New Forests

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 309–322 | Cite as

Predicting field performance of five irrigated tree species using seedling quality assessment in Burkina Faso, West Africa

  • J. Bayala
  • M. Dianda
  • J. Wilson
  • S. J. Ouédraogo
  • K. Sanon


Five exotic tree species (Acacia angustissima (Mil.) Kuntze, A. mangium Wild, Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Alp., Leucaena hybrid (L×L), and Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit) were investigated to determine whether parameters of nursery seedling stock quality could be used to predict their field performance in a plantation irrigated with treated waste-water to produce fodder and wood. Plants were grown in the nursery in two contrasting rooting substrates (ordinary nursery soil and sand), predicted to have different effects on resource allocation. Three categories of morphological indicators were measured, i.e., plant dimensions (height, diameter, root length), plant weights (shoot, root and whole plant weights) and indices (sturdiness quotient ‘SQ’, shoot:root dry weight ratio ‘SRR’ and Dickson’s quality index ‘DQI’). In the nursery, all species performed better in the ordinary nursery soil for all growth parameters except root length. Thus ordinary nursery substrate appeared superior to sand in terms of plant quality. However, a follow up at plantation phase revealed that only some morphological attributes or ratios were suitable to predict field performance for the five tested species in irrigated plantation. In addition, the effect of the substrate observed at the nursery stage had disappeared 12 months after out planting due to the availability of water and nutrients provided by the treated waste water used for the irrigation. The results showed that root collar diameter and DQI appeared to be the most appropriate indicators to predict the outplanting performance of the five tested species in a short-rotation irrigated plantation in semi-arid Burkina Faso. The former measure is simpler and non-destructive.


Irrigation Seedling quality Substrate Waste-water 



This work was partly funded by the European Commission, Directorate General XII, under the programme of INCO-DC: International Co-operation with Developing countries through the project UBENEFIT Contract ICA4-2001-10007. The authors are grateful to Hermann Yonli, Madi Zoungrana, Marcel Bazié and Abel Zongo for technical assistance.


  1. Balisky AC, Salonius P, Walli C, Brinkman D (1995) Seedling roots and forest floor: misplaced and neglected aspects of British Columbia’s reforestation effort? For Chron 71:59–65Google Scholar
  2. Bayley AD, Kietzka JW (1996) Stock quality and field performance of Pinus patula seedlings produced under two nursery growing regimes during seven different nursery production periods. New For 13:337–352Google Scholar
  3. Becker CA, Mroz GD, Fuller LG (1987) The effects of plant moisture stress on red pine (Pinus resinosa) seedling growth and establishment. Can J For Res 17:813–820. doi: 10.1139/x87-129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chirwa TS, Mafongoya PL, Chintu R (2003) Mixed planted-fallows using coppicing and non-coppicing tree species for degraded Acrisols in eastern Zambia. Agrofor Syst 59:243–251. doi: 10.1023/B:AGFO.0000005225.12629.61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Court-Picon M, Gadbin-Henry C, Guibal F, Roux M (2004) Dendrometry and morphology of Pinus pinea L. in lower province (France): adaptability and variability of provenances. For Ecol Manag 194:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis AS, Jacobs DF (2005) Quantifying root system quality of nursery seedlings and relationship to outplanting performance. New For 30:295–311Google Scholar
  7. Deans JD, Mason WL, Cannell MGR, Sharpe AL, Sheppard LJ (1989) Growing regimes for bare-root stock of Sitka spruce, Douglas fir and Scots pine. 1. Morphology at the end of the nursery phase. For Suppl 62:53–60Google Scholar
  8. Dey DC, Parker WC (1997) Morphological indicators of stock quality and field performance of red oak (Quercus rubra L.) seedlings underplanted in a central Ontario shelterwood. New For 14:145–156Google Scholar
  9. Engelbrecht BMJ, Kursar TA, Tyree MT (2005) Drought effects on seedling survival in a tropical moist forest. Trees 19:312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazal RM, Blanche CA, Carandang WM (2004) Root growth potential and seedling morphological attributes of narra (Pteracarpus indicus Willd.) transplants. For Ecol Manag 195:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs DF, Salifu KF, Seifert JR (2005) Relative contribution of initial root and shoot morphology in predicting field performance of hardwood seedlings. New For 30:235–251Google Scholar
  12. Kimaro AA, Timmer VR, Mugasha AG, Chamshama SAO, Kimaro DA (2007) Nutrient use efficiency and biomass production of tree species for rotational woodlot systems in semi-arid Morogoro, Tanzania. Agrofor Syst 71:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kwesiga F, Akinnifesi FK, Mafongoya PL, McDermott MH, Agumya A (2003) Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during the 1990s: review and challenges ahead. Agrofor Syst 59:171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindqvist H, Ong CK (2005) Using morphological characteristics for assessing seedling vitality in small-scale tree nurseries in Kenya. Agrofor Syst 64:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackay HM (1996) A review of the effect of stresses between lifting and planting on nursery stock quality and performance. New For 13:363–393Google Scholar
  16. Mattsson A (1996) Predicting field performance using seedling quality assessment. New For 13:223–248Google Scholar
  17. Mullen BF, Gutteridge RC (2002) Wood biomass production of Leucaena in subtropical Australia. Agrofor Syst 55:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Odenyo AA, Osuji PO, Reed JD, Smith AH, Mackie RI, McSweeney CS, Hanson J (2003) Acacia angustissima: its anti-nutrients constituents, toxicity and possible mechanisms to alleviate the toxicity—a short review. Agrofor Syst 59:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oliet J, Planelles R, Arias LM, Artero F (2002) Soil water content and water relations in planted and naturally regenerated Pinus halepensis Mill, seedlings during the first year in semiarid conditions. New For 23:31–44Google Scholar
  20. Osmont KS, Sibout R, Hardtke CS (2007) Hidden branches: developments in root system architecture. Annu Rev Plant Biol 58:93–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawat JS, Singh TP (2000) Seedling indices of four tree species in nursery and their correlations with field growth in Tamil Nadu, India. Agrofor Syst 49:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rose R, Gleason JF, Atkinson M (1993) Morphological and water stress characteristics of three Douglas-fir stocktypes in relation to seedling performance under different soil moisture conditions. New For 7:1–17Google Scholar
  23. Semchenko M, Hutchings MJ, John EA (2007) Challenging the tragedy of the commons in root competition: confounding effects of neighbour presence and substrate volume. J Ecol 95:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. South DB, Harris SW, Barnett JP, Hainds MJ, Gjerstad DH (2005) Effect of container type and seedling size on survival and early height of Pinus palustris seedlings in Alabama, U.S.A. For Ecol Manag 204:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tomlinson PT, Buchschacher GL, Teclaw RM (1996) Sowing methods and mulch affect 1 + 0 northern red oak seedling quality. New For 13:191–206Google Scholar
  26. Villar-Salvador P, Planelles R, Enriquez E, Rubira JP (2004) Nursery cultivation regimes, plant functional attributes, and field performance relationships in the Mediterranean oak Quercus ilex L. For Ecol Manag 196:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zida D, Tigabu M, Sawadogo L, Oden PC (2008) Initial seedling morphological characteristics and field performance of two Sudanian savanna species in relation to nursery production period and watering regimes. For Ecol Manag 255:2151–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bayala
    • 1
  • M. Dianda
    • 1
  • J. Wilson
    • 2
  • S. J. Ouédraogo
    • 1
  • K. Sanon
    • 1
  1. 1.Département Productions ForestièresInstitut de l’Environnement et de Recherches AgricolesOuagadougou 03Burkina Faso
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyEdinburgh Research StationMidlothianScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations