European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

, Volume 77, Issue 6, pp 1117–1124 | Cite as

Understanding relationship between the wood quality parameters and susceptibility of Pinus taeda to pine decline

  • Charles EssienEmail author
  • Pratima Devkota
  • Brian K. Via
  • Lori G. Eckhardt


Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) is one of the ecologically and economically important conifer species in the southeastern USA. However, a disease decline syndrome, southern pine decline (SPD), associated with beetle-vectored root-infecting fungi, has emerged as one of the major challenges confronting loblolly pine production in this part of the country. Although several studies have been conducted to screen the susceptibility of the commercially grown families to these fungi, little information exists on wood properties associated with the susceptible and resistant families. Thus, the objectives of this study were (1) to understand variation in wood quality parameters among the families regarded as susceptible and tolerant to SPD, (2) to evaluate the utility of acoustic tool to differentiate between those families. The results indicated the velocity, fiber length, microfibril angle and slenderness of the susceptible families are comparable or superior to those of the tolerant families. The mean error rate of classification associated with acoustic tool ranged from 35 to 40% depending on the distance between the transmitter and receiver probes. The mean error rate of classification was 35% when probes were placed 120 cm apart. The results from this study signify that a family tolerant to pine decline is not synonymous to a quality wood family and possibility of using acoustic tools to allocate pine species into PD susceptibility classes.



  1. Acquah GE, Via BK, Billor N, Fasina OO, Eckhardt LG (2016) Identifying plant part composition of forest logging residue using infrared spectral data and linear discriminant analysis. Sensor 16:1375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM Standard D2395 (2007) Standard test methods for specific gravity of wood and wood-based materials. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3. Devkota P, Nadel RL, Eckhardt LG (2018a) Intraspecies variation of mature Pinus taeda in response to root-infecting ophiostomatoid fungi. For Pathol 8:e12415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devkota P, Enebak SA, Eckhardt LG (2018b) The impact of drought and vascular-inhabiting pathogen invasion in Pinus taeda health. Int J For Res, Article ID 1249140Google Scholar
  5. Eckhardt LG, Menard RD (2008) Topographic features associated with loblolly pine decline in Central Alabama. For Ecol Manag 255(5–6):1735–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckhardt LG, Weber AM, Menard RD, Jones JP, Hess NJ (2007) Insect-fungal complex associated with loblolly pine decline in central Alabama. For Sci 53:84–92Google Scholar
  7. Essien C (2011) Physical, anatomical and treatment characteristics of the wood of Cola gigantea and Ficus sur. Master of Philosophy Thesis, Faculty of Renewable Natural Resource, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, p 196Google Scholar
  8. Essien C (2017) Fundamental considerations and application of acoustics as a nondestructive evaluation technique of wood quality properties. Ph.D dissertation. Graduate School, Auburn University, Auburn (submitted) Google Scholar
  9. Essien C, Cheng Q, Via BK, Loewenstein EF, Wang X (2016) An Acoustic operations study for loblolly pine standing saw timber with different thinning history. BioResources 11(3):7512–7521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Essien C, Via BK, Wang X, Gallagher T, McDonald T, Eckhardt LG (2017a) Multivariate Modeling of acousto-mechanical response of fourteen year old suppressed loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) to variation in wood chemistry, microfibril angle, and density. Wood Sci Technol 51:475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Essien C, Via BK, Acquah G, Gallagher T, McDonald T, Eckhardt LG (2017b) Effect of genetic sources on anatomical, morphological, and mechanical properties of 14-year-old genetically improved loblolly pine families from two sites in the southern United States. J For Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Essien C, Via BK, Gallagher T, McDonald T, Eckhardt LG (2018) Distance error for determining the acoustic velocity of standing tree using tree morphological, physical and anatomical properties. J Indian Acad Wood Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FPL (Forest Products Laboratory) (2010) Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenhill AG (1918) Determination of the greatest height consistent with stability that a vertical pole or mast can be made, and of the greatest height to which a tree of given proportions can grow. Proc Camb Philos Soc 4:65–73Google Scholar
  15. Ilic J (2001) Relationship among the dynamic and static elastic properties of air-dry Eucalyptus delegatensis R. Baker. Holz Roh-Werkst 59:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson RA, Wichern D (2007) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Lasserre JP, Mason EG, Watt MS (2007) Assessing corewood acoustic velocity and modulus of elasticity with two impact-based instruments in 11-year-old trees from a clonal-spacing experiment of Pinus radiata D. Don. For Ecol Manag 239:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKeand S, Mullin T, Byram T, White T (2003) Deployment of genetically improved loblolly and slash pine in the South. J For 101:32–37Google Scholar
  19. Moya L, Laguarda ML, Cagno M, Cardoso A, Gatto F, O’Neill H (2013) Physical and mechanical properties of loblolly and slash pine wood from Uruguayan plantations. For Prod J 63(3/4):128–137Google Scholar
  20. NOAA (2016) State, regional and national monthly precipitation: area weighted monthly normal, 1981–2015. Historical Climatography, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver SpringGoogle Scholar
  21. Peter GF, Benton DM, Bennett K (2003) A simple direct method for measurement of microfibril angle in single fibers using differential interference contrast microscopy. J Pulp Paper Sci 29:274–280Google Scholar
  22. Schultz RP (1997). Loblolly pine, the ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). U.S. Dep. Agric., Forest Service, Agric. Handbook-713, Washington, DC, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  23. Statistical Analysis (SAS) (2014) Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.4. SAS, CaryGoogle Scholar
  24. Via BK, So CL, Shupe TF, Groom LH, Wikaira J (2009) Mechanical response of longleaf pine to variation in microfibril angle, chemistry associated wavelengths, density and radial position. Compos A 40(1):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang X, Ross RJ, Carter P (2007) Acoustic evaluation of wood quality in standing trees. Part 1: acoustic behavior in standing tree. Wood Fiber Sci 39(1):28–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Essien
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Pratima Devkota
    • 2
  • Brian K. Via
    • 1
  • Lori G. Eckhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of GhanaKumasiGhana

Personalised recommendations