TD, Pinto JR et al (2016) Meeting forest restoration challenges: using the target plant concept. Reforesta 1:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Evelyn J (1664) Sylva: or a discourse of forest trees and the propagation of timber. Arthur Doubleday & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox TR, Jokela EJ, Allen HL (2007) The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J For 105:337–347Google Scholar
  6. Gray LK, Gylander T, Mbogga MS et al (2011) Assisted migration to address climate change: recommendations for aspen reforestation in western Canada. Ecol Appl 21:1591–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalra YP, Maynard DG (1991) Methods manual for forest soil and plant analysis. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanaga MK, Ryel RJ, Mock KE, Pfrender ME (2008) Quantitative-genetic variation in morphological and physiological traits within a quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) population. Can J For Res 38:1690–1694.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Landhäusser SM, Pinno BD, Lieffers VJ, Chow PS (2012a) Partitioning of carbon allocation to reserves or growth determines future performance of aspen seedlings. For Ecol Manag 275:43–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Landhäusser SM, Rodriguez-Alvarez J, Marenholtz EH, Lieffers VJ (2012b) Effect of stock type characteristics and time of planting on field performance of aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) seedlings on boreal reclamation sites. New For 43:679–693.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-012-9346-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Landhäusser SM, Chow PS, Dickman TL et al (2018) Standardized protocols and procedures can precisely and accurately quantify non-structural carbohydrates. Tree Physiol 38:1764–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Landhäusser SM, Pinno BD, Mock KE (2019) Tamm review: seedling-based ecology, management, and restoration in aspen (Populus tremuloides). For Ecol Manag 432:231–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landis TD (2011) The target plant concept—a history and brief overview. In: Riley LE, Haase DL, Pinto JR (technical coordinators) National proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations—2010. Proc. RMRS-P-65. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp 61–66. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p065/rmrs_p065_061_066.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2019
  15. Latutrie M, Bergeron Y, Tremblay F (2016) Fine-scale assessment of genetic diversity of trembling aspen in northwestern North America. BMC Evol Biol 16:231.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0810-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Little EL (1971) Atlas of United States trees, vol 1, conifers and important hardwoods. USDA Forest Service, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Long JN, Mock K (2012) Changing perspectives on regeneration ecology and genetic diversity in western quaking aspen: implications for silviculture. Can J For Res 42:2011–2021.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luquez V, Hall D, Albrectsen BR et al (2008) Natural phenological variation in aspen (Populus tremula): the SwAsp collection. Tree Genet Genomes 4:279–292.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-007-0108-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macdonald SE, Quideau SA, Landhäusser SM (2012) Rebuilding boreal forest ecosystems after industrial disturbance. In: Vitt D, Bhatti J (eds) Restoration and reclamation of boreal ecosystems, attaining sustainable development. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 123–161. ISBN 9781107015715Google Scholar
  21. Martens LA, Landhäusser SM, Lieffers VJ (2007) First-year growth response of cold-stored, nursery-grown aspen planting stock. New For 33:281–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-006-9027-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 11 June 2019.
  23. Rademacher W (2000) Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 51(1):501–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schott KM, Pinno BD, Landhäusser SM (2013) Premature shoot growth termination allows nutrient loading of seedlings with an indeterminate growth strategy. New For 44:635–647.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-013-9373-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. South DB (1996) Top-pruning bareroot hardwoods: a review of the literature. Tree Plant Notes 47:34–40Google Scholar
  27. Sutton RF (1979) Planting stock quality and grading. For Ecol Manag 2:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander A. Howe
    • 1
  • Simon M. Landhäusser
    • 2
  • Owen T. Burney
    • 3
  • James N. Long
    • 1
  • Karen E. Mock
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Wildland Resources Department and Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, John T Harrington Forestry Research CenterNew Mexico State UniversityMoraUSA

Personalised recommendations