Tree Improvement Program Project Report 2006 / 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to determine the effects of various treatments on crop production. Results OTIP will not be supporting this project in 2007. This report contains the final recommendations for crown management of an interior spruce high-density seed orchard. We are not able to provide final crown management recommendations for interior Douglas-fir. We began pruning this orchard in the fall of 2004. The trial has not been in place long enough to provide enough data to draw conclusions. Crown management n the spruce m cro orchard Currently we are applying four different treatments to ramets in our interior spruce micro orchard. 0 T R E E I M P R O V E M E N T P R O G R A M Figure xx. Treatments applied to ramets in the interior spruce micro orchard 2007 P R O J E C T R E P O R T 2 0 0 6 / 2 0 0 7 Output and del verables: recommendat ons for crown management of the spruce m cro orchard We discovered that the control group always yielded a much greater cone and pollen crop than the other methods. However, leaving the trees unmanaged is definitely not an option in a micro-orchard setting. Because space is limited, it is essential to manage the growth of each ramet so that it does not expand out of its allotted area. Operational-style pruning is the most effective crown management technique to apply to an interior spruce high-density seed orchard. This technique delivers the most consistent flower crop. It is also the easiest technique to implement because it requires no labour-intensive branch training. Trtmt # Description Prune Leader? Prune Branches? Train? 1 Height Control, Branch Train To 3m. if unable to train Only if extending past 0.5 m. into row 2 Freestyle As seen fit As seen fit As seen fit 3 Operational Style Pruning Prune 75% current leader growth. Not to exceed 3 m. Remove 75% current growth to promote hedge effect 4 Control None None None Table 10. Treatments appl ed to ramets n the nter or spruce m cro orchard 2007. .2. Test ng the Effects of Upgraded Irr gat on Del very Systems n an Inter or Spruce Seed Orchard, an Inter or Lodgepole P ne Seed Orchard, and a Western Larch Seed Orchard (SPU 0 12). Gary G ampa Object ves • To determine how the broadcast-delivery irrigation system affects orchard performance. To other branches on same tree. Prune or remove branches extending >0.5 m. into rows • To compare the portion of each orchard treated with the upgraded system to the portion of each orchard that continues to be watered by the old drip-style system. • To extend the trial to orchard 332 in order to determine how the larch responds to broadcast irrigation. • To make the results of this study available to other seed orchard managers. Act v t es In the summer of 2004, we selected permanent sample trees in each orchard (82 trees in orchard 305 and 80 trees in orchard 307). The sample trees were chosen in pairs, based on establishment date: one tree in the area irrigated with the micro sprinklers and the other in the drip-irrigated area.
Three major branches on each sample tree were chosen at random and marked with metal tags. We measure shoot elongation annually on each sample branch. We measure stem diameter below all branches annually on each sample tree. In the summer of 2006, we repeated these measurements. We also observed flower production annually. We surveyed flower production and collected cone samples from Pli orchard 307 and Sx orchard 305. We have extracted seed from these cones and compared seed production. We also collected foliar samples in both orchards and analysed nutrient uptake. Five rows in Lw orchard 332 were upgraded to the micro-sprinkler irrigation system. We selected 80 permanent sample trees and recorded baseline measurements. Results The new irrigation regime has been in effect for three growing seasons in orchards 305 and 307, and we are noticing an impact on ramet performance. Table 11. illustrates the differences in annual shoot growth. We extracted and X-rayed seed from the orchard 307 and orchard 305 cone samples. In 2006 the Sx trees in the T R E E I M P R O V E M E N T P R O G R A M average shoot growth 2004 average shoot growth 2005 P R O J E C T R E P O R T 2 0 0 6 / 2 0 0 7 area irrigated with micro sprinklers had better seed set than samples collected from the drip-irrigated area. There was not much difference in cone weight or seed set (Table 12.) between irrigation treatments in the Pli in 2006. Nutrient uptake is another area where broadcast irrigation seemed to have an effect. When the foliar samples were processed, we observed higher levels of aluminium, boron, calcium, manganese, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the samples collected from the portions of the orchards watered with the broadcast delivery system. Output and Del verables Although this trial is only in its third season, it is starting to appear that the different irrigation delivery systems do have an impact on ramet performance. We need to continue monitoring the permanent sample trees on an annual basis to confirm our data. Hopefully these orchards will produce good cone crops in 2007 so that we can collect more flowering data. We will collect a set of comprehensive baseline observations over the course of several growing seasons. Comparing these results will allow us to determine the effectiveness of broadcast delivery and make recommendations to other orchard managers considering irrigation system upgrades. average shoot growth 2006 #307 micro-sprinklers 16 18.8 18.1 #307 drip 17 15.1 15.9 difference -1 3.7 2.2 #305 micro-sprinklers 14 16 16 #305 drip 13 13.4 12.3 difference 1 2.6 3.7 Irrigation Treatment average cone dry weight grams 2005 average # filled seed per cone 2005 average cone dry weight grams 2006 average # filled seed per cone 2006 307 drip 4.59 11.2 5.9 13.8 307 micro sprinklers 5.38 13.7 5.96 13.4 305 drip No Record 305 micro sprinklers No Record No crop No Record No crop No Record 56.8 65.8 Table 11. Average Shoot Growth Over Three Years. Table 12. Results of Irr gat on Treatments. 1
Page 1 and 2:
2006/2007 Forest Genetics Council o
Page 3 and 4: T R E E I M P R O V E M E N T P R O
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents T R E E I M P R O
Page 9 and 10: L st of F gures T R E E I M P R O V
Page 15 and 16: 1.0 Expans on of Orchard Seed Suppl
Page 17 and 18: 2.0 GRIM Project Accompl shments n
Page 19 and 20: Cl mate Change ClimateBC: Our Clima
Page 23 and 24: Volume Growth at Sutton Creek (cm^3
Page 25 and 26: . True F r Forest Genet cs Charl e
Page 27 and 28: The provincial status report on int
Page 29 and 30: .10 Inter or Spruce Tree Breed ng P
Page 31 and 32: .12 Lodgepole, Wh te and Ponderosa
Page 33 and 34: .0 Operat onal Tree Improvement - t
Page 35 and 36: Low-elevat on Western Hemlock Crop
Page 37 and 38: .1.2 Sechelt Seed Orchard Patt Brow
Page 39 and 40: .1. Bowser Seed Orchard Dav d Re d
Page 41 and 42: .1.6 Vernon Seed Orchard Company (V
Page 43 and 44: .1.7 Grandv ew Seed Orchards (PRT A
Page 45 and 46: .1. Eagle Rock Seed Orchards (Tolko
Page 47 and 48: yielded a total of 69 litres of pol
Page 49 and 50: Pest management n h gh-elevat on we
Page 51 and 52: slide monitor 4. Figure 31 shows th
Page 53: T R E E I M P R O V E M E N T P R O
Page 57 and 58: TSPC FSPC TSPC FSPC 40 30 20 10 0 3
Page 59 and 60: .2.7 Increas ng Qual ty, Genet c Ga
Page 61 and 62: .2.9 Crown Prun ng Techn que for No
Page 63 and 64: Filled Seed per Cone Filled Seed pe
Page 65 and 66: 2005 and 2006, the corresponding va
Page 67 and 68: esponse to NH 4 NO 3 acts through n
Page 69 and 70: to 2000. Crosses were completed at
Page 71 and 72: Percent Julian Date Julian Date Hei
Page 73 and 74: .2.1 Conduct ng a Ser es of So l Te
Page 75 and 76: Cone Number Filled Seed Number TSPC
Page 77 and 78: effect) compared to the north Okana
Page 79 and 80: Dehydration: Long-shoot bud samples
Page 81 and 82: pollen receptivity (Table 26). It w
Page 83 and 84: it must be noted that the genotypes
Page 85 and 86: .2.17 Development of Yellow-Cedar S
Page 87 and 88: ut there was a substantial decrease
Page 89 and 90: 7.0 Seed Orchard Pest Management Ro
Page 91 and 92: Append x 2 Tree Spec es T R E E I M
Page 93 and 94: Append x Author Contact L st T R E
Page 95 and 96: INSIDE COVER
show all

Tree Improvement Program Project Report 2006 / 2007

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?