New Forests

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 81–91 | Cite as

Effects of Seedbed Density on One-Year-Old Fraxinus angustifolia Seedling Characteristics and Outplanting Performance

  • Emrah Cicek
  • Nurten Cicek
  • Nebi Bilir
Original Paper


To assess the effects of seedling spacing on one-year-old seedling morphology in the nursery, seeds of three provenances of Fraxinus angustifolia were sown at five different seedling spacings within rows of two different spacings in the seedbed. Subsequent growth performance of one-year-old seedlings was assessed by planting in the forest. Within row spacings were: 4.3, 5.0, 6.3, 8.3, and 12.5 cm, and there were five rows at 20 cm apart, or three rows at 33 cm apart across the 1.2 m wide seedbeds. Both spacings within and between rows significantly affected shoot height, root collar diameter, root dry weight and shoot dry weight, but not root/shoot ratio. Wider spacings produced larger seedlings, but only the wider spacing within rows significantly increased fine and coarse root mass. Provenances showed significant differences in diameter, root/shoot ratio, and fine and coarse roots, and they also showed interactions with row spacings in height and diameter measurements. One year after outplanting, diameter growth was significantly related to provenance, and diameter growth was 88% greater for trees from 33 cm nursery row spacing than those from 20 cm nursery row spacing.


Nursery Spacing Morphology Provenance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anonymous (1988) Seedling quality classes of the Turkish Standards Institute for broadleaved forest tree seedlings (in Turkish). TS 5624, p 10Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1999) Soil revision report of Duzce Forest Nursey (in Turkish). Eskisehir Soil and Eco. Res. Inst., Eskisehir, p 15Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2001) Ormancilik-Sekizinci bes yillik kalkınma planı (forestry development plan-VIII) (in Turkish). No: 2531/547, Ankara, p 539Google Scholar
  4. Buckley DS (2002) Field performance of high-quality and standard northern red oak seedlings in Tennessee. In: Outcalt KW (ed) Proc. 11th bienn. South. Silvic. Res. Con. USDA Forest. Serv., Sout. Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-48, pp 323–327Google Scholar
  5. British Standards Institution (1984) British Standard 3936 Nursery stock, Part 4, Specification for Forest Trees. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicek E (2002) Stand structures and necessary silvicultural treatments on bottomland forest of Suleymaniye-Adapazari (in Turkish with English summary). Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University, 150 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Cicek E, Yilmaz M (2002) The importance of Fraxinus angustifolia subsp. oxyacrpa as a fast growing tree for Turkey. In: Diner A, Ercan M, Goulding C, Zoralioglu T (eds) IUFRO Meeting on Management of Fast Growing Plantations. Izmit, Turkey, pp 192–202Google Scholar
  8. Eyuboglu AK (1975) Study on determining the appropriate sowing density of Alnus barbata in nursery (in Turkish with English summary). For Res Ins Tech Rep 74:10Google Scholar
  9. Fober H (1994) International provenance experiment with Quercus petraea (Matt). Liebl Arbor Kornic 39:109–124Google Scholar
  10. Howell KD, Harrington TB (1998) Regeneration efficiency of bareroot oak seedlings subjected to various nursery and planting treatments. In: Waldrop TA (ed) Proc. 9th Bienn. South. Silvic. Res. Con. USDA Forest. Serv., Sout. Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20, pp 222–226Google Scholar
  11. Kapucu F, Yavuz H, Gul AU (1999) Stem volume, site index and yield table in Fraxinus stands (in Turkish with English abstract). KTU Research Project No:, Trabzon, p 46Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy HE Jr (1988) Effects of seedbed density and row spacing on growth and nutrient concentrations of nuttall oak and green ash seedlings. USDA Forest. Serv., Southern Forest Exp. Sta., Res. Note, SO-349Google Scholar
  13. Kennedy HE Jr 1990. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.). In: Burns RM, Honkala BH, tech. coords. (eds) Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA Forest Serv. Washington, DC, vol 2, p 877Google Scholar
  14. Lee JC, Han YC, Ryu KO (1995) Growth comparison among 20 provenances of Quercus rubra. Research report of the For. Genetics Res. Inst. No. 31, pp 20–29Google Scholar
  15. Mishara KK, Feret PP (1996) Effect of plant densities and root pruning on seedling quality of three hardwood species. Indian J For 19(2):164–173Google Scholar
  16. Mullin RE, Bowdery L (1978) Effects of seedbed density and nursery fertilization on survival and growth of white spruce. For Chron 53(2):83–86Google Scholar
  17. Pamay B (1967) Silvicultural analyses of Demirkoy floodplain forests and silvicultural precautions to ensure productivity (in Turkish). Turkish Forestry Service Pub. No: 451/43, Istanbul, p 174Google Scholar
  18. Piotto B, Piccini C (1998) Influence of pretreatment and temperature on the germination of Fraxinus angustifolia seeds. Seed Sci Technol 26:799–812Google Scholar
  19. Reynold PJ, Greene T, Britt JR (2002) Effects of lifting method, seedling size, and herbaceous weed control on first-year growth of loblolly pine seedlings. In: Outcalt KW (ed) Proc. 11th Bienn. South. Silvic. Res. Con. USDA Forest Serv. Sout. Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-48, pp 51–54Google Scholar
  20. South DB, Mason WL (1993) Influence of differences in planting stock size on early height growth of Sitka spruce. Forestry 66:83–96Google Scholar
  21. Stein WI (1988) Nursery practices, seedling sizes, and field performance. USDA Forest Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 167:15–18Google Scholar
  22. Tani A (1989) A nursery trial of Italian alder (Alnus cordata). Italia Forestale-e-Montana 44(1):56–66Google Scholar
  23. Tolay U (1987) Nursery techniques for broadleaved forest tree species in Turkey. Poplar and Fast Growing Forest Trees. Res Inst., Ann. Bull. 23:29–51Google Scholar
  24. Van den Driessche R (1984) Seedling spacing in the nursery in relation to growth, yield, and performance of stock. Forest Chron 60(6):345–355Google Scholar
  25. Wakeley PC (1949) Physiological grades of southern pine nursery stock. In: Bethesda MD (ed) Proc. Soc. of Am. For., pp 311–322Google Scholar
  26. Wichman JR, Coggeshall MV (1983) The effects of seedbed density and fertilization on 1-0 white oak nursery stock. Tree Planters’ Notes 34(4):13–16Google Scholar
  27. Wichman JR, Coggeshall MV (1984) Effects of seedbed density and fertilization on root-pruned 2-0 white oak nursery stock. Tree Planters’ Notes 35(4):22–24Google Scholar
  28. Wright JW, Rauscher HM (1990) Black ash (Fraxinus nigra Marsh). In: Burns RM, Honkala BH, tech. coords. (eds) Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA Forest Serv., Washington, DC, vol 2, p 877Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryAbant Izzet Baysal UniversityDuzceTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of ForestrySuleyman Demirel UniversityIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations