Advertisement

Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 13, Issue 11, pp 628–631 | Cite as

Field performance of micropropagated, macropropagated, and seed-derived propagules of three Eucalyptus grandis ortets

  • D. L. Rockwood
  • E. I. Warrag
Article

Abstract

Tree size, survival, and coppicing of micropropagated plantlets, macropropagated cuttings, and seedlings of Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden were monitored through 57 months in a study in southern Florida to assess propagation options. Two plantlet lines developed by direct micropropagation and orchard open-pollinated seedlings from three ortets were compared in the main study. Rooted cuttings from up to four ramets of each of the three ortets and another ortet were examined in an adjacent supplemental study. Freezes at six and 16 months killed most initial and first-coppice stems to the ground. Most developmental differences in the main study were consistent from ages 2 to 57 months. Propagation by ortet interactions were observed beginning at 21 months, due to the poor performance of seedlings of one ortet after the second freeze. At 57 months, no differences in tree height, DBH, volume, or survival were detected between plantlet lines and between rooted cuttings and plantlets, but seedlings were inferior to plantlets and cuttings. Vegetative propagules had more uniform tree size at every age, with typically less than one-half the variability observed among seedlings. Even though plantlets and cuttings may be more expensive to produce, they have numerous advantages over seedlings for E. grandis plantation establishment in Florida.

Key words

Tissue culture plantlets rooted cuttings clones seedlings progenies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Bell, DT, PG Van der Moezel, IJ Bennett, JA McComb, CF Wilkins, and SCB Marshall. 1993. For. Ecol. & Man. 57(1–4): 125–139.Google Scholar
  2. Franclet, A, and M Boulay. 1982. Aust. For. Res. 13: 83–89.Google Scholar
  3. Geary, TF, GF Meskimen, and EC Franklin. (1983). USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. SE-23. 43p.Google Scholar
  4. Khuspe, SS, PK Gupta, DK Kulkarni, U Mehta, and AF Mascarenhas. 1987. Can. J. For. Res. 17(11): 1361–1363.Google Scholar
  5. Lambeth, CC. (1994). Forest Science (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Meskimen, GF, DL Rockwood, and KV Reddy. 1987. New Forests 3: 197–205.Google Scholar
  7. Rockwood, DL, EE Warrag, J Bryan, and K Kratz. (1988). In: Proceedings 5th. Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, November 1–3, (1988), Memphis, TN. p. 317–326.Google Scholar
  8. Rockwood, DL, EE Warrag, K Javanshir, and K Kratz. (1989). In: Proceedings 20th. Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, June 27–29, (1989), Charleston, SC. p. 403–410.Google Scholar
  9. SAS. (1988). SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  10. Warrag, EI, MS Lesney, and DL Rockwood. 1989a. Plant Cell Reports 8: 497–499.Google Scholar
  11. Warrag, EI, MS Lesney, and DL Rockwood. 1989b. Plant Cell Reports 8: 500–503.Google Scholar
  12. Warrag, EI, MS Lesney, and DL Rockwood. 1990. New Forests 4: 67–79.Google Scholar
  13. Warrag, E, MS Lesney, and DL Rockwood. 1991. Plant Cell Reports 9: 586–589Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. L. Rockwood
    • 1
  • E. I. Warrag
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of KhartoumKhartoum NorthSudan

Personalised recommendations