KFRI Research Report No - Kerala Forest Research Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

While 83 per cent of the E. urophylla provenances yielded more than 30m 3 /ha/year, only 29 per cent of the E. tereticornis provenances gave more than 30m 3 /ha/year. E. urophylla is more water conserving than other eucalypt species grown aspulpwood species in Kerala (Kallarackal and Somen, 1998). Decreased water loss fromleaves leads to decreased soil water uptake. The water use efficiency of E. tereticornis ispoorer than other species of eucalypts. E. urophylla is tolerant to Cylindrocladium leafblight and resistant against pink disease. Hence, E. urophylla provenances can replace E.tereticornis in lowlands.3.2.2.4. E. camaldulensisIn general, the performance of E. camaldulensis provenances was poor. The highest yieldof 26 m 3 /ha/year was shown by the provenance W OF IRVINE BANK. The mean yieldof the tested 12 provenances was 16.0 m 3 /ha/year (Table 14). All the provenances werehighly susceptible to Cylindrocladium leaf blight (Fig.6) and most of them infected bypink disease (Fig.7). Nineteen provenances were screened during the previous study of1990 (Balasundaran et al., 2005). Among them, KATHERINE, CAPE RIVER,PETFORD and W OF IRVINE BANK were the better performers. Although, E.camaldulensis provenances are not suitable for Kerala which receives very high rainfall,this species is suitable for planting in low rainfall area with unfertile soil. Theprovenances suggested in table 15 are suitable for planting in such areas.3.2.2.5 E. pellitaThe performance of E. pellitta provenances varied widely (table 14). 71-72 KM NEWENLOCK gave the highest performance of 42.8 m 3 /ha/year not only among the E.pellita provenances but among all the provenances planted at Kottappara. E. pellitaprovenances were resistant against pink disease and Cylindrocladium leaf blight. Eventhough, E. pellita is not a water conserving species as E. urophylla, it is a better speciesthan E. tereticornis, E. camaldulensis and E. grandis (Kallarackal and Somen, 1998). Thebest performers among the E. pellita provenances were 71-72 KM NE WENLOCK,JULATTEN and BETWEEN GGOE KIRWA. BETWEEN GGOE KIRWA was the best20
performer during the 1990-trial (Balasundaran et al., 2005) and hence these three speciesare recommended (table 15) for planting in lowlands with moderately heavy rainfall.Table 14. Eucalypt provenance trial plot at Kottappara, Malayattur Divisionestablished in 1993. Estimated yield of provenances based on GBH andheight recorded in 1999 (6 th year) (spacing 2m x 2m) (Average of 49-147trees).Provenance Name Seedlot No. Yield perha (Volumein m 3 ) at 6 thyearE. tereticornisVolume inm 3 /ha/year16 KM N WOOLGOOLGA, NSW 10837 58.72 9.834 KM S CASINO, NSW 11239 58.84 9.8MOREHEAD RIVER, QLD 13444 81.05 13.5CARDWELL, QLD 13277 173.67 28.9EAST OF KUPIANO, PNG 13398 131.15 21.8ORO BAY TO EMO, PNG 13399 125.46 20.940 K N OF GLADSTONE, QLD 13544 58.18 9.7R HAMPTON RACE COURSE, QLD 13547 98.46 16.4PALMER RIVER, QLD 13847 201.69 33.6CREDITON S.F., QLD 13994 54.18 9.0RAVENSHOE, QLD 14424 201.15 33.5KENNEDY RIVER, QLD 14802 189.84 31.6CARDWELL, QLD 14846 173.67 28.9KENNEDY CK PENDEN RD. QLD 15827 185.27 30.9Eucalyptus grandis10 KS RAVENSHOE 17857 90.31 15.1PALUMA DAM 16723 108.48 18.1ORARAWEST C HARBOUR, NSW 13897 53.81 9.0E. urophyllaMANDIRI FLORES, IND 17564 187.16 31.2N OF TELEMAR SW NETAR, IND 17834 235.41 39.2SW OF UHAK NE WETAR, IND 17836 181.16 30.2MT. EGON FLORES IS, IND 18827 194.86 32.5MT. MUTIS W. TIMOR, INDO 13828 183.12 30.5MT. WUKO FLORES ISLAND, IND 15982 54.73 9.1E. camaldulensisCAPE RIVER, QLD 13815 99.45 16.621
Page 1 and 2: KFRI Research Report No. 323 ISSN 0
Page 3 and 4: KFRI Research Report No. 323MAINTEN
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are extremely gr
Page 7 and 8: ABSTRACTAbout 22 ha of eucalypt pro
Page 9 and 10: 1. INTRODUCTIONEucalypts, natives o
Page 11: 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS2.1. Seed s
Page 14 and 15: facility comprised a semi-permanent
Page 16 and 17: 3.1. Plantation maintenance3. RESUL
Page 18 and 19: 18 E. tereticornis S CARDWELL, QLD
Page 20 and 21: Table 6. List of E. grandis provena
Page 22 and 23: Table 9. List of E. grandis provena
Page 24 and 25: 2 W OF WIPIM WP 16979 147 (3) 147(3
Page 26 and 27: KEMPSEY TANDBAN SF, NSW 15921 301.6
Page 30 and 31: VICTORIA RIVER, MT. 13928 92.35 15.
Page 32 and 33: Table 16. List of candidate plus tr
Page 34 and 35: E. camaldulensis1 E. camaldulensis
Page 36 and 37: 2 BHADRACHAL _ _ _ BCM-6 *AM CLONE3
Page 38 and 39: 24 KFRI 24 W. of Normanton 1369525
Page 40 and 41: Table 19. Disease tolerant and high
Page 42 and 43: for planting based on the growth pe
Page 44 and 45: 3.4.3. Acacia species recommended f
Page 46 and 47: old trees at 90 cm height provided
Page 48 and 49: 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
Page 50: 5. REFERENCESBalasundaran, M. Maria

KFRI Research Report No - Kerala Forest Research Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?