Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 9–16 | Cite as

Optimum selection age for height in shortleaf pine

  • David Gwaze
Article

Abstract

Genetic and phenotypic correlations for height were estimated for shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) in Missouri from a single progeny test comprising 44 half-sibling families assessed at 3, 5, 7, 10, 17 and 25 years of age. The age-age genetic correlations for height ranged from 0.68 to 0.99, and phenotypic correlations from 0.28 to 0.84. Age-age phenotypic correlations for height had a strong linear relationship with logarithm of age ratio (R 2 = 0.89) but age-age genetic correlations had a weak linear relationship with logarithm of age ratio (R 2 = 0.27). Early selection efficiency for height was examined using the ratio of gain per year between indirect early selection and direct selection at age 25. When flowering age was assumed to be 10 years, optimum selection age was predicted to be 10 using either the genetic or the phenotypic linear model. When flowering age was assumed to be 3 years, optimum selection age was predicted to be 3 and 8 years based on the genetic and phenotypic linear models, respectively. The phenotypic linear model underestimated genetic gain at all ages, particularly at young ages.

Keywords

Age-age correlation Flowering age Genetic gain Pinus echinata Selection efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank the USDA Forest Service for making the data available.

References

  1. Balocchi CE, Bridgwater FE, Zobel BJ, Jahromi S (1993) Age trends in genetic parameters for tree height in a nonselected population of loblolly pine. For Sci 39:231–251Google Scholar
  2. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman Group Limited Harlow, UK, p 464Google Scholar
  3. Franklin EC (1979) Model relating levels of development of four north American conifers. Silvae Genet 28:207–212Google Scholar
  4. Foster GS (1986) Trends in genetic parameters with stand development and their influence on early selection for volume growth in loblolly pine. For Sci 32(4):944–959Google Scholar
  5. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Walham SJ, Thompson R (2002) ASREML User Guide, Release 1.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1, 1ES, UK, p 267Google Scholar
  6. Gonzalez JS, Richards J (1988) Early selection for wood density in young coastal Douglas-fir trees. Can J For Res 18:1182–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guldin JM (2007) Restoration and management of shortleaf pine in pure and mixed stands—science, empirical observation, and wishful application of generalities. In: Kabrick JM, Dey DC, Gwaze D (eds) Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium, Springfield, MO, 2006 November 7–9. General Technical Report, NRS-P-15, USDA, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 47–58Google Scholar
  8. Gwaze DP, Bridgwater FE (2002) Determining optimum selection age for diameter and height in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). For Genet 9:159–165Google Scholar
  9. Gwaze DP, Woolliams JA, Kanowski PJ (1997) Optimum selection age for height in Pinus taeda L. in Zimbabwe. Silvae Genet 46:358–365Google Scholar
  10. Gwaze DP, Melick R, Studyvin C, Coggeshall M (2005) Genetic control of growth traits in shortleaf pine in Missouri. Southern J Appl Forestry 29(4):2000–2004Google Scholar
  11. Jansson G, Li B, Hannrup B (2003) Time trends in genetic parameters for height and optimum age for parental selection in scots pine. For Sci 49(5):696–705Google Scholar
  12. Johnson GR, Sniezko RA, Mandel NL (1997) Age trends in Douglas-fir genetic parameters and implications for optimum selection age. Silvae Genetica 46(6):349–358Google Scholar
  13. Kitchens RN (1986) Trends in shortleaf pine tree improvement. In: Paul M (ed) Proceedings: symposium on the shortleaf pine ecosystem, Little Rock, Arkansas, March 31–April 2, 1986. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas, Monticello, AR, pp 89−100Google Scholar
  14. Lambeth CC (1980) Juvenile-mature correlations in Pinaceae and implications for early selection. For Sci 26(4):571–580Google Scholar
  15. Lawson ER (1990) Pinus echinata Mill. shortleaf pine. In: Burns RM, Honkala BH (tech. cords) (eds) Silvics of North America. Conifers, vol 1. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. McKeand SE (1988) Optimum age for family selection for growth in genetic tests of loblolly pine. For Sci 34:400–411Google Scholar
  17. Namkoong G, Kang HC, Brouard JS (1988) Tree breeding: principles and strategies. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 180Google Scholar
  18. Nance W, Wells O (1981) Estimating volume potential in genetic tests using growth and yield models. In: Proceedings of the southern forest tree improvement conference. pp 39–46Google Scholar
  19. Newman DH, Williams CG (1991) The incorporation of risk in optimum selection age determination. For Sci 37:1350–1364Google Scholar
  20. Riemenschneider DE (1988) Heritability, age-age correlations, and inferences regarding juvenile selection in jack pine. For Sci 34:1076–1082Google Scholar
  21. Studyvin C, Gwaze D (2007) Genetic improvement of shortleaf pine on the Mark Twain, Ouachita, and Ozark National Forests. In: Kabrick JM Dey DC, Gwaze D (eds) Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium,Springfield, MO, 2006 November 7–9. General Technical Report, NRS-P-15. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 84–88Google Scholar
  22. Tauer CG, McNew RW (1985) Inheritance and correlation of growth of shortleaf pine in two environments. Silvae Genet 34(1):5–11Google Scholar
  23. Wigley BT (1986) Wildlife and shortleaf pine management. In: Murphy PA (ed) Proceedings: symposium on the shortleaf pine ecosystem, Little Rock, AR,1986 March 31–April 2. Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Monticello, AR, pp 222–234Google Scholar
  24. Xiang B, Li B, McKeand S (2003) Genetic gain and selection efficiency of loblolly pine in three geographic regions. For Sci 49(2):196–208Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Missouri Department of ConservationColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations