Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 443–456 | Cite as

The tolerance of Pinus patula × Pinus tecunumanii, and other pine hybrids, to Fusarium circinatum in greenhouse trials

  • R. G. MitchellEmail author
  • M. J. Wingfield
  • G. R. Hodge
  • E. T. Steenkamp
  • T. A. Coutinho
Article

Abstract

The field survival of Pinus patula seedlings in South Africa is frequently below acceptable standards. From numerous studies it has been determined that this is largely due to the pitch canker fungus, Fusarium circinatum. Other commercial pines, such as P. elliottii and P. taeda, show good tolerance to this pathogen and better survival, but have inferior wood properties and do not grow as well as P. patula on many sites in the summer rainfall regions of South Africa. There is, thus, an urgent need to improve the tolerance of P. patula to F. circinatum. Operational experience indicates that when P. patula is hybridized with tolerant species, such as P. tecunumanii and P. oocarpa, survival is greatly improved on the warmer sites of South Africa. Field studies on young trees suggest that this is due to the improved tolerance of these hybrids to F. circinatum. In order to test the tolerance of a number of pine hybrids, the pure species representing the hybrid parents, as well as individual families of P. patula × P. tecunumanii, a series of greenhouse screening trials were conducted during 2008 and 2009. The results indicated that species range in tolerance and hybrids, between P. patula and these species, are intermediate in tolerance to F. circinatum. Within P. patula × P. tecunumanii, large family variation exists when pollen from the high elevation source of P. tecunumanii is used. The results of these studies illustrate the importance of developing pine hybrid breeding programs to overcome the susceptibility of our pure species to pathogens such as F. circinatum.

Keywords

Forestry Disease tolerance Hybrids Greenhouse screening 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank, in particular, Komatiland Forests for providing the seed and incurring the costs involved in raising and screening the plant material. We also thank Bernice Porter who coordinated much of the screening activities at the University of Pretoria and ensured that plants were watered in the greenhouse. Lastly, we thank the members of the Tree Protection Co-operative Programme (TPCP) and the THRIP initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), for financial support.

References

  1. Crous JW (2005) Post establishment survival of Pinus patula in Mpumalanga, one year after planting. South Afr For J 205:3–8Google Scholar
  2. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) (2010) Report on commercial timber resources and primary roundwood processing in South Africa 2008/9. The Directorate, Forestry Technical and Information Services, Private Bag X93, Pretoria, 0001, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  3. Dieters MJ, White TL, Hodge GR (1995) Genetic parameter estimates for volume from full-sib tests of slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Can J For Res 25:1397–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dieters MJ, Nikles DG, Toon PG, Pomroy P (1997) Genetic parameters for F1 hybrids of Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis with both Pinus oocarpa and Pinus tecunumanii. Can J For Res 27(7):1024–1031Google Scholar
  5. Dvorak WS, Hodge GR, Gutiérrez EA, Osorio LF, Malan FS, Stanger TK (2000) Pinus tecunumanii. In: Conservation and testing of tropical and subtropical forest tree species by the CAMCORE cooperative. College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University. 188–209Google Scholar
  6. Frampton JF, Li B, Goldfarb B (2000) Early field growth of loblolly pine rooted cuttings and seedlings. South J Appl For 24(2):98–105Google Scholar
  7. Gordon IL (1999) Quantitative genetics of intraspecific hybrids. Heredity 83:757–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hodge GR, Dvorak WS (2000) Differential responses of Central American and Mexican pine species and Pinus radiata to infection by the pitch canker fungus. New For 19:241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodge GR, Dvorak WS (2006) Variation in pitch canker resistance among provenances of Pinus patula and Pinus tecunumanii from Mexico and Central America. New For 33:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanzler A, Payn K, Nel A (2012) Performance of two Pinus patula hybrids in Southern Africa. South For 74:19–25Google Scholar
  11. Kietzka JE (1988) Pinus maximinoi: a promising species in South Africa. South Afr For J 145:33–38Google Scholar
  12. Kietzka JE (2002) “New” pine species and hybrids: is there still potential? South Afr For J 195:89–92Google Scholar
  13. Malan FS (2003) The wood properties of South African timber resource for high-value solid wood products and its role in sustainable forestry. South Afr For J 198:53–62Google Scholar
  14. Mitchell RG, Jones NB, Zwolinski J (2004) A review of on the effects of donor maturation on rooted conifer cuttings. South Afr For J 204:53–64Google Scholar
  15. Mitchell RG, Steenkamp ET, Coutinho TA, Wingfield MJ (2011) The pitch canker fungus: implications for South African forestry. South For 73:1–13Google Scholar
  16. Mitchell RG, Wingfield MJ, Hodge GR, Dvorak W, Coutinho TA (2012) Susceptibility of provenances and families of Pinus maximinoi and Pinus tecunumanii to frost in South Africa. New For. doi: 10.1007/s11056-012-93 Google Scholar
  17. Morris AR, Pallett R (2000) Site requirements and species matching: pines. In: Owen D (ed) South African forestry handbook, vol 1. The Southern African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa, pp 80–84Google Scholar
  18. Nel A, Kanzler A, Dvorak W (2006). Development of a commercial breeding program for Pinus tecunumanii in South Africa. In: Isik F (ed) Proceedings of the IUFRO division 2 joint conference: low input breeding and conservation of forest genetic resources, Antalya, Turkey, 9–13 Oct 2006 pp 158–161Google Scholar
  19. Power AB, Dodd RS, Libby WJ (1994) Effects of hedging on maturation in radiata pine: western gall rust susceptibility. Silvae Genet 43:1–7Google Scholar
  20. Roux J, Elsenberg B, Kanzler A, Nel A, Coetzee V, Kietzka E, Wingfield MJ (2007) Testing of selected South African Pinus hybrids and families for tolerance to the pitch canker pathogen, Fusarium circinatum. New For 33:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SAS Institute (2003) Cary, North Carolina, 27513, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. van der Sijde HA, Roelofsen JW (1986) The potential of pine hybrids in South Africa. South Afr For J 5–14Google Scholar
  23. Zagory D, Libby WJ (1985) Maturation-related resistance of Pinus radiata to Western gall Rust. Am Phytopathol Soc 75:1443–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Mitchell
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. J. Wingfield
    • 2
  • G. R. Hodge
    • 3
  • E. T. Steenkamp
    • 2
  • T. A. Coutinho
    • 2
  1. 1.York TimbersSabieSouth Africa
  2. 2.Forests and Agricultural Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.CamcoreNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations