+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Morphological characteristics of naked root plants of norway spruce picea abies l. karst. and scotch pine pinus sylvestris l. grown by a nontraditional method



Morphological characteristics of naked root plants of norway spruce picea abies l. karst. and scotch pine pinus sylvestris l. grown by a nontraditional method



Lesnictvi 33(4): 327-342



Socio-economic and mainly biological requirements for the production of planting stock lead to a necessity of checking the nontraditional methods of seedling and plant growing. One of these methods is the production of naked-root seedlings from containerized seedlings; this procedure guarantees high vitality, reduces the losses and diminishes the seasonal influences during transplanting. We chose the plants of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] and Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) for morphological analyses of the planting stock grown by the above method. One-year seedlings of these woody species were grown in the containers Paperpot, Culticell and Kopparfors, transplanted to homogeneous substrate and lifted as naked-root plants 1/2. Evaluating the spruce plants, they had the lowest dry weight of roots and aboveground parts if they had been grown in the Kopparfors containers. As to the other quantitative characteristics and mechanomorphosis incidence, these plants also had the least favorable values of their characteristics. On the contrary, the best parameters were found out in the plants grown in Culticell containers, which have the largest volume of the cells. The results were analogical in the Scotch pine plants. In the conclusion of the present paper we mention how to diminish the negative influences of growing on containerized seedlings to be transplanted and we give the instructions for the subsequent production of planting stock by the above technology in practical forestry conditions.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 005930245

Download citation: RISBibTeXText


Related references

Morphological characteristics of bare-rooted plants of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) grown by a nontraditional method. Lesnictvi 33(4): 327-342, 1987

Emission of hydrogen sulfide by twigs of conifers - a comparison of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and blue spruce (Picea pungens Engelm.). Plant and Soil 168/169: 421-423, 1995

Temperature of norway spruce picea abies and scotch pine pinus sylvestris buds. Arboretum Kornickie 25: 277-288, 1980

Influence of photoperiod and thermoperiod on the initial stages of frost hardening and de hardening of phytotron grown seedlings of scotch pine pinus sylvestris and norway spruce picea abies. Studia Forestalia Suecica (128): 1-20, 1975

Variation in fine root biomass of threeEuropean tree species Beech Fagus sylvatica L, Norway spruce Picea abies L Karst, and Scots pine Pinus sylvestris L. Plant Biosystems 141(3): 394-405, 2007

Microscopic studies on the development of strobile primordia of Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies). Silva Fennica: (4) 314-318, 1971

Indirect measurement of pore size and permeability in scotch pine pinus sylvestris and norway spruce picea abies. Journal of Experimental Botany 34(143): 694-704, 1983

The spectral reflectance of stands of norway spruce picea abies and scotch pine pinus sylvestris measured from a helicopter. Remote Sensing of Environment 20(3): 253-266, 1986

Compaction of till soils and growth tests with norway spruce picea abies and scotch pine pinus sylvestris. Forest Ecology & Management 11(3): 171-190, 1985

Is emission of hydrogen sulfide a dominant factor of SO2 detoxification? - a comparison of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and blue spruce (Picea pungens Engelm.) in the Ore mountains. Phyton Horn 35(2): 255-267, 1995

Entomofauna of generative organs of Scotch pine (Pinus syl vestris L.) and norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.) in the Latvian SSR. Zashch Lesa: P 29-52 Ref Eng sum, 1973

Resistance of fertilized Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Physiology and genetics of tree phytophage interactions International Symposium, Gujan, France, 31 August 5 September 1997: 337-342, 1999

Butt rot in douglas fir pseudotsuga menziesii scotch pine pinus sylvestris and norway spruce picea abies mixed stands. European Journal of Forest Pathology 12(3): 137-143, 1982

Concentrations of elements in annual rings of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) from Arendal, in southern Norway. Meddelelser fra Norsk Institutt for Skogforskning 40(10): 8, 1988

Comparative analysis of the dendroclimatological response of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst), Silver fir (Abies alba) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the Sweep Carpathians. Revista Padurilor 122(3): 3-8, 2007