Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:15:36.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetics and breeding of Sitka spruce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Roy Faulkner
Roy Faulkner
Affiliation:
Forestry Commission, Northern Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9SY, Scotland, U.K.
Get access

Synopsis

Sitka spruce is a monoecious, wind-pollinated, cross-fertilising species showing wide genetic variation which suggests heterozygosity for many alleles and natural selection against self-fertilisation. Phenotypic selection for the important trait of vigour is ineffective, so testing progenies of selected individuals and clonal testing is an essential and time-consuming part of any improvement programme. Old trees can be vegetatively propagated by grafting and very young trees by rooted cuttings.

The British tree improvement programme is based, in the short term, on the use of seed collected from superior plantation trees of desirable origins; in the mid term on seed derived from clonal orchards based on mixtures of clones previously tested for superiority in family tests; and in the longer term on highly superior seed or clones derived from a system of recurrent mating with family selection. Three populations are being developed. There is a small interspecific hybridisation programme.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 93 , Issue 1-2: Sitka Spruce , 1987 , pp. 41 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. 1977. The forest reproductive material regulations 1977. Statutory instrument 1977–891. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Bell, G. D. & Fletcher, A. M. 1978. Computer organized orchard layouts (COOL) based on the permutated neighbourhood design concept. Silvae genetica 276, 223–248.Google Scholar
Bevan, D. & Carter, C. I. 1975. Host plant susceptibility. Forestry Commission Report on Forest Research 1975. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Brandt, K. 1970. A status report for Sitka spruce. Dansk Skovforeningens Tidsskrift 55, 300–329. (Translation: Forestry Commission Number 443).Google Scholar
Brazier, J. D. 1967. Timber improvement. I. A study in variation in wood characteristics in young Sitka spruce. Forestry 40, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burley, J. F. 1965a. Genetic variation in Picea sitchensis. Commonwealth Forestry Review 44, 47–59.Google Scholar
Burley, J. F. 1965b. Karyotype analysis of Sitka spruce. Silvae genetica 14, 127–132.Google Scholar
Burley, J. F. 1966. Genetic variation in seedling development of Sitka spruce. Forestry 39, 68–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. 1974. Production of branches and foliage by young trees of Pinus conlorta and Picea sitchensis: provenance differences and their simulation. Journal of Applied Ecology 11, 1091–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. 1978. Analysis of shoot apical growth of Picea sitchensis seedlings. Annals of Botany 42, 1291–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. 1982. “Crop” and “isolation” ideotypes: evidence for progeny differences in nursery-grown Picea sitchensis. Silvae genetica 31, 60–66.Google Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. 1984. Sitka spruce. Biologist 31, 255–261.Google Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R., Thomson, S. & Lines, R. 1976. An analysis of inherent differences in shoot growth within some north-temperate conifers. In Tree Physiology and Tree Improvement, eds. Cannell, M. G. R. and Last, F. T., pp. 173–205. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Daubenmire, R. 1968. Some geographic variations in Picea sitchensis and their ecological interpretations. Canadian Journal of Botany 46, 787–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, P. R. 1985. Crop improvement: breeding and genetic engineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B310, 193–200.Google Scholar
Faulkner, R. 1967. Procedures used for progeny testing in Britain with special reference to nursery practice. Forest Record 60. London: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Faulkner, R. 1982. Tree improvement research and development–some thoughts for the 1980s. In Proceedings 18th Meeting Canadian Tree Improvement Association, Duncan, BC, eds. Pollard, D. F. W., Edwards, D. G. & Yeatman, C. W., pp. 1–18. Ottawa: Canadian Forest Service.Google Scholar
Faulkner, R., Fletcher, A. M., Johnstone, R. C. B. & Forrest, G. I. 1975. Biochemical variation. Forestry Commission Report on Forest Research 1974, p. 32. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Fletcher, A. M. & Faulkner, R. 1972. A plan for the improvement of Sitka spruce by selection and breeding. Research and Development Paper 85, London: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Forrest, G. I. 1982. Preliminary work on the relation between resistance to Fomes and the monoterpene composition of Sitka spruce resin. In Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees, eds. Heybroek, H. M., Stephan, B. R. & Weissenberg, K., pp. 194–197. Wageningen: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.Google Scholar
Fox, D. P. 1987. The chromosomes of Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. and its relatives. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 93B, 51–59.Google Scholar
Gill, J. G. S. 1983. Genetic improvement in some forestry practices–with special reference to natural regeneration. Scottish Forestry 37, 250–258.Google Scholar
Herbert, R. B. 1971. Development of glasshouse techniques for early progeny test procedures in forest tree breeding. Forest Record 74. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. C. B. & Brown, W. 1976. Low pressure (SOX) tube lights as a source of supplementary lighting for the improved growth of Sitka spruce seedlings. Paper III. London: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. C. B. & Samuel, C. J. A. 1974. Experimental design for forest tree progeny tests with particular reference to plot size and shape. Proceedings WFRO Working Party on Population and Ecological Genetics and Breeding Theory, pp. 357–376. Stockholm: Royal College of Forestry.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. C. B. & Samuel, C. J. A. 1978. Genotype/site interactions in tree breeding. Research and Development Paper 122. London: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Mason, W. L. & Gill, J. G. S. 1984. The vegetative propagation of conifers as means of intensifying wood production in Britain. Paper Section Q5. British Association for the Advancement of Science, Norwich, 1984.Google Scholar
Miksche, I. 1971. Intraspecific variation in DNA per cell in Picea glauca and Picea sitchensis provenances. Chromosome 32, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipson, J. J. 1985. The promotion of flowering in large field-grown Sitka spruce by girdling and stem injections of gibberellin A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, L. & Fowler, D. P. 1975. Genetics of Sitka spruce. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Paper WO-26.Google Scholar
Sheppard, L. J. & L Cannell, M. G. R. 1985a. Nutrient use efficiency of clones of Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Silvae genetica 34, 126–132.Google Scholar
Sheppard, L. J. & L Cannell, M. G. R. 1985b. Performance and frost-hardiness of Picea sitchensis × Picea glauca hybrids. Forestry 48, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. E. 1986. Variation and inheritance of wood properties of Sitka spruce. Forestry Commission Report on Forest Research 1986, pp. 61–62. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Wright, J. W. 1955. Crossability in spruce in relation to distribution and taxonomy. Forest Science 1, 319–349.Google Scholar
Zobel, B. J. & Talbert, J. T. 1984. Applied Forest Tree Improvement. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar