Abstract
The regions of the world using operational seedling testing to any significant extent are Canada, Britain, Sweden, and the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. Testing has been used operationally for batch culling (to ensure quality), as well as for research into improved nursery cultural practices. Savings from testing for seedling survival are substantial. However, growth gains from operational testing are more tenuous. Reduced rotation lengths and lower weeding costs are more likely to be associated with planting larger stock, rather than planting stock with higher physiological quality.
Large opportunities for savings exist for regions and organizations that produce poor quality stock, have high planting costs, or both. New tests have been developed and some are becoming operational. New tests might be more effective than existing tests. However, in the regions most involved in seedling testing, plantation survival has increased over the last ten years. Subsequently, additional investments in operational testing will likely achieve diminishing returns.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burr, K. 1990. The target seedling concepts: Bud dormancy and cold hardiness, pp. 79–90. In: Landis, T. D. (Ed) Proceedings combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Expt. Statn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-167: 133–138.
Burr, K. and Tinus, R.W. 1988. Effect of the timing of cold storage on cold hardiness and root growth potential of Douglas-fir. In: Landis, T. D. (Ed) Proceedings combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Expt. Statn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-167: 133–138.
Carlson, W. C. and Miller, D. E. 1990. Target seedling root system size, hydraulic conductivity and water use during seedling establishment, pp. 53–66. In: Rose, R. et al. (Eds) Proceedings combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations, Target Seedling Symposium. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Expt. Statn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-200.
Dunsworth, B. G. 1987. Stocktype handling survey. MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Land Use Planning Advisory Team, Internal Report, p. 14.
Dunsworth, B. G. 1988. Impact of lift date and storage on field performance forDouglas-fir and western hemlockm, pp. 199–206. In: Landis, T. D. (Ed) Proceedings combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Expt. Statn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-167: 133–138.
Grossnickle, S. C. and Folk, R. S. 1993. Stock quality assessment: Forecasting survival or performance on a reforestation site. Tree Planters Notes 44: 113–121.
Grossnickle, S. C., Major, J. E., Arnott, J. T. and V. E. LeMay, V. E. 1991. Stock quality assessment through an integrated approach. New Forests 5: 77–91.
Hawkins, C. D. and W.D. Binder, W. D. 1990. State of the art seedling stock quality tests based on seedling physiology, pp. 91–122. In: Landis, T. D. (Ed) Proceedings combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Expt. Statn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-167: 133–138.
Hobbs, S. D. 1984. The influence of species and stocktype selection on stand establishment: an ecophysiological perspective, PP. 179–224. In: Duryea, M. L. and Brown, G. N. (Eds) Proceedings of the SAF Physiology Working Group Technical Session, Seedling Physiology and Reforestation Success. Martinus Nighoff/Dr. W. Junk Publ.
Johnson, C.M. 1994. Field performance of container systems in British Columbia. For. Chron. 70: 137–139.
Mason, W. L. 1991. Improving quality standards for conifer planting stock in Great Britain. Scottish Forestry 45: 28–41.
Mattson, A. 1989.Root growth measurements in the nursery as ameans to reduce establishment costs. In: Proceedings IUFROWorking Group 53.02. New Zealand FRI Bulletin 156: 67–71.
Mexal, J. G. and Landis, T. D. 1990. Target seedling concepts: Height and Diameter, pp. 17–36. In: Rose, R. et al. (Eds) Proceedings, Combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations, Target Seedling Symposium. Rocky Mountain For. and Range Expt. Stat. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-200.
Overton, W. S. and Ching, K. K. 1978. Analysis of differences in height growth among populations in a nursery selection study of Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 24(4): 497–509.
Puttenon, P. 1989. Criteria for using seedling performance potential tests. New For. 3: 67–87.
Rikala, R. 1989. Planting performance of size graded Scots pine seedlings. Forestry Supplement 62: 29–37.
Ritchie, G. A. 1989. Integrated growing schedules for achieving physiological uniformity in coniferous planting stock. Forestry Supplement 62: 15–32.
Ritchie, G. A. and Dunlap, J. R. 1980. Root growth potential: Its development and expression in forest tree seedlings. N.Z. Jour. For. Res. 10: 214–248.
Rowan, S. J. 1987. Nursery Seedling Quality Affects Growth and Survival in Outplantings. Georgia Forestry Commission, Georgia Forest Research Paper #70, 15 p.
Simpson D.G., Thompson, C. F. and Sutherland, C. D. 1994. Field performance potential of interior spruce seedlings: effects of stress treatments and prediction by root growth potential and needle conductance. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 576–586.
Simpson, D. G. 1990. Frost hardiness, root growth capacity, and field performance relationships in interior spruce, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and western hemlock seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 566–572.
South, D. B. and W.L. Mason, W. L. 1993. Influence of differences in planting stock size on early height growth of Sitka spruce. Forestry 66: 83–96.
South, D. B., Mitchell, R. J., Zutler, B. R., Balneaves, J. M., Barber, B. L., Nelson, D. G. and Zwolinski, J. B. 1993. Integration of nursery practices and vegetation management: economic and biological potential for improving regeneration. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 2083–2092.
Stjernberg, E. I. 1994. Stock handling fromnursery to planting site:An investigation into rough handling and its biological effects. In: Colombo, S. J. (Ed) Proceedings IUFRO Working Group 53.02, Making the Grade. In press.
Sweet, G. B. and Wareing, P. F. 1966. The relative growth rates at large and small seedlings in forest tree species. Forestry (Supp. 1) 39: 110–117.
Tabbush, P. M. 1986. Rough handling, soil temperature and root development in outplanted Sitka spruce and Douglas-fir. Can. J. For. Res. 16: 1385–1388.
Thompson, B. 1985. Seedling morphological evaluation – what you can tell by looking, pp. 59–71. In: Duryea, M. L. (Ed) Proceedings: Evaluating Seedling Quality: Principles, Procedures and Predictive Ability of Major Tests. Oregon State University.
Van den Driessche, R. 1992. Absolute and relative growth of Douglas-fir seedlings of different sizes. Tree Physiology 10: 141–152.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dunsworth, G. Plant quality assessment: an industrial perspective. New Forests 13, 439–448 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006519315955
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006519315955