Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 197–218 | Cite as

Performance of Pinus elliottii, Pinus caribaea, their F1, F2 and backcross hybrids and Pinus taeda to 10 years in the Mesopotamia region, Argentina

  • Eduardo P. Cappa
  • Martín Marcó
  • D. Garth Nikles
  • Ian S. Last
Article

Abstract

Performances of Pinus taxa were studied to 10 years of age in two trials in each of Misiones and Entre Ríos provinces across the Mesopotamia region of Argentina. Taxa comprised 22 populations from sources in Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Zimbabwe including Pinus elliottii var. elliottii (Pee), Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis (Pch), their four, inter-specific hybrids (F1, F2 and backcrosses from F1 to Pch and to Pee—all as broadly based bulks); other Pee and Pinus taeda (Pt) comprised narrower or unspecified bulks. Variable numbers of taxa were missing at each site. Mean survival across sites at age 10 years ranged 53.2–91.3% averaging 74.2%. Analysis of variance of plot means indicated population effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all or most growth and quality traits at all sites. However, significant differences from the nominated check seedlot at the Entre Ríos sites (Pee, Australia) were extremely rare, while quite common at the northern, Misiones sites (check seedlot a Pt population). In the Misiones trials, F1, F2 and both backcross hybrids showed better stem straightness than Pee and Pt from Argentina, generally with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Pt showed lowest forking scores (desirable). Taxon × environment interaction was statistically significant (p < 0.01) for growth traits only (p > 0.05). However, this interaction contributed an average of only 34.1% of the taxon variance suggesting a lack of practical importance. Taxa most suitable for deployment in the Mesopotamia region, Argentina are suggested.

Keywords

Pinus species Pinus hybrids Survival Performance Taxon × environment interaction Argentina 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant from Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica of Argentina PICT: 00321, below the Programa de Modernización Tecnológica III, Contrato de Préstamo BID 1728/OC-AR. These trials were part of a collaborative research project between Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria and the Queensland Forestry Research Institute of Australia. Martín Marcó would like to thank co-author Dr. D. Garth Nikles, on behalf of Queensland Forestry Research Institute, for supplying the seeds of the hybrids and parental taxa developed in Queensland, Australia. We are indebted to the company LIPSIA S.A. and INTA Concordia and Cerro Azul Experimental Stations who made land available for establishment of the trials. Thanks also to Gustavo Rodriguez, María Elena Gauchat, Ector Belaber, Jorge Pujato and Mario Carmarán who assisted with measurements and data processing.

References

  1. Barrett WH, Danner SM, Hennig A (1991) Hibridos de P. elliottii var elliottii × P. caribaea var. hondurensis en cultivo en el norte de Corrientes. Jornada sobre Pinus caribaea, Actas, Centro de Investigaciones y Experiencias Forestales. Eldorado, Misiones—Argentina, 25–26 de Abril de 1991, pp 107–111Google Scholar
  2. Bunse G (2003) Pinos híbridos en la provincia de Corrientes. Jornada Técnica Forestoindustrial Híbridos de PEE × PCH. INTA E.E.A. Montecarlo, LIPSIA S. A. Puerto Esperanza, Misiones, Argentina. 22 de agosto de 2003Google Scholar
  3. Dieters MJ, Brawner J (2007) Productivity of Pinus elliottii, P. caribaea and their F1 and F2 hybrids to 15 years in Queensland. Aust Ann For Sci 64:691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dieters MJ, Nikles DG, Toon PG, Pomroy P (1995) Hybrid superiority in forest trees—concepts and application. In: Potts BM et al. (eds) Eucalypt plantations: Improving fibre yield and quality, Proceeding of CRCIUFRO Conference, Hobart, 19–24 Feb, CRC for Temperate Hardwood Research, pp 152–155Google Scholar
  5. Duncan PD, White TL, Hodge GR (1996) First-year freeze hardiness of pure species and hybrid taxa of Pinus elliottii (Engelmann) and Pinus caribaea (Morelet). New For 12:223–241Google Scholar
  6. Gwaze DP (1999) Performance of some interspecific F1 pine hybrids in Zimbabwe. For Genet 6:283–289Google Scholar
  7. Harding KJ (2008) Review of wood quality studies in Queensland and northern New South Wales. Project number PN06. 3016. Resource characterization of slash pine plantation wood quality. Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited. 123 pp. Available from:http://www.fwpa.com.au/Resources/RD/Reports/PN06.3016slashpine.pdf. Accessed 4 September 2010
  8. Harding KJ, Copley TR (2000) Wood property variation in Queensland-grown slash × Caribbean pine hybrids. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nikles DG (compilers) Hybrid breeding and genetics of forest trees, Proceedings of Symposium, 9–14 April, Noosa, Queensland, Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, pp 160–167Google Scholar
  9. Harding KJ, Knight JM, Copley TR (2000) Sawing studies on Queensland-grown slash × Caribbean pine F1 hybrids. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nikles DG (compilers) Hybrid breeding and genetics of forest trees, Proceedings of Symposium, 9–14 April, Noosa, Queensland, Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, pp 440–446Google Scholar
  10. Harding KJ, Nester MR, Dieters MJ, Zbonak A, Copley TR (2010) Sub-tropical exotic pine taxa, growth, form and wood properties comparisons across multiple sites in coastal Queensland in: thinning and clearfall age trials; in family and clonal hybrid pine trials and in a genetics × fertiliser × weed control trial. Project No: PNC057.0809. Forest and Wood Products Australia LimitedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt MA, Trueman SJ, Rasmussen A (2011) Indole-3-butyric acid accelerates adventitious root formation and impedes shoot growth of Pinus elliottii var. elliottii × P. caribaea var. hondurensis cuttings. New Forests 41:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jansson G, Danell O (1993) Needs and benefits of empirical power transformations for production and quality traits in forest tree breeding. Theor Appl Genet 87:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kain DP (2003) Genetic parameters and improvement strategies for the Pinus elliottii var. elliottii × Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis hybrid in Queensland, Australia. Ph D thesis, Australian National University, A. C. T, Australia. XVII + 319 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. López-Upton J, White TL, Huber DA (1999) Taxon and family differences in survival, cold hardiness, early growth, and rust incidence of loblolly, slash pine and some pine hybrids. Silvae Genetica 48(6):303–313Google Scholar
  15. Matheson AC, Raymond CA (1984) The impact of genotype x environment interactions on Australian Pinus radiata breeding programs. Aus For Res 14:11–25Google Scholar
  16. Nikles DG (1991) Increasing the value of future plantations in Argentina and southern Brazil using slash × Caribbean pine hybrids developed in Queensland. Jornada sobre Pinus caribaea, Actas, Centro de Investigaciones y Experiencias Forestales. Eldorado, Misiones, Argentina, 25-26 de Abril de 1991, pp 93–102Google Scholar
  17. Nikles DG (1995) Hybrids of the slash-Caribbean-Central American pine complex: characteristics, bases of superiority and potential utility in South China and elsewhere. In: Shen XH (ed) Forest tree improvement in the Asia-Pacific region. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, pp 168–186Google Scholar
  18. Nikles DG (1996) The first 50 years of the evolution of forest tree improvement in Queensland. In: Dieters MJ, Matheson AC, Nikles DG, Harwood CE, Walker SM (eds) Tree improvement for sustainable tropical forestry. Proceedings of QFRI–IUFRO Conference, Caloundra, Queensland, Australia. 27 October–1 November 1996Google Scholar
  19. Nikles DG (2000) Experience with some Pinus hybrids in Queensland, Australia. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nikles DG (compiler) Hybrid breeding and genetics of forest trees Proceedings of QFRI/CRC-SPF symposium, 9–14 April 2000, Noosa, Queensland, Australia. Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  20. Pahr NH, Gauchat ME, Sorge F, Rodriguez GH (2002) Ensayo comparativo de pinos subtropicales mejorados NO de Misiones, Argentina. Novenas Jornadas Técnicas Forestales. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales-Universidad Nacional de Misiones-EEA Montecarlo, INTA.-Ministerio de Ecología y R. N. R. Eldorado, Misiones, Argentina. 15–17 de Mayo de 2002, p 8Google Scholar
  21. Patterson HD, Silvey V (1980) Statutory and recommended list trials of crop varieties in the United Kingdom (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Series A 143:219–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powell MB, Nikles DG (1996) Performance of Pinus elliottii var. elliottii and Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis, and their F1, F2 and backcross hybrids across a range of sites in central and southern Queensland. In: Dieters MJ, Matheson AC, Nikles DG, Harwood CE, Walker SM (eds) Tree improvement for sustainable tropical forestry. Proceedings QFRI–IUFRO Conference, Caloundra, Queensland, Australia 27 Oct–1 Nov 1996Google Scholar
  23. Rockwood DL, Nikles DG (2000) Performance of slash pine × Caribbean pine hybrids in the Southern Florida, USA. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nikles DG (compiler) Hybrid breeding and genetics of forest trees. Proceedings of QFRI/CRC-SPF Symposium, 9–14 April 2000, Noosa, Queensland, Australia, Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  24. Rockwood DL, Harding KJ, Nikles DG (1991) Variation in the wood properties of Pinus elliottii × Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis F1 hybrid, its parental species and backcross to Pinus elliottii in Australia, pp 233–240 in Proceedings 21 st Southern forest tree improvement conference, June 17–20, 1991. Knoxville, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  25. SAS Institute. 2002. SAS user’s guide: statistics. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  26. Schenone RA, Pezzutti RV (2003) Productividad de progenies de Pinus elliottii × Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis. Paper submitted to the XII World Forestry Congress, 2003, Quebec City, Canada. Available from: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0023-B4.HTM. Accesed 4 February 2011
  27. Shelbourne CJA (1972) Genotype-environment interaction: its study and its implications in forest tree improvement. In: Proceedings of joint symposium for forest tree breeding of genetics subject group and section 5, forest trees of SABRAO. Govt. For. Exp. Sta., Tokyo, B-1(1),1-28Google Scholar
  28. Zas R, Merlo E, Fernandez-Lopez J (2004) Genotype × environment interaction in maritime pine families in galicia, Northwest Spain. Silvae Genetica 53:175–181Google Scholar
  29. Zheng Y (2000) Hybrid breeding of Pinus caribaea in China. In: Dungey HS, Dieters MJ, Nikles DG (compiler) “Hybrid Breeding and Genetics of Forest Trees” Proceedings of QFRI/CRC-SPF symposium, 9–14 April 2000, Noosa, Queensland, Australia, Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo P. Cappa
    • 1
  • Martín Marcó
    • 2
  • D. Garth Nikles
    • 3
  • Ian S. Last
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Instituto de Recursos BiológicosConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Hurlingham, Buenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), E.E.A ConcordiaEntre RíosArgentina
  3. 3.Department of Employment, Economic Development & InnovationHorticulture and Forestry ScienceBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Forestry Plantations Queensland Pty LtdGympieAustralia

Personalised recommendations