Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Productivity differences among loblolly pine genotypes are independent of individual-tree biomass partitioning and growth efficiency

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Trees Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetic differences in individual-tree biomass partitioning, growth efficiency, and stem relative growth rate (RGR) could confer intraspecific productivity differences and might strongly influence forest ecosystem carbon storage. We examined the relationship between genotype productivity (stem volume), whole-tree biomass partitioning, growth efficiency (stem wood production per unit leaf area), and stem RGR among nine different loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) genotypes from three different genetic groups of contrasting inherent genetic homogeneity: three open-pollinated (half-sib) families, three mass-control pollinated (full-sib) families, and three clonal varieties. We hypothesized that genotype productivity would be positively associated with increased partitioning to stem wood relative to other plant parts, higher stem RGR, and enhanced growth efficiency. After 3 years under plantation conditions, genotypes showed significant differences in stem volume, percent stem wood, percent branch wood, and partitioning to fine roots, yet no differences in stem RGR or growth efficiency. Furthermore, genotypic differences in stem volume were independent of genotypic differences in biomass partitioning, and overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesized relationships. Even so, the observed variation in biomass partitioning has implications for forest C sequestration as genotypes which partition more biomass to long-lived biomass pools such as stems, may sequester more C. Moreover, the lack of a genetic relationship between stem volume and belowground partitioning suggests that highly productive genotypes may be planted without compromising belowground C storage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Dougherty PM, Kress LW, King JS (1998) Leaf area and above- and belowground growth responses of loblolly pine to nutrient and water additions. For Sci 44:317–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall MJ, King JS, McKeand SE, Domec J-C (2011a) Leaf-level gas-exchange uniformity and photosynthetic capacity among loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) genotypes of contrasting inherent genetic variation. Tree Physiol 31:78–91. doi:10.1093/treephys/tpq107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall MJ, King JS, McKeand SE, Bullock BP (2011b) Genetic effects on stand-level uniformity and above- and belowground dry mass production in juvenile loblolly pine. For Ecol Manage 262:609–619. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall MJ, King JS, Booker FL, McKeand SE (2011c) Genetic effects on total phenolics, condensed tannins and non-structural carbohydrates in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) needles. Tree Physiol 31:831–842. doi:10.1093/treephys/tpr073

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall MJ, McKeand SE, King JS (2012) Carbon sequestration from 40 years of planting genetically improved loblolly pine across the southeast United States. For Sci 58(5):446–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville GL (1972) Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can J For Res 2:49–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongarten BC, Teskey RO (1987) Dry weight partitioning and its relationship to productivity in loblolly pine seedlings from seven sources. For Sci 33(2):255–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgwater F, Kubisiak T, Byram T, McKeand S (2005) Risk management with current deployment strategies for genetically improved loblolly and slash pines. South J Appl For 29:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt JR, Mitchell RJ, Zutter BR, South DB, Gjerstad DH, Dickson JF (1991) The influence of herbaceous weed control and seedling diameter on six years of loblolly pine growth—a classical growth analysis approach. For Sci 37(2):655–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell MGR (1989) Physiological basis of wood production: a review. Scand J For Res 4:459–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannell MGR, Bridgwater FE, Greenwood MS (1978) Seedling growth rates, water stress responses and root-shoot relationships related to eight-year volumes among families of Pinus taeda L. Silvae Genet 27(6):237–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell MGR, Sheppard LJ, Ford ED, Wilson RHF (1983) Clonal differences in dry matter distribution, wood specific gravity and foliage “efficiency” in Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Silvae Genet 32(5–6):195–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter MC, Foster CD (2006) Milestones and millstones: a retrospective on 50 years of research to improve productivity in loblolly pine plantations. For Ecol Manage 227:137–144. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmura DJ, Tjoelker MG (2008) Leaf traits in relation to crown development, light interception and growth of elite families of loblolly and slash pine. Tree Physiol 28:729–742. doi:10.1093/treephys/28.5.729

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chmura DJ, Rahman MS, Tjoelker MG (2007) Crown structure and biomass allocation patterns modulate aboveground productivity in young loblolly pine and slash pine. For Ecol Manage 243:219–230. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colbert SR, Jokela EJ, Neary DG (1990) Effects of annual fertilization and sustained weed control on dry matter partitioning, leaf area, and growth efficiency of juvenile loblolly and slash pine. For Sci 36(4):995–1014

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle DR, Coleman MD (2005) Forest production responses to irrigation and fertilization are not explained by shifts in allocation. For Ecol Manage 208:137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle DR, Coleman MD, Aubrey DP (2008) Above- and below-ground biomass accumulation, production, and distribution of sweetgum and loblolly pine grown with irrigation and fertilization. Can J For Res 38:1335–1348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis PS, O’Neill EG, Teeri JA, Zak DR, Pregitzer KS (1994) Belowground responses to rising atmospheric CO2: implications for plants, soil biota and ecosystem processes. Plant Soil 165:1–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drew AP, Ledig FT (1980) Episodic growth and relative shoot:root balance in loblolly pine seedlings. Ann Bot 45:143–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Emhart VI, Martin TA, White TL, Huber DA (2006) Genetic variation in basal area increment phenology and its correlation with growth rate in loblolly and slash pine families and clones. Can J For Res 36:961–971. doi:10.1139/X05-309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emhart VI, Martin TA, White TL, Huber DA (2007) Clonal variation in crown structure, absorbed photosynthetically active radiation and growth of loblolly and slash pines. Tree Physiol 27:421–430. doi:10.1093/treephys/27.3.421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fox TR, Jokela EJ, Allen HL (2007) The development of pine plantation silviculture in the southern United States. J For 105(7):337–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta PK, Durzan DJ (1987) Biotechnology of somatic polyembryogenesis and plantlet regeneration in loblolly pine. Biotech 5:147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayawickrama KJS, McKeand SE, Jett JB (1998) Phenological variation in height and diameter growth in provenances and families of loblolly pine. New For 16:11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen K, Teskey B, Samuelson L, Butnor J, Sampson D, Sanchez F, Maier C, McKeand S (2004) Carbon sequestration in loblolly pine plantations: methods, limitations, and research needs for estimating storage pools, In: Rauscher HM, Johnson K (eds) Southern forest science: past, present and future, USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep SRS-75, pp 373–381

  • King JS, Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Kress LW (1999) Stand-level allometry in Pinus taeda as affected by irrigation and fertilization. Tree Physiol 19:769–778. doi:10.1093/treephys/19.12.769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King JS, Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Buford M, Strain BR, Dougherty P (2002) Belowground carbon input to soil is controlled by nutrient availability and fine root dynamics in loblolly pine. New Phytol 154:389–398. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00393.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King JS, Kubiske ME, Pregitzer KS, Hendry GR, McDonald EP, Giardina CP, Quinn VS, Karnosky DF (2005) Tropospheric O3 compromises net primary production in young stands of trembling aspen, paper birch and sugar maple in response to elevated atmospheric CO2. New Phytol 168:623–636

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ledig FT, Perry TO (1969) Net assimilation rate and growth in loblolly pine seedlings. For Sci 15(4):431–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledig FT, Bormann H, Wenger KF (1970) The distribution of dry matter growth between shoot and roots in loblolly pine. Bot Gaz 131(4):349–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li B, McKeand SE, Allen HL (1991) Nitrogen and family effects on biomass allocation of loblolly pine seedlings. For Sci 37(1):271–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Li B, McKeand S, Weir R (1999) Tree improvement and sustainable forestry—impact of two cycles of loblolly pine breeding in the USA. For Genet 6(4):229–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin TA, Johnson KH, White TL (2001) Ideotype development in southern pines: rationale and strategies for overcoming scale-related obstacles. For Sci 47(1):21–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TA, Dougherty PM, Topa MA, McKeand SE (2005) Strategies and case studies for incorporating ecophysiology into southern pine tree improvement programs. South J Appl For 29(2):70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrady RL, Jokela EJ (1996) Growth phenology and crown structure of selected loblolly pine families planted at two spacings. For Sci 42(1):46–57

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrady RL, Jokela EJ (1998) Canopy dynamics, light interception, and radiation use efficiency of selected loblolly pine families. For Sci 44(1):64–72

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarvey RC, Martin TA, White TL (2004) Integrating within-crown variation in net photosynthesis in loblolly and slash pine families. Tree Physiol 24:1209–1220. doi:10.1093/treephys/24.11.1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKeand SE (1985) Expression of mature characteristics by tissue culture plantlets derived from embryos of loblolly pine. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 110(5):619–623

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeand SE, Allen HL (1984) Nutritional and root development factors affecting growth of tissue culture plantlets of loblolly pine. Physiol Plant 61:523–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKeand S, Mullin T, Byram T, White T (2003) Deployment of genetically improved loblolly and slash pine in the South. J For 101(3):32–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Mckeand SE, Jokela EJ, Huber DA, Byram TD, Allen HL, Li B, Mullin TJ (2006) Performance of improved genotypes of loblolly pine across different soils, climates, and silvicultural inputs. For Ecol Manage 227:178–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson CD, Johnsen KH (2008) Genomic and physiological approaches to advancing forest tree improvement. Tree Physiol 28:1135–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pallardy SG, Kozlowski TT (1979) Early root and shoot growth of Populus clones. Silvae Genet 28(4):153–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Villar R (1997) The fate of acquired carbon in plants: chemical composition and construction costs. In: Bazzaz FA, Grace J (eds) Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, New York, pp 39–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2011) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50. doi:10.111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pullman GS, Johnson S, Peter G, Cairney J, Xu N (2003) Improving loblolly pine somatic embryo maturation: comparison of somatic and zygotic embryo morphology, germination, and gene expression. Plant Cell Rep 21:747–758

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MS, Messina MG, Newton RJ (2003a) Performance of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings and micropropagated plantlets on an east Texas site I. Above- and belowground growth. For Ecol Manage 178:245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman MS, Messina MG, Newton RJ (2003b) Performance of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings and micropropagated plantlets on an east Texas site II water relations. For Ecol Manage 178:257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzlaff WA, Handest JA, O’Malley DM, McKeand SE, Topa MA (2001) Whole-tree biomass and carbon allocation of juvenile trees of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda): influence of genetics and fertilization. Can J For Res 31:960–970

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MG, Harmon ME, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, McKinley DC, Morrison JF, Murray BC, Pataki DE, Skog KE (2010) A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for US Forests. Issues Ecol 13:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS/STAT software version 9.2. SAS Institute Inc. Copyright © 2002–2008. Cary, NC, USA

  • Sherrill JR, Bullock BP, Mullin TJ, McKeand SE, Purnell RC (2011) Total and merchantable stem volume equations for mid-rotation loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). South J Appl For 35:105–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Staudhammer CL, Jokela EJ, Martin TA (2009) Competition dynamics in pure- versus mixed-family stands of loblolly and slash pine in the southeastern United States. Can J For Res 39:396–409. doi:10.1139/X08-184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stovall JP, Fox TR, Seiler JR (2012a) Allometry varies among 6-year-old Pinus taeda (L.) clones in the Virginia Piedmont. For Sci (in press)

  • Stovall JP, Fox TR, Seiler JR (2012b) Short-term changes in biomass partitioning of two full-sib clones of Pinus taeda L. under differing fertilizer regimes over 4 months. Trees 26:951–961. doi:10.1007/s00468-011-0673-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson JC, McKeand SE, Allen HL, Campbell RG (1999) Genetic variation in height and volume of loblolly pine open-pollinated families during canopy closure. Silvae Genet 48:204–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbert JT, Weir RJ, Arnold RD (1985) Costs and benefits of a mature first-generation loblolly pine tree improvement program. J For 83:162–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyree MC, Seiler JR, Maier CA, Johnsen KH (2009a) Pinus taeda clones and soil nutrient availability: effects of soil organic matter incorporation and fertilization on biomass partitioning and leaf physiology. Tree Physiol 29:1117–1131. doi:10.1093/treephys/tpp050

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyree MC, Seiler JR, Maier CA (2009b) Short-term impacts of nutrient manipulations on leaf gas exchange and biomass partitioning in contrasting 2-year-old Pinus taeda clones during seedling establishment. For Ecol Manage 257:1847–1858. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Driessche R (1992) Absolute and relative growth of Douglas-fir seedlings of different sizes. Tree Physiol 10:141–152. doi:10.1093/treephys/10.2.141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vose JM, Allen HL (1988) Leaf area, stem wood growth, and nutrition relationships in loblolly pine. For Sci 34:547–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang WQ, Murthy R, King P, Topa MA (2002) Diurnal changes in gas exchange and carbon partitioning in needles of fast- and slow-growing families of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Tree Physiol 22:489–498. doi:10.1093/treephys/22.7.489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Polyakov M (2010) The geographical distribution of plantation forests and land resources potentially available for pine plantations in the US. South. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1643–1654. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.06

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the NCSU Donald Moreland Endowed Graduate Fellowship, the NCSU Cooperative Tree Improvement Program, and the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources. Additional support was provided by the USDA Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center (EFETAC). We also thank the NCSU Tree Physiology Lab Group for editorial comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Michael J. Aspinwall, John S. King & Steven E. McKeand

  2. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, NSW, 2753, Australia

    Michael J. Aspinwall

  3. Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium

    John S. King

Authors
  1. Michael J. Aspinwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John S. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven E. McKeand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Aspinwall.

Additional information

Communicated by J. E. Major.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aspinwall, M.J., King, J.S. & McKeand, S.E. Productivity differences among loblolly pine genotypes are independent of individual-tree biomass partitioning and growth efficiency. Trees 27, 533–545 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-012-0806-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-012-0806-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation