Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 209–218 | Cite as

Models for predicting microfibril angle variation in Scots pine

  • David AutyEmail author
  • Barry A. Gardiner
  • Alexis Achim
  • John R. Moore
  • Andrew D. Cameron
Original Paper



Microfibril angle (MFA) is one of the key determinants of solid timber performance due to its strong influence on the stiffness, strength, shrinkage properties and dimensional stability of wood.


The aim of this study was to develop a model for predicting MFA variation in plantation-grown Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L). A specific objective was to quantify the additional influence of growth rate on the radial variation in MFA.


Twenty-three trees were sampled from four mature Scots pine stands in Scotland, UK. Pith-to-bark MFA profiles were obtained on 69 radial samples using scanning X-ray diffractometry. A nonlinear mixed-effects model based on a modified Michaelis–Menten equation was developed using cambial age and annual ring width as explanatory variables.


The largest source of variation in MFA (>90 %) was within trees, while between-tree variation represented just 7 % of the total. Microfibril angle decreased rapidly near the pith before reaching stable values in later annual rings. The effect of ring width on MFA was greater at higher cambial ages.


A large proportion of the variation in MFA was explained by the fixed effects of cambial age and annual ring width. The final model is intended for integration into growth, yield and wood quality simulation systems.


Microfibril angle Pinus sylvestris Nonlinear mixed-effects models Radial variation Growth rate Ring width 



Thanks to Sven-Olof Lundqvist, Åke Hansson and Lars Olsen at Innventia, Stockholm, for training in the use of the SilviScan-3 instrument. To Forest Research staff and Technical Services Unit for assistance with the extensive programme of field work: Shaun Mochan, Elspeth Macdonald, Steve Osborne, Andy Kennedy, Colin McEvoy, Alistair Macleod, Sandy Bowran, Calum Murray, Colin Smart and Steve O’ Kane. Thanks also to Will Anderson (Seafield Estates), Steve Connolly (Cawdor Forestry) and Forestry Commission Scotland for the site access and sample trees.


This project was funded by the Scottish Forestry Trust and Forest Research as part of the first author’s doctoral thesis for the University of Aberdeen. The SilviScan work was partly funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) programme, under the Short-Term Scientific Mission initiative. Thanks to Professor John Barnett and Dr. Karin Hofstetter, the respective chairs of COST Actions E50 and FP0802.


  1. Achim A, Gardiner B, Leban J-M, Daquitaine R (2006) Predicting the branching properties of Sitka spruce grown in Great Britain. NZ J For Sci 36:246–264Google Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alteyrac J, Cloutier A, Zhang SY (2006) Characterization of juvenile wood to mature wood transition age in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) at different stand densities and sampling heights. Wood Sci Technol 40:124–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auty D, Achim A (2008) The relationship between standing tree acoustic assessment and timber quality in Scots pine and the practical implications for assessing timber quality from naturally regenerated stands. Forestry 81:475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auty D, Weiskittel AR, Achim A, Moore JR, Gardiner BA (2012) Influence of early re-spacing on Sitka spruce branch structure. Ann For Sci 69:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett JR, Bonham VA (2004) Cellulose microfibril angle in the cell wall of wood fibres. Biol Rev 79:461–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bendtsen BA, Senft J (1986) Mechanical and anatomical properties in individual growth rings of plantation-grown eastern cottonwood and loblolly pine. Wood Fiber Sci 18:23–38Google Scholar
  8. Burdon RD, Kibblewhite RP, Walker JCF, Megraw RA, Evans R, Cown DJ (2004) Juvenile versus mature wood: a new concept, orthogonal to corewood versus outerwood, with special reference to Pinus radiata and P. taeda. Forest Sci 50:399–415Google Scholar
  9. Cameron AD, Lee SJ, Livingston AK, Petty JA (2005) Influence of selective breeding on the development of juvenile wood in Sitka spruce. Can J For Res 35:2951–2960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cave ID (1969) The longitudinal Young’s modulus of Pinus radiata. Wood Sci Technol 3:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cave ID, Walker JCF (1994) Stiffness of wood in fast-grown plantation softwoods: the influence of microfibril angle. For Prod J 44:43–48Google Scholar
  12. Clark A III, Daniels RF, Jordan L (2006) Juvenile/mature wood transition in loblolly pine as defined by annual ring specific gravity, proportion of latewood, and microfibril angle. Wood Fiber Sci 38:292–299Google Scholar
  13. Cown DJ, Herbert J, Ball RD (1999) Modelling Pinus radiata lumber characteristics. Part I: mechanical properties of small clears. NZ J For Sci 29:203–213Google Scholar
  14. Cown DJ, Ball RD, Riddell MJC (2004) Wood density and microfibril angle in 10 Pinus radiata clones: distribution and influence on product performance. NZ J For Sci 34:293–315Google Scholar
  15. Deresse T, Shepard RK, Shaler SM (2003) Microfibril angle variation in red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) and its relation to the strength and stiffness of early juvenile wood. For Prod J 53:34–40Google Scholar
  16. Domec JC, Gartner B (2002) Age- and position-related changes in hydraulic versus mechanical dysfunction of xylem: inferring the design criteria for Douglas-fir wood structure. Tree Physiol 22:91–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaldson LA (1992) Within-and between-tree variation in microfibril angle in Pinus radiata. NZ J For Sci 22:77–86Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson LA (1996) Effect of physiological age and site on microfibril angle in Pinus radiata. IAWA J 17:421–429Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson L (2008) Microfibril angle: measurement, variation and relationships: a review. IAWA J 29:345–386Google Scholar
  20. Donaldson LA, Burdon RD (1995) Clonal variation and repeatability of microfibril angle in Pinus radiata. NZ J For Sci 25:164–174Google Scholar
  21. Downes GM, Nyakuengama JG, Evans R, Northway R, Blakemore P, Dickson RL, Lausberg M (2002) Relationship between wood density, microfibril angle and stiffness in thinned and fertilized Pinus radiata. IAWA J 23:253–266Google Scholar
  22. Evans R (1999) A variance approach to the X-ray diffractometric estimation of microfibril angle in wood. Appita J 52:283–289Google Scholar
  23. Evans R, Ilic J (2001) Rapid prediction of wood stiffness from microfibril, angle and density. For Prod J 51:53–57Google Scholar
  24. Evans R, Downes GM, Menz D, Stringer S (1995) Rapid measurement of variation in tracheid dimensions in a radiata pine tree. Appita J 48:134–148Google Scholar
  25. Gardiner B, Macdonald E (2005) Compression wood in conifers-the characterisation of its formation and its relevance to timber quality, in European Union-Framework Programme FP5-Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, QLRT-2000-00177, p. 376Google Scholar
  26. Gardiner B, Leban J-M, Auty D, Simpson HL (2011) Models for predicting the wood density of British-grown Sitka spruce. Forestry 84:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gartner BL (1995) Patterns of xylem variation within a tree and their hydraulic and mechanical consequences. In: Gartner BL (ed) Plant stems: physiological and functional morphology. Academic, New York, pp 125–149Google Scholar
  28. Hale SE, Gardiner BA, Wellpott A, Nicoll A, Achim A (2012) Wind loading of trees: influence of tree size and competition. Eur J For Res 131:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herman M, Dutilleul P, Avella-Shaw T (1999) Growth rate effects on intra-ring and inter-ring trajectories of microfibril angle in Norway spruce (Picea abies). IAWA J 20:3–22Google Scholar
  30. Houllier F, Leban J-M, Colin F (1995) Linking growth modelling to timber quality assessment for Norway spruce. For Ecol Manag 74:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jordan L, Daniels RF, Clark A III, He R (2005) Multilevel nonlinear mixed-effects models for the modeling of earlywood and latewood microfibril angle. Forest Sci 51:357–371Google Scholar
  32. Jordan L, Re R, Hall DB, Clark A III, Daniels RF (2006) Variation in loblolly pine cross-sectional microfibril angle with tree height and physiographic region. Wood Fiber Sci 38:390–398Google Scholar
  33. Jordan L, He R, Hall DB, Clark A III, Daniels RF (2007) Variation in loblolly pine ring microfibril angle in the southeastern United States. Wood Fiber Sci 39:352–363Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy RW (1995) Coniferous wood quality in the future: concerns and strategies. Wood Sci Technol 29:321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krauss A (2010) Variation in the microfibril angle in tangential walls of pine wood tracheids (Pinus sylvestris L.). Wood Res-Slovak 55:7–12Google Scholar
  36. Lachenbruch B, Moore JR, Evans R (2011) Radial variation in wood structure and function in woody plants, and hypotheses for its occurrence. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size- and age-related changes in tree structure and function. Tree physiology, volume 4. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Larson PR (1969) Wood formation and the concept of wood quality. Yale University School of Forestry Bulletin 74, p. 54Google Scholar
  38. Larson PR, Kretschmann DE, Clark AI, Isebrands JG (2001) Formation and properties of juvenile wood in southern pines: a synopsis. USDA Forest Products Laboratory, General Technical Report FPL-GTR-129. USDA, Madison, p 42Google Scholar
  39. Lasserre J, Mason E, Watt M, Moore J (2009) Influence of initial planting spacing and genotype on microfibril angle, wood density, fibre properties and modulus of elasticity in Pinus radiata D. Don corewood For Ecol Manag 258:1924–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee SJ (1999) Improving the timber quality of Sitka spruce through selection and breeding. Forestry 72:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lenz P, MacKay J, Rainville A, Cloutier A, Beaulieu J (2011) The influence of cambial age on breeding for wood properties in Picea glauca. Tree Genet Genomes 7:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lichtenegger H, Reiterer A, Stanzl-Tschegg SE, Fratzl P (1999) Variation of cellulose microfibril angles in softwoods and hardwoods—a possible strategy of mechanical optimization. J Struct Biol 128:257–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindström MJ, Bates DM (1990) Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics 46:673–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindström H, Evans JW, Verrill SP (1998) Influence of cambial age and growth conditions on microfibril angle in young Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Holzforschung 52:573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lundgren C (2004) Microfibril angle and density patterns of fertilized and irrigated Norway spruce. Silva Fenn 38:107–117Google Scholar
  46. Macdonald E, Gardiner B, Mason W (2010) The effects of transformation of even-aged stands to continuous cover forestry on conifer log quality and wood properties in the UK. Forestry 83:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mansfield SD, Parish R, Di Lucca CM, Goudie J, Kang K-Y, Ott P (2009) Revisiting the transition between juvenile and mature wood: a comparison of fibre length, microfibril angle and relative wood density in lodgepole pine. Holzforschung 63:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McLean JP, Evans R, Moore JR (2010) Predicting the longitudinal modulus of elasticity of Sitka spruce from cellulose orientation and abundance. Holzforschung 64:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McMillin CW (1973) Fibril angle of loblolly pine wood as related to specific gravity, growth rate, and distance from pith. Wood Sci Technol 7:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Megraw RA (1985) Wood quality factors in loblolly pine. The influence of tree age, position in tree, and cultural practice on wood specific gravity, fiber length, and fibril angle. TAPPI Press, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  51. Megraw RA, Leaf G, Bremer D, Butterfield BG (1998) Longitudinal shrinkage and microfibril angle in loblolly pine. In: Butterfield BG (ed) Microfibril angle in wood. Proc. IAWA/IUFRO Intn. workshop on the significance of microfibril angle to wood quality. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, pp 27–61Google Scholar
  52. Meylan BA (1972) The influence of microfibril angle on the longitudinal shrinkage-moisture content relationship. Wood Sci Technol 6:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moore J, Achim A, Lyon A, Mochan S, Gardiner B (2009a) Effects of early re-spacing on the physical and mechanical properties of Sitka spruce structural timber. For Ecol Manag 258:1174–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore J, Mochan SJ, Brüchert F, Hapca AI, Ridley-Ellis DJ, Gardiner BA, Lee SJ (2009b) Effects of genetics on the wood properties of Sitka spruce growing in the UK: bending strength and stiffness of structural timber. Forestry 82:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nakada R, Fujisawa Y, Hirakawa Y (2003) Effects of clonal selection by microfibril angle on the genetic improvement of stiffness in Cryptomeria japonica D. Don Holzforschung 57:553–560Google Scholar
  56. Nicoll BC, Gardiner BA, Rayner B, Peace AJ (2006) Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type and rooting depth. Can J For Res 36:1871–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Panshin AJ, de Zeeuw C (1980) Textbook of wood technology, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 772Google Scholar
  58. Parresol BR (1999) Assessing tree and stand biomass: a review with examples and critical comparisons. Forest Sci 45:573–593Google Scholar
  59. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core team (eds) (2012) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package v. 3.1-105Google Scholar
  61. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  62. Sarén M-P, Serimaa R, Andersson S, Saranpää P, Keckes J, Fratzl P (2004) Effect of growth rate on mean microfibril angle and cross-sectional shape of tracheids of Norway spruce. Trees-Struct Funct 18:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shuler CE, Markstrom DD, Ryan MG (1989) Fibril angle in young growth ponderosa pine as related to site index, dbh, and location in tree. USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-492Google Scholar
  64. Timmell TE (1986) Compression wood in gymnosperms, vol 1–3. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  65. Ulvcrona T, Ulvcrona KA (2011) The effects of pre-commercial thinning and fertilization on characteristics of juvenile clearwood of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Forestry 84:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vainio U, Andersson S, Serimaa R, Paakkari T, Saranpää P, Treacy M, Evertsen J (2002) Variation of microfibril angle between four provenances of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis [Bong.] Carr.). Plant Biol 4:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Verkasalo E, Leban (2002) MOE and MOR in static bending of small clear specimens of Scots pine, Norway spruce and European fir from Finland and France and their prediction for the comparison of wood quality. Pa Puu-Pap Tim 84:332–340Google Scholar
  68. Walker JCF, Butterfield BG (1996) The importance of microfibril angle for the processing industries. N Z J For 40:34–40Google Scholar
  69. Watt MS, Zoric B, Kimberley MO, Harrington J (2011) Influence of stocking on radial and longitudinal variation in modulus of elasticity, microfibril angle, and density in a 24-year-old Pinus radiata thinning trial. Can J For Res 41:1422–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wimmer R, Downes GM, Evans R (2002) Temporal variation of microfibril angle in Eucalyptus nitens grown in different irrigation regimes. Tree Physiol 22:449–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zobel BJ, Sprague JR (1998) Juvenile wood in forest trees. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Auty
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Barry A. Gardiner
    • 1
    • 5
  • Alexis Achim
    • 2
  • John R. Moore
    • 3
  • Andrew D. Cameron
    • 4
  1. 1.Forest ResearchScotlandUK
  2. 2.Département des sciences du bois et de la forêtUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited)RotoruaNew Zealand
  4. 4.University of AberdeenScotlandUK
  5. 5.INRA-Unité EPHYSEBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations