New Forests

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 51–72 | Cite as

Field performance potential of a somatic interior spruce seedlot

  • Steven C. GrossnickleEmail author
  • Raymund S. Folk
Original Paper


This study defined the field performance potential for 34 genotypes that composed a somatic seedlot of interior spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea engelmannii Parry ex. Engelm.) crosses, white spruce (P. glauca (Moench) Voss) crosses, or a mixture. Each genotype was measured for morphological attributes: height, diameter, shoot dry weight, root dry weight, shoot-to-root ratio, height-to-diameter ratio at time of lifting. Each genotype was also measured for physiological attributes of cuticular transpiration (TFDcut), osmotic potential at turgor loss point (Ψtlp) and freezing tolerance (index of injury at −6°C and −4°C; II@−6 & II@−4) during inactive and active shoot growth phases. Shoot growth potential (SGP = length of new leader elongation) and root growth potential (RGP) were conducted under four environmental regimes: nutrient-rich/well-watered, nutrient-poor/well-watered, low root temperature, and planting stress conditions. The somatic seedlot met target height, diameter and RGP standards for a plantable seedling crop in British Columbia, Canada, though genotypes differed in morphology at time of lifting. These genotypes also differed in their measured physiological attributes (TFDcut, Ψtlp, II@−6 and II@−4) at time of lifting and during active shoot growth. Genotypic differences were also found for SGP and RGP under different testing environments. A stock quality assessment program describing elite genotypes within a seedlot can aid foresters in applying benefits of clonal forestry.


Stock quality assessment Somatic embryogenesis Picea species 


  1. Abrams MD (1988) Sources of variation in osmotic potentials with special reference to North American tree species. For Sci 34:1030–1046Google Scholar
  2. Aspelmeier S, Leuschner C (2004) Genotypic variation in drought response of silver birch (Betula pendula): leaf water status and carbon gain. Tree Physiol 24:517–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beadle CL, Jarvis PG, Neilson RE (1979) Leaf conductance as related to xylem water potential and carbon dioxide concentration in Sitka spruce. Physiol Plant 45:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigras FJ, Hébert C (1996) Freezing temperatures and exposure times during bud break and shoot elongation influence survival and growth of containerized black spruce (Picea mariana) seedlings. Can J For Res 26:1481–1489Google Scholar
  5. Burdett AN (1987) Understanding root growth capacity: Theoretical considerations in assessing planting stock quality by means of root growth tests. Can J For Res 17:768–775Google Scholar
  6. Burr KE, Tinus RW, Wallner SJ, King RM (1990) Comparison of three cold hardiness tests for conifer seedlings. Tree Physiol 6:351–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell RK, Sorensen FC (1984) Genetic implications of nursery practices. In: Duryea ML, Landis TD (eds) Forest nursery manual: production of bareroot seedlings. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 183–191Google Scholar
  8. Cannell MGR, Sheppard LJ (1982) Seasonal changes in the frost hardiness of provenances of Picea sitchensis in Scotland. Forestry 55:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheliak WM, Rogers DL (1990) Integrating biotechnology into tree improvement programs. Can J For Res 20:452–463Google Scholar
  10. Coates KD, Emmingham WH, Radosevich SR (1991) Conifer-seedling success and microclimate at different levels of herb and shrub cover in a Rhododendron-Vaccinium-Menziesia community of south central British Columbia. Can J For Res 21:858–866Google Scholar
  11. Colombo SJ, Teng Y (1992) Seasonal variation in water relations of white spruce seedlings. Oecologia 92:410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cyr DR, Lazaroff WR, Grimes SMA, Quan QQ, Bethune TD, Dunstan DI, Roberts DR (1994) Cryopreservation of interior spruce (Picea glauca engelmanni complex) embryogenic cultures. Plant Cell Rep 13:574–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewald L, White TL, Duryea ML (1992) Growth and phenology of seedlings of four contrasting slash pine seedlings in ten nitrogen regimes. Tree Physiol 11:255–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunstan DI (1988) Prospects and progress in conifer biotechnology. Can J For Res 18:1497–1506Google Scholar
  15. Duryea ML (1985) Evaluating seedling quality; importance to reforestation. In: Duryea ML (ed) Evaluating seedling quality: principles, procedures and predictive abilities of major tests. Forest Res. Lab., Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  16. Farnden C (1994) Forest Regeneration in the ESSF zone of north-central British Columbia. Canadian Forest Service. Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, Information Report BC-X-351Google Scholar
  17. Flint HL, Boyce BR, Beattie DJ (1967) Index of injury – a useful expression of freezing injury to plant tissues as determined by the electrolyte method. Can J Plant Sci 47:229–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folk RS, Grossnickle SC (1997) Determining field performance potential with the use of limiting environmental conditions. New For 13:121–138Google Scholar
  19. Folk RS, Grossnickle SC (2000) Stock-type patterns of phosphorus uptake, retranslocation, net photosynthesis and morphological development in interior spruce seedlings. New For 19:27–49Google Scholar
  20. Grossnickle SC (1989) Shoot phenology and water relations of Picea glauca. Can J For Res 19:1287–1290Google Scholar
  21. Grossnickle SC (1999) Performance of conifer stock produced through somatic embryogenesis. In: Jain SM, Gupta PK, Newton RJ (eds) Somatic embryogenesis in woody plants, vol 4. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 97–124Google Scholar
  22. Grossnickle SC (2000) Ecophysiology of northern spruce species: The performance of planted seedlings. NRC Research PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Grossnickle SC (2005) Importance of root growth in overcoming planting stress. New For 30:273–294Google Scholar
  24. Grossnickle SC, Folk RS (1993) Stock quality assessment: Forecasting survival or performance on a reforestation site. Tree Planter’s Notes 44:113–121Google Scholar
  25. Grossnickle SC, Major JE (1994a) Interior spruce seedlings compared to emblings produced from somatic embryogenesis. (II) Stock quality assessment prior to field planting. Can J For Res 24:1385–1396Google Scholar
  26. Grossnickle SC, Major JE (1994b) Interior spruce seedlings compared to emblings produced from somatic embryogenesis. (III) Physiological response and morphological development on a reforestation site. Can J For Res 24:1397–1407Google Scholar
  27. Grossnickle SC, Folk RS (2005) Stock quality assessment of a somatic interior spruce seedlot. N J Appl For 22:197–206Google Scholar
  28. Grossnickle SC, Major JE, Folk RS (1994) Interior spruce seedlings compared to emblings produced from somatic embryogenesis. (I) Nursery development, fall acclimation and over-winter storage. Can J For Res 24:1376–1384Google Scholar
  29. Grossnickle SC, Cyr D, Polonenko DR (1996a) Somatic embryogenesis tissue culture for the propagation of conifer seedlings: a technology comes of age. Tree Planters’ Notes 47:48–57Google Scholar
  30. Grossnickle SC, Arnott JT, Major JE, Tschaplinski TJ (1991) Influence of dormancy induction treatment on western hemlock seedlings. (1) Seedling development and stock quality assessment. Can J For Res 21:164–174Google Scholar
  31. Grossnickle SC, Folk RS, Abrams SR, Dunstan DI, Rose PA (1996b) Performance of interior spruce seedlings treated with abscisic acid analogs. Can J For Res 26:2061–2070Google Scholar
  32. Hawkins CDB (1998) Interactions of forest seedling nurseries and seed orchards. In: Puri S (ed) Tree Improvement. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, N.H., pp 125–139Google Scholar
  33. Kiss G, Yeh FC (1988) Heritability estimates for young interior spruce in British Columbia. Can J For Res 18:158–162Google Scholar
  34. Kramer PJ, Boyer JS (1995) Water relations of plants and soils. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Lang HP (1989) Risks arising from the reduction of the genetic variability of some Alpine Norway spruce provenances by size grading. For Suppl 62:49–52Google Scholar
  36. Lamhamedi MS, Chamberland H, Bernier PY, Tremblay FM (2000) Clonal variation in morphology, growth, physiology, anatomy and ultrastructure of container-grown white spruce somatic plants. Tree Physiol 20:869–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Larcher W (1995) Physiological plant ecology, 3rd Edition. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Li B, McKeand SE, Allen HL (1991) Genetic variation in nitrogen use efficiency of loblolly pine seedlings. For Sci 37:613–626Google Scholar
  39. Libby WJ (1982) What is a safe number of clones per plantation? In: Heybrook HM, Stephan BR, von Weissenberg K (eds) Resistance to disease and pests in forest trees. Pudoc Wagerningen, The Netherlands, pp 342–360Google Scholar
  40. Major JE, Grossnickle SC, Folk RS, Arnott JT (1994) Influence of nursery culture on western red cedar. I. Measurement of seedling attributes before fall and spring planting. New For 8:211–229Google Scholar
  41. Martin TA, Dougherty PM, Topa MA, McKeand SE (2005) Strategies and case studies for incorporating ecophysiology into southern pine tree improvement programs. S J Appl For 29:70–79Google Scholar
  42. Menzies MI, Aimers-Halliday J (2004) Propagation options for clonal forestry with conifers. In: Walter C, Carson M (eds) Plantation forest biotechnology for the 21st century. Research Signpost, pp 255–274Google Scholar
  43. Mullin TJ (1985) Genotype–nitrogen interactions in full-sib seedlings of black spruce. Can J For Res 15:1031–1038Google Scholar
  44. Nsangou M, Greenwood M (1998) Physiological and morphological differences between somatic, in vitro germinated, and normal seedlings of red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.). Can J For Res 28:1088–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Owens JN, Molder M (1976) Bud development in Sitka spruce II Cone differentiation and early development. Can J Bot 54:766–779Google Scholar
  46. Owens JN, Molder M (1977) Bud development in Picea glauca II Cone differentiation and early development. Can J Bot 55:2746–2760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park YK (2002) Implementation of conifer somatic embryogenesis in clonal forestry: Technical requirements and deployment considerations. Ann For Sci 59:651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park YS, Barrett JD, Bonga JM (1998) Application of somatic embryogenesis in high-value clonal forestry: deployment, genetic control, and stability of cryopreserved clones. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol—Plant 34:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Puttonen P (1989) Criteria for using seedling performance potential tests. New For 3:67–87Google Scholar
  50. Repo T (1992) Seasonal changes in frost hardiness in Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris in Finland. Can J For Res 22:1949–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ritchie GA (1984) Assessing seedling quality. In: Duryea ML, Landis TD (eds) Forest nursery manual: production of bareroot seedlings. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 243–266Google Scholar
  52. Ritchie GA (1985) Root growth potential: principles, procedures, and predictive ability. In: Duryea ML (ed) Evaluating seedling quality: principles, procedures, and predictive ability of major tests. Oregon State University, Forestry Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, pp 93–106Google Scholar
  53. Roberds JH, Basher WJ (1997) Risk analyses in clonal forestry. Can J For Res 27:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roberts DR, Webster FB, Cyr DR, Edmonds TK, Grimes SMA, Sutton BCS (1995) A delivery system for naked somatic embryos of interior spruce. In: Aitken-Christie J, Kozai T, Smith MAL (eds) Automation and environmental control in plant tissue culture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 245–256Google Scholar
  55. Russell JH (1993) Genetic architecture, genecology and phenotypic plasticity in seed and seedling traits of yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach). Dissertation, Univ. of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  56. Samuelson LJ (2000) Effects of nitrogen on leaf physiology and growth of different families of loblolly and slash pine. New For 19:95–107Google Scholar
  57. Scagel R, Bowden R, Madill M, Kooistra C (1993) Provincial seedling stock type selection and ordering guidelines. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, 75Google Scholar
  58. Schulte PJ, Hinckley TM, (1985) A comparison of pressure-volume curve data analysis techniques. J Exp Bot 36:1590–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simpson DG (1990) Frost hardiness, root growth capacity, and field performance relationships in interior spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock seedlings. Can J For Res 20:566–572Google Scholar
  60. Simpson DG, Ritchie GA (1997) Does RGP predict field performance? A Debate. New For 13:253–277Google Scholar
  61. Stathers RJ (1989) Summer frost in young forest plantations. Forestry Canada and B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., FRDA Rep. 073Google Scholar
  62. Steen OA, Stathers RJ, Coupé RA (1990) Identification and management of summer frost-prone sites in the Cariboo Forest Region. Forestry Canada and B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., FRDA Rep. 157Google Scholar
  63. Sutton BCS (2002) Commercial delivery of genetic improvement to conifer plantations using somatic embryogenesis. Ann For Sci 29:657–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sutton BCS, Attree SA, El-Kassaby YA, Grossnickle SC, Polonenko DR (2004) Commercialization of somatic embryogenesis for plantation forestry. In: Walter C, Carson M (eds) Plantation forest biotechnology for the 21st century. Research Signpost, pp 275–301Google Scholar
  65. Sutton RF (1982) Plantation establishment in the boreal forest: planting season extension. Can. For. Serv., Great Lakes For. Res. Cent., P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 5M7Google Scholar
  66. Sutton RF (1988) Planting stock quality is fitness for purpose. In: Proc. Symp. On Taking Stock: the Role of Nursery Practice in Forest Renewal. Can. For. Serv., Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Ont. For. Res. Committee O-P-16. pp 39–43Google Scholar
  67. Sutton RF (1990) Root growth capacity in coniferous forest trees. Hortic Sci 25:259–266Google Scholar
  68. Tan W, Blake TJ, Boyle TJB (1992) Drought tolerance in faster- and slower-growing black spruce (Picea mariana) progenies: II. Osmotic adjustment and changes of soluble carbohydrates and amino acids under osmotic stress. Physiol Plant 85:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tautorus TE, Fowke LC, Dunstan DI (1991) Somatic embryogenesis in conifers. Can J Bot 69:1873–1899Google Scholar
  70. Van Eerden E, Gates JW (1990) Seedling production and processing: container. In: Lavender DP, Parish R, Johnson CM, Montgomery G, Vyse A, Willis RA, Winston D (eds) Regenerating British Columbia’s forests. Univ. of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C., pp 226–234Google Scholar
  71. Vanhinsberg NB, Colombo SJ (1990) Effect of temperature an needle anatomy and transpiration of Picea mariana after bud set. Can J For Res 20:598–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Webster FB, Roberts DR, McInnis SM, Sutton BCS (1990) Propagation of interior spruce by somatic embryogenesis. Can J For Res 20:1759–1765Google Scholar
  73. Wilkinson L, Hill M, Welna JP, Birkenbeuel GK (1992) Systat® for windows™ (Version 5.0): Statistics. SPSS, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  74. Zine El Abidine A, Bernier PB, Plamondon AP (1994a) Water relations parameters of lowland and upland black spruce: seasonal variations and ecotypic differences. Can J For Res 24:587–593Google Scholar
  75. Zine El, Abidine A, Bernier PY, Steward JD, Plamondon AP (1994b) Water stress preconditioning of black spruce seedlings from lowland and upland sites. Can J Bot 72:1551–1518Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CELLFOR Inc.SaanichtonCanada

Personalised recommendations