CC BY
23
Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2020, pp. 74-83 ISSN 1997-0838 Original Text Copyright © 2020 by Saravanan
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
OPEN /71 ACCESS
Growth, Biomass Production and Yield Variation in
Eucalyptus Clones
S. Saravanan
Silviculture, Forest Management and Agroforestry division, Tropical Forestry Research Institute, RFRC (PO), Mandla Road, Jabalpur - 482021. Madhya Pradesh. India
*E-Mail: ifgtbsara9@gmail.com
Received April 21, 2020
Eucalyptus are among the most widely cultivated forest trees in the world under a range of different climates for products that include pulp, paper fuel wood and solid wood products such as poles, furniture and construction timber. Productivity and profitability of plantations of Eucalyptus have been revolutionized with the development of genetically improved, fast growing and high yielding Clonal planting stock of Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus Clonal planting has been said to have advantages which includes quick provision of benefits associates with fast growth, short rotation for production of pulp wood (of around 70 MT ha-1 in 6 years) ready marketing and easy establishment and less maintenance needs. Clonal planting one among the approach for management of water and nutrients compared to the other conventional strategies. Studies relating to Clonal difference and evaluation for dry matter production will help to overcome productivity loss due to deficit rainfall and optimum utilization of available natural resources for higher wood production. The present study was carried out to test the hypothesis that there exists a Clonal variation in growth, biomass production and yield and the present study gives an insight in to Clonal variation in with reference to growth, biomass production and yield.
Key words: Eucalyptus clones, Growth, Productivity and Yield
Eucalypts are among the most widely cultivated forest trees in the world. The major Eucalyptus growing countries are China, India and Brazil. Growth rates that routinely exceed 35 m3 ha-1 year-1. These fast-growing plantations can be grown under a range of different climates for products that include pulp and paper, charcoal, fuel wood, and solid wood products such as poles, furniture, and construction timber. Being endemic to Australia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, eucalypts are grown mainly as exotic species (Davidson, 1995; Stape, 2002; 2010; ICFRE, 2010). Eucalyptus shows a broad productivity response depending on species, clones and soil factors (Onyekwelu et al., 2011). Eucalyptus sp. has some of the highest net primary productivity rates up to 49 m3 ha-1 year-1 (Hubbard et al., 2010). Mean annual increments of clone plantation of Eucalyptus sp. with no fertilization, with fertilization and fertilization combined with irrigation are 33, 46 and 62 m3 ha-1 year-1, respectively.
The high biomass accumulation potential makes Eucalyptus sp. a good prospect for timber, wood products and carbon sequestration projects. Clonal selection and deployment in Eucalyptus is receiving attention as an intensive forest management tool for increased wood production. Many pulp and paper and other wood based industries are now establishing clonal forestry program after the promulgation of 1988 National Forest Policy. The National Forest Policy has given clear cut indication that the forest based industries must prefer to raise required raw materials by themselves. The industries should establish direct relationship with individual growers of raw material by providing them credit, technical advice, harvesting and transport services. The policy also indicated that small and marginal farmers have to be encouraged to grow wood species required in forest based industries in their marginal and submarginal lands.
Eucalyptus clonal planting has been said to have advantages includes quick provision of benefits associated with fast growth, short rotation for production of pulp wood (about 70 M t ha-1), ready marketing and other reasons. It is an important industrial species and now popularized among the farmers due to varies reasons especially climatic vagaries (erratic and
shortage of total rainfall, variation in the distribution, etc.) and shortage of irrigation to agriculture. The clonal plantations are the one among the best option to meet out the ever increasing demand for paper and pulp wood. But there is a continuous depletion of the natural resources especially various nutrients from the soil due to its repeated rotation and fast growth in nature. Information on consumption of natural resources mainly water and nutrients for production of biomass and stem wood are not well documented especially in Eucalyptus clones.
Clonal planting is one among the approach for management of water and nutrients compared to the other conventional strategies. The clonal evaluation for growth, dry matter production and yield study will help to selection of site specific clones based on climatic and edaphic factors for obtaining optimum yield. Therefore the present study was undertaken to assess growth, dry matter production and yield of Eucalyptus clones along with the commercial clones available in the market at present and the seed origin seedlings for comparison purpose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Material:
To carry out the dry matter allocation study, Eucalyptus clones are selected as the experimental material. This includes 24 clones and two seed origin seedlings. Among the 24 clones, 16 clones are shortlisted by IFGTB and these clones are numbered from C-7 to C-196. For comparison purpose, 8 clones (6 ITC clones and 2 TNPL clones) and two seed origin seedlings (each one from Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation and IFGTB) are selected and named as check clone 1 to 10. Establishment of field trials:
The Clonal field trials have been established and in total, 49 ramets were planted in a block per clone and 26 clones were planted in three replications in the espacement of 3 x 1.5 m. Growth parameters and physiological parameters were taken annually. During the half rotation period, biomass sampling has been carried out by adopting the stratified average tree technique. Samples from different components of
Eucalyptus clones such as leaves, branches, twigs, stem and root were collected and analyzed for various major nutrients. Dry matter production, volume and commercial volume of different Eucalyptus clones were worked out on single tree basis and converted to hectare (ha) basis. The sampling technique adopted in the present study was 'Stratified average tree technique' as proposed by Art and Marks (1971). In this technique, the girth at breast height of each tree in the replication was recorded. The whole girth class was grouped by frequency distribution method and an average tree of each replication was selected for sampling. Thus, the average trees were felled from each replication and estimated the above and below ground biomass.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Growth parameters
For selection of high productive clones from the established clonal trials, the collected height values were analysed across the location and the grand mean height for different clones were presented in the Table-1. The grand mean of the Eucalyptus clones across the location was 7.3 m, while the average height varies from 5.0 to 9.3 m across the locations. At the half rotation period, C-188 registered highest average height growth of 9.3 m followed by C-19 (8.9 m), C-63 (8.7 m) and C-186 (8.6 m). The least height growth of 5.0 m was recorded in C-115 followed by 5.7 m in check clone 1 and 5.9 m in check clone 8. Though various clones registered variation in height parameters in different locations, clones C-188, C-186, C-123, C-14, C-10 and C-19 registered the maximum height of above 8.50 m and these clones registered greater grand mean height with low standard error values which implies that, within and across the trials, these are the preferable stable clones for large scale planting with reference to the total height, across the locations.
The girth at breast height data collected and analysed across the location and the average girth at breast height were presented in the Table-2. The grand mean girth of the Eucalyptus clones across the location was 19.5 cm. From the clonal trials established in four locations, C-19 registered the maximum girth of 25.9 cm followed by C-188 (25.6 cm) C-14 (24.6 cm), C-186 (24.4 cm), C-10 (23.6 cm) and C-123 (23.7 cm). When
compared to the grand mean across the trial (19.5 cm) which is lower than the grand mean in Pudukottai, Karaikudi and Coimbatore, except in Tirunelveli. Clones of C-14, C-19, C-186 and C-188 recorded greater girth measurement more than 23.5 cm.
Kumar et al. (2010) also reported that, significant variations were recorded for height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and clear bole height (CBH) for eighteen clones of E. tereticornis for various growth parameters. The average genetic gain for three years was recorded maximum for height (159.60%) followed by DBH (110.97%) and CBH (70.34%). Clone 17 attained maximum DBH over other genotypes for second and third year followed by clones 14 and 11. There were significant differences between clones and sites for height and circumference and there were significant effect of interaction clone x site for circumference and height (Paulo Ricardo Gherardi Hein et al, 2010). Ginwal, (2009) studied the Provenance and family variation in growth performance of E. tereticornis and reported that, significant variation in plant height, clean stem height, girth at breast height (GBH). Within provenance individual tree heritability estimates for height, clean stem length, GBH and number of branches at age 3 years were 0.318, 0.215, 0.269 and 0.231, respectively (assuming a coefficient of relationship of 0.4 for open-pollinated families of E. tereticornis). Similarly significant differences in different Eucalyptus species have been reported by various workers. Lal (2005) conducted a study to assess the comparative growth performance of various Eucalyptus species. Kumar and Bangawa (2006) observed significant differences for growth attributes among seven species of Eucalyptus species. Xiaoyong Mo et al. (2003) studied the important traits and combined evaluation of Eucalyptus clones and revealed that, 17 clones were significantly taller than the mean of 27 clones by the average of 20.3%. The mean superiority in dbh of 17 clones was 18.4%. The minimum height and dbh were 6.5 m and 6.14, respectively. Above, below ground and total biomass production
The difference in the AGB between the highest and the lowest in various clones in different clonal trials was worked out and the results were presented for across the location for the half rotation period (3 years). In the
half rotation period (3rd year), the lowest AGB was recorded 5.55 kg tree-1 in C-124 and the highest AGB of 10.52 kg tree-1 in C-188. The highest above ground biomass was recorded in C-188, C-10, C-14, C-19, C-
123 and C-186 and these clones are forming a single group. On the other hand, in the third year C-124 recorded the lowest BGB of 1.26 kg tree-1 and C-188 recorded the highest BGB of 2.44 kg tree-1 with the mean of 1.51 kg tree -1. The clones of C-188, C-10, C-14, C-19, C-111 and C-186 are forming a single group and recorded the highest below ground biomass production among the different clones. Among the clones, C-124 registered the lowest below ground biomass followed by C-100 and check clone 7. In the case of total dry matter production C-100 registered the lowest total biomass production of 6.77 kg tree-1 and C-188 registered the highest total biomass of 12.99 kg tree-1 with the mean of 9.54 kg tree-1.The clones C-188, C-186, C-19, C-10 and C-14 are forming a single group and registered the higher production of total biomass among the Eucalyptus clones. Clone C-100 registered the lowest total biomass of 6.77 kg tree-1 followed by C-
124 (6.80 kg tree-1) and check clone 1 (7.23 kg tree-1) compared to the mean (Table-3).
The mean annual increment from these plantations of selected clones after six years was recorded to 35 m3 ha-1 yr-1 as compared to 20-25 m3 ha-1 yr-1 from selected provenance and about 12 m3 ha-1 yr-1 from unselected seed lots reported by Praveen et al, (2010) in Eucalyptus hybrids. Dry matter production is directly
In the case of third year, the leaf biomass ranged from 0.79 kg tree-1 in C-124 to 1.49 kg tree-1 in C-188 followed by 1.42 kg tree-1 in C-186 with the mean of 1.11 kg tree-1; branch biomass ranged from 1.22 kg tree-1 in C-100 to 2.36 kg tree-1 in C-188 followed by 2.23 kg tree-1 in C-186 and C-19 with the mean of 1.73 kg tree-1. In the case of stem wood biomass, C-124 registered the lowest biomass of 3.50 kg tree-1 and C-188 recorded the highest biomass of 6.67 kg tree-1 followed by C-19 (6.38 kg tree-1) with the mean of 4.86 kg tree-1. Clone C-124
recorded the lowest root biomass of 1.26 kg tree-1 and C-188 recorded the highest root biomass of 2.44 kg tree-1 followed by 2.27 kg tree-1 in C-186 with the mean of 1.79 kg tree-1 in the case of root biomass production (Table-4).
Studies in C. equisetifolia in Puerto Rico revealed that, the percentage contribution of stem wood was highest (76%) when compared to other components. Relatively higher percentage of bole was reported in C. equisetifolia by Verma (1987), Jambulingam (1989) and Srivastava (1994). Similar results are also reported by Singh et al. (2010), 76.8% in E. teriticornis and 72.9% in Pithecellobium dulce and Wang et al. (1995) in Populus tremuloides. Vidyasegran (2003) reported similar percentage of root biomass of C. equisetifolia from 18.97 to 22.5%. Buvaneswaran (2004) reported that the percentage of root biomass to total biomass increased from 17.0 to 30.0% for teak in Southern dry and western moist agro-climatic zones of Tamil Nadu. With regard to review of bgb in different species, Zabek and Prescott (2006) reported 13-26% of root biomass to total plant biomass in Hybrid poplar. Dhyani et al. (1990) found that root weight ranged from 22% (L. leucocephala) to 29% (E. teriticornis) of total tree biomass in a comparison of five tree species at 2 years of age. Total volume and stem wood yield of the Eucalyptus clones
With reference to the volume and stem wood production, clone C-188 registered the maximum volume and stem wood yield of 30.60 m3 ha-1 and 21.14 t ha-1. The clone C-100 recorded the minimum of 16.93 m3 ha-1 and 11.73 t ha-1, across the location (Table-5).
Luna et al. (2009) stated that the productivity of ITC Eucalyptus clones and the clone 413 gave the maximum MAI (mean annual increment) of 28.80 m3 ha-1 yr -1, over bark and 23.49 m3 ha-1 yr -1, under bark, at an age of 3 years. The clone 526 performed better at Gurdaspur with maximum MAI (productivity) of 21.15 m3 ha-1 yr -1, over bark and 17.25 m3 ha-1 yr -1, under bark. Whereas, at Amritsar, clone 413 was most productive with MAI of 36.07 m3 ha-1 yr -1, over bark and 29.42, m3 ha-1 yr -1, under bark, at the age of 2.5 years. The present study revealed that the clone 413 gave outstanding productivity over bark ranging from 28.80 to
related to the growth parameters and the clones are recorded higher production of the dry matter content compared to the seedling origin seedlings. Individual biomass components
36.07 m3 ha-1 year -1. Clone 288 gave MAI of 48.79 m3 ha-1 yr -1over bark, followed by clone 316 with MAI to the tune of 33.70 m3 ha-1 yr -1 at the age of 4 and 5 years, respectively.
The range in productivity recorded for different Eucalyptus clones in the present study across the location (24.29 m3ha-1 to 122.19 m3ha-1 in 3 years) was compared that of other species of commercial importance. This variation occurs due to location effect includes edaphic and climatic factors. This range in
productivity was observed in other species like D. sissoo - 7.8 MT ha-1yr-1 (Sharma et al., 1998), G. arborea - 8.2 MT ha-1yr-1(Negi et al., 1990), Tectona grandis - 3 to 12 MT ha-1 yr-1 (Buvaneswaran, 2004), clones of Populas deltoides - 14.6 MT ha-1yr-1 (Fang et al., 2007), Eucalyptus hybrid - 14.2 MT ha-1yr-1 (George, 1977) and Acacia mangium - 22.6 MT ha-1yr-1 (Tsai, 1988). Singh and Tokey (1995) reported that 8 years old plantations of Eucalyptus tereticornis, Leucaena leucocephala and Acacia nilotica had productivity of 21, 25 and 14 MT ha-1yr-1 respectively.
Clone ID Average height of Eucalyptus clones (m) Grand mean (m)
Pudukottai Karaikudi Tirunelveli Coimbatore
C 7 10.0 ± 0.5 7.8 ± 0.5 7.6 ± 0.2 7.9 ± 0.1 8.3 ± 0.6
C 9 5.9 ± 0.5 6.6 ± 0.5 5.8 ± 0.2 6.5 ± 0.1 6.2 ± 0.2
C 10 10.7 ± 0.5 7.8 ± 0.5 7.1 ± 0.3 8.1 ± 0.3 8.7 ± 0.8
C 14 7.5 ± 0.4 8.6 ± 0.4 7.3 ± 0.1 10.0 ± 0.2 8.7 ± 0.6
C 19 9.2 ± 0.5 10.0 ± 0.5 7.9 ± 0.2 8.4 ± 0.2 8.9 ± 0.5
C 63 8.4 ± 0.5 7.9 ± 0.5 8.0 ± 0.1 8.3 ± 0.1 8.6 ± 0.6
C 66 7.6 ± 0.5 7.0 ± 0.5 6.4 ± 0.1 6.8 ± 0.2 6.9 ± 0.3
C 100 7.1 ± 0.4 7.4 ± 0.5 6.7 ± 0.1 7.1 ± 0.3 7.1 ± 0.1
C 111 8.9 ± 0.4 9.1 ± 0.4 7.6 ± 0.2 8.1 ± 0.1 8.4 ± 0.4
C 115 4.4 ± 0.2 5.4 ± 0.2 4.6 ± 0.3 5.5 ± 0.4 5.0 ± 0.3
C 123 7.9 ± 0.4 8.0 ± 0.4 9.2 ± 0.3 8.4 ± 0.2 8.4 ± 0.3
C 124 8.4 ± 0.6 7.3 ± 0.6 6.7 ± 0.1 7.0 ± 0.1 7.4 ± 0.4
C 186 8.9 ± 0.7 8.8 ± 0.5 7.7 ± 0.2 9.2 ± 0.2 8.6 ± 0.3
C 187 8.4 ± 0.4 8.1 ± 0.4 7.2 ± 0.2 7.9 ± 0.3 7.9 ± 0.3
C 188 11.6 ± 0.2 8.7 ± 0.2 8.3 ± 0.2 8.4 ± 0.2 9.3 ± 0.3
C 196 8.6 ± 0.4 8.0 ± 0.4 7.7 ± 0.1 8.7 ± 0.3 8.4 ± 0.4
Check 1 5.9 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 0.4 5.3 ± 0.2 6.0 ± 0.2 5.7 ± 0.2
Check 2 6.3 ± 0.4 6.0 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 0.1 6.4 ± 0.2 6.0 ± 0.2
Check 3 6.5 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.4 6.2 ± 0.1 6.8 ± 0.2 6.4 ± 0.2
Check 4 8.3 ± 0.6 7.4 ± 0.6 7.1 ± 0.1 7.3 ± 0.4 7.5 ± 1.3
Check 5 7.5 ± 0.4 6.6 ± 0.4 6.8 ± 0.2 7.2 ± 0.2 7.0 ± 0.2
Check 6 6. 7 ± 0.7 6.1 ± 0.7 6.2 ± 0.13 6.1 ± 0.4 6.3 ± 0.1
Check 7 7.6 ± 0.2 6.4 ± 0.2 6.0 ± 0.1 7.6 ± 0.2 6.9 ± 0.4
Check 8 6.4 ± 0.2 5.4 ± 0.2 5.8 ± 0.2 6.1 ± 0.1 5.9 ± 0.2
Check 9 6.8 ± 0.2 5.5 ± 0.4 5.4 ± 0.2 6.1 ± 0.3 6.0 ± 0.3
Check 10 5.8 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 0.1 6.3 ± 0.1 6.0 ± 0.2
Grand Mean 7.8 7.2 6.6 7.4 7.3
SED 0.59 0.42 0.26 0.33 0.46
* Mean height value with ± Standard Error.
Table 1. Average height grand mean girth of Eucalyptus clones in different clonal trials
Table 2. Average Girth at breast height grand mean girth of Eucalyptus clones in different clonal trials
Clone ID Average girth of Eucalyptus clones (cm) Grand mean girth (cm)
Pudukottai Karaikudi Tirunelveli Coimbatore
C 7 25.3 ± 0.9 22.7 ± 1.5 16.3 ± 0.7 22.5 ± 1.5 22.0 ± 1.7
C 9 20.7 ± 1.2 20.7 ± 1.5 15.6 ± 0.3 20.7 ± 1.2 19.8± 0.9
C 10 28.3 ± 1.2 24.8 ± 1.5 20.3 ± 0.7 22.6 ± 0.9 23.6 ± 2.0
C 14 23.6 ± 1.9 23.3 ± 0.7 21.6 ± 0.3 30.7 ± 1.8 24.6 ± 2.2
C 19 24.7 ± 1.5 32.2 ± 1.9 19.6 ± 1.7 26.0 ± 1.2 25.9 ± 2.6
C 63 18.5 ± 1.5 16.6 ± 1.2 23.3 ± 2.3 22.0 ± 1.5 19.5 ± 1.2
C 66 17.3 ± 1.8 18.0 ± 2.1 14.0 ± 1.0 17.3 ± 1.2 17.1 ± 0.5
C 100 13.6 ± 1.8 15.0 ± 1.7 12.3 ± 0.3 14.0 ± 1.1 14.0 ± 0.4
C 111 23.0 ± 1.5 27.3 ± 1.8 20.0 ± 1.0 22.6 ± 0.9 16.6 ± 1.7
C 115 16.2 ± 1.5 17.6 ± 0.9 15.0 ± 1.0 17.7 ± 1.2 15.7 ± 0.8
C 123 22.6 ± 1.2 22.5 ± 0.9 28.0 ± 1.0 22.7 ± 0.7 23.7 ± 1.0
C 124 14.8 ± 1.5 16.5 ± 1.2 12.6 ± 0.7 17.8 ± 1.5 15.4 ± 0.9
C 186 23.7 ± 1.5 25.0 ± 1.5 17.6 ± 0.3 29.0 ± 0.6 24.4 ± 2.1
C 187 21.6 ± 1.5 22.3 ± 1.2 18.3 ± 0.7 21.7 ± 0.9 20.6 ± 1.7
C 188 32.7 ± 0.9 23.6 ± 1.5 25.0 ± 1.0 23.3 ± 0.9 25.6 ± 2.3
C 196 20.6 ± 1.2 20.6 ± 1.5 17.3 ± 0.3 27.6 ± 0.9 16.2 ± 2.4
Check 1 13.6 ± 1.8 15.6 ± 1.5 12.3 ± 1.3 16.7 ± 0.9 14.8 ± 0.8
Check 2 15.3 ± 1.8 17.0 ± 1.0 15.4 ± 0.3 17.7 ± 1.2 18.3 ± 0.7
Check 3 15.7 ± 1.8 13.3 ± 1.3 12.7 ± 0.7 16.3 ± 0.9 15.6 ± 0.7
Check 4 23.6 ± 1.3 21.3 ± 1.6 19.6 ± 0.7 21.6 ± 1.5 21.4 ± 1.0
Check 5 22.6 ± 0.9 21.3 ± 0.9 19.7 ± 0.3 21.0 ± 1.5 20.8 ± 1.0
Check 6 19.6 ± 1.5 20.6 ± 1.2 16.3 ± 0.3 15.3 ± 0.9 16.0 ± 1.2
Check 7 14.3 ± 1.2 15.5 ± 0.7 13.4 ± 0.7 16.7 ± 1.2 15.0 ± 0.7
Check 8 16.1 ± 1.5 14.3 ± 1.2 14.0 ± 1. 0 15.3 ± 1.2 16.2 ± 0.7
Check 9 17.0 ± 1.7 15.6 ± 1.2 14.3 ± 1.3 16.0 ± 0.6 15.6 ± 0.5
Check 10 15.5 ± 1.5 17.6 ± 1.2 12.7 ± 0.3 16.7 ± 0.5 15.5 ± 0.9
Grand Mean 20.1 20.1 17.1 20.5 19.5
SED 2.12 1.91 1.31 1.56 1.64
* Mean height value with ± Standard Error.
Table 3. Above Ground Biomass, Below Ground Biomass and total biomass (kg tree-1) production of Eucalyptus clones across the location in three year old plantation.
Clone AGB BGB Total Biomass
C 7 8.87f-g-h-i 2.07 e-f-g-h 10.94g-h-i
C 9 8.26 e-f-g 1.87 d-e-f 10.14 e-f-g
C 10 9.82 i-i-k 2 21 g-h-i 11.73 i-i-k
C 14 9.81 i-i-k 2.16 g-h-i 11.98 i-i-k
C 19 9.95 i-k 2 22 g-h-i 12.16 i-k
C 63 8.87 f-g-h-i 1.97 e-f-g 10.84 f-g-h-i
C 66 7.90 d-e-f 1.79 d-e 9.63 d-e-f
C 100 5.49 a 1.28 a 6.77 a
C 111 8.45e-f-g 2.16 g-h-i 10.61f-g-h
C 115 6.47 a-b-c 1.44 a-b-c 7.91 a-b-c
C 123 9.82 i-i-k 2.15 f-g-h 11.97 i-i-k
C 124 5.55 a 1.26 a 6.80 a
C 186 9.96 i-k 2.27 h-i 12.24 i-k
C 187 8.63 f-g-h 1.97 e-f-g 10.60 f-g-h
C 188 10.52 k 2.44 i 12.99 k
C 196 8.82 f-g-h-i 2.01 e-f-g-h 10.83 f-g-h-i
Check 1 5.81 a 1.42 a-b-c 7.23 a
Check 2 5.96 a 1.45 a-b-c 7.41 a-b
Check 3 6.18 a-b 1.51 a-b-c 7.69a-b
Check 4 6.94b-c-d 1.59 b-c-d 8.53 b-c-d
Check 5 7.31 c-d-e 1.65 c-d- 8.97 c-d-e
Check 6 6.94 b-c-d 1.62 c-d 8.56 b-c-d
Check 7 5.69 a 1.32 a-b 7.02 a
Check 8 7.47 d-e 1.82 d-e 9.30 d-e
Check 9 6.04 a-b 1.48 a-b-c 7.52 a-b
Check 10 6.16 a-b 1.51 a-b-c 7.67 a-b
Mean 7.76 1.79 9.54
Table 4. Mean dry matter production (kg tree-1) of various biomass components in Eucalyptus clones during 3rd year of growth across four locations of study.
Dry matter production i kg tree-1)
Clones Leaf Branch wood Root
C 7 1.29 g 2.02bg-h-H 5.56g-h-I-i 2.07 e-f-g-h
C 9 1.14 e-f 1.84 e-f-g 5.28e-f-g 1.87 d-e-f
C 10 1.36 g-h-i 2.12 h-I-i 6.34 h-I-i-k 2 21 g-h-i
C 14 1.43i-i 2.20 I-i-k 6.18 I-i-k 2.16 g-h-i
C 19 1.34 g-h-i 2.23 i-k 6.38 i-k 2 22 g-h-i
C 63 1.30 g-h 1.98 g-h-i 5.59 f-g-hi 1.97 e-f-g
C 66 1.16 e-f 1.76 d-e-f 4.98 d-e-f 1.79 d-e
C 100 0.77 a 1.22 a 3.5 a 1.28 a
C 111 1.35 g-h-i 2.15 I-i-k 4.95 I-i-k 2.16 g-h-i
C 115 0.92 b-c 1.45 a-b-c 4.1 a-b-c 1.44 a-b-c
C 123 1.43 I-i 2.19 I-i-k 6.2 I-i-k 2.15 f-g-h
C 124 0.79 a-b 1.24 a 3.5 a 1.26 a
C 186 1.42 h-I-i 2.23 i-k 6.31 i-k 2.27 h-i
C 187 1.24 f-g 1.93 f-g-h 5.46 f-g-h 1.97 e-f-g
C 188 1.49 j 2.36 k 6.67 k 2.44 i
C 196 1.24 f-g 1.98 f-g-h-i 5.6 f-g-h-i 2.01 e-f-g-h
Check 1 0.82 a-b 1.30 a 3.69 a 1.42 a-b-c
Check 2 0.84 a-b 1.33 a-b 3.79 a-b 1.45 a-b-c
Check 3 0.87 a-b-c 1.38 a-b 3.93 a-b 1.51 a-b-c
Check 4 0.97 c-d 1.55 b-c-d 4.42b-c-d 1.59 b-c-d
Check 5 1.08 d-e 1.63 c-d-e 4.6 c-d-e 1.65 c-d-
Check 6 0.97 c-d 1.55 b-c-d 4.42b-c-d 1.62 c-d
Check 7 0.82 a-b 1.27 a 3.6a 1.32 a-b
Check 8 1.08 d-e 1.67 d-e 4.72 d-e 1.82 d-e
Check 9 0.86 a-b-c 1.35a-b 3.83a-b 1.48 a-b-c
Check 10 0.87 a-b-c 1.38 a-b 3.91 a-b 1.51 a-b-c
Mean 1.11 1.73 4.86 1.79
Table 5. Volume (m3 ha-1) and wood yield (t ha-1) on fresh weight basis for different clones of Eucalyptus.
Clone ID 3rd year
Volume ( m3 ha-1) Yield (t ha-1)
C 7 27.35 18.63
C 9 25.35 17.69
C 10 29.33 21.24
C 14 29.95 20.70
C 19 30.40 21.37
C 63 27.10 18.73
C 66 24.08 16.68
C 100 16.93 11.73
C 111 26.53 16.58
C 115 19.78 13.74
C 123 29.93 20.77
C 124 17.00 11.75
C 186 30.60 21.14
C 187 26.50 18.29
C 188 32.48 22.34
C 196 27.08 18.76
Check 1 18.08 12.36
Check 2 18.53 12.70
Check 3 19.23 13.17
Check 4 21.33 14.81
Check 5 22.43 15.41
Check 6 21.40 14.81
Check 7 17.55 12.06
Check 8 23.25 15.81
Check 9 18.80 12.83
Check 10 19.18 13.10
Mean 23.85 16.43
CONCLUSION
Genetic variation and environmental heterogeneity fundamentally shape the interactions between plants of the same species. Many authors reported that, significant differences between clones and sites for height, GBH, dry matter production and yield. There were significant effect of interaction between clones x site for height, GBH, dry matter production and yield. These findings can be useful for screenings, classifications, or preliminary selections in breeding programs of Eucalyptus. This disparity could also reflect in high variability in height, GBH, dry matter production and yield of clones in the same age. Further, this study confirms that, the clonal material exhibits better growth performance in terms of height as well as in girth, compared to the seedlings of seed origins, mainly due to the genetic characters of the materials.
REFERENCES
Art, H. W. and Marks, P. L. (1971). A summary table of biomass and net annual primary production in forest ecosystem of the world In: Forest biomass studies: College of life sciences and Agricultural Experimental station, University of Maine, USA.
Buvaneswaran, C. (2004). Studies on biomass production relations in Tectona grandis L. f plantations at different ages in Tamil Nadu, Ph. D. Thesis, FRI University, Dehara Dun.
Davidson, J. (1995). Ecological aspects of Eucalypts. In: Proceedings of Regional expert consultation on Eucalyptus. Vol. 1 FAO Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dhyani, S.K., Narain, P. and Singh, R.K. (1990). Studies on root distribution of five multipurpose tree species in Doon Valley, India. Agroforestry systems, 12: 149-161.
Fang, S., Xue, J. and Tang, L. (2007). Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential of poplar plantations with different management patterns. Journal of Environmental Management, 85 (3): 672-679. George, M. (1977). Organic productivity and nutrient cycling in Eucalyptus hybrid plantations, Ph. D thesis, University of Meerut, India. Ginwal, H.S. (2009). Provenance and family variation in growth performance of E. tereticornis (Sm.) in a provenance cum progeny trial in Midnapore, India. Forest Ecology and Management, 01/2009; D0I:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.009. Hubbard, R. M., Bond, B. J and Ryan, M. G. (2010). Evidence that hydraulic conductance limits photosynthesis in old Pinus ponderosa trees. Tree Physiology, 19: 165-172. Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education. Frequently asked questions on Eucalyptus. ICFRE Webmail. Jambulingam, R. (1989). Growth and biomass of Casuarina equisetifolia forst. In different ecosystem. Ph. D thesis. Department of Forestry, TNAU, Tamil Nadu. Kumar, R. and Bangarwa, K. S., (2006), Clonal evaluation in Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. Environment Ecol, 24 (4): 1188 - 1191. Kumar, A., Luna, R.K., Parveen, and Kumar, V. (2010). Variability in growth characteristics for different genotypes of Eucalyptus tereticornis (SM.). Journal of Forestry Research, 21 (4): 487-491. Lal, P. (2005). Performance of Eucalyptus clones in Punjab. Proc.; National Symposium on Exotics in Indian Forestry, held at Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, PAU. Ludhiana, from March, 15 - 18, p. 45. Luna, R. K., Thakur, N. S. and Vijay Kumar. (2009). Performance of Clonal Eucalyptus in Different Agroclimatic Zones of Punjab, India. Indian Forester, 135 (11): 241-250. Negi, J, D, S., Bahuguna, V.K and Sharma, D.C. (1990). Biomass production and distribution of nutrients in 20 year old teak and gammar plantations in
Tripura. Indian Forester, 116 (9): 631-634.
Onyekwelu, J. C., Stimm, B. and Evans, J. (2011). Review Plantation Forestry. In Günter et al. (Ed.), Tropical Forestry 8: Silviculture in the Tropics (pp. 399-454). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Parveen, A. Kumar, V.K. Sharma and H.S. Ginwal. (2010). Sustained Hybrid Vigor in F1 Hybrids of Eucalyptus torelliana F.v.Muell x E. citriodora Hook. World Applied Sciences Journal, 11 (7): 830-834.
Paulo Ricardo Gherardi Hein, Loic Brancheriau, José Tarcisio Lima, Antônio Marcos Rosado, Joseph Gril and Gilles Chaix. (2010). Clonal and environmental variation Ferraz, J. M. et al. of structural timbers of eucalyptus for growth, density, and dynamic properties. Cerne, Lavras, Vol.16, p. 74-81.
Sharma, D.C., Taneja, P.L. and Bisht, A.P.S. (1998). Biomass and productivity and nutrient cycling in a Dalbergia sissoo plantation. Indian Forester, 114 (5): 261-267.
Singh, V. and Tokey, O.P. (1995). Biomass and net primary productivity in Lecuaena, Acacia and Eucalyptus, short rotation, high density (energy) plantations in Arid India. Journal of Arid Environments, 31(3): 301-309.
Singh, Y.P, Gurubachan Singh and Sharma, D.K. (2010). Biomass and bio energy production of ten multipurpose tree species planted in sodic soils of Indo gangetic plains. Journal of Forestry Research, 21 (1): 19-24.
Srivastava, A.K. (1994). Productivity and economics of some commercially important forest trees. Indian Forester, 120 (1): 12-29.
Stape, J.L. (2002). Production ecology of clonal Eucalyptus plantations in North Eastern Brazil. D.Phil Thesis. Colorado University, USA. Pp 237.
Stape, J.L., Binkley, D., Ryan, M.G., Fonseca, S., Loos, R.A., Taka-hashi, E.N., Silva, C.R., Silva, S.R., Hakamada, R.E., de Ferreira, J.M.A., Lima, A.M.N., Gava, J.L., Leite, F.P., Andrade, H.B., Alves, J.M., Silva., G.G.C. and Azevedo, M.R. (2010). The Brazil Eucalyptus potential productivity project: Influence of water, nutrients
and stand uniformity on wood production. Forest Ecology and Management, 259: 1684-1694.
Tsai, L.M. (1988). Studies on Acacia mangium in Kemasul forest, Malaysia, I. Biomass and productivity, Journal of Tropical Ecology, 4: 293302.
Verma, V.P.S., Tandon, V.N and Rawat, H.S. (1987). Biomass production and plant nutrient volume distribution in different aged plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia in Puri, Orissa. Indian Forester, 113 (4): 273-279.
Vidyasegaran, K. (2003). Biomass production and nutrient cycling in Casuarina equisetifolia J.R & G. Frost. Plantations in the coastal plains in Kerala. Ph. D thesis. FRI University, Dehra Dun.
Wang, J. K., Zhong, A.L., Comeau, P., Tsze, M. and Kimmins, J.P. (1995). Above ground biomass and
nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the Boreal white and black spruce zone, British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management, 78: 127-138.
Xiaoyong Mo, Shiyao Peng, Teng Long, Wenping Chen and Xiaohong Yang. (2003). Important traits and combined evaluation of Eucalyptus clones. Ed. Eucalyptus Plantations: Research, Management and Development. Proceedings. Edited by Run-Peng Wei and Daping Xu, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore - 596224.
Zabek, L.M and Prescott, C.E. (2006). Biomass equations and carbon content of aboveground leafless biomass of hybrid Poplar in Coastal British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management, 223: 291-302.
