Early performance of Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies – a comparison between seedling size, species, and geographic location of the planting site

References

• Becker CA, Mroz GD, Fuller LG. 1987. The effects of plant moisture stress on red pine (Pinus resinosa) seedling growth and establishment. Can J For Res. 17:813–820. 10.1139/x87-129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergh J, Linder S, Lundmark T, Elfving B. 1999. The effect of water and nutrient availability on the productivity of Norway spruce in northern and southern Sweden. For Ecol Manage. 119:51–62. 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00509-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergström R, Bergqvist G. 1997. Frequencies and patterns of browsing by large herbivores on conifer seedlings. Scand J For Res. 12:288–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björkman E. 1953. Om orsakerna till granens tillväxtsvårigheter efter plantering i nordsvensk skogsmark. [Factors arresting early growth of the spruce after plantation in northern Sweden]. N S T. 2:285–316. Swedish with English summary.
   Google Scholar
• Burdett AN. 1990. Physiological processes in plantation establishment and the development of specifications for forest planting stock. Can J For Res. 20:415–427. 10.1139/x90-059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess D, Adams G, Needham T, Robinson C, Gagnon R. 2010. Early development of planted spruce and pine after scarification, fertilization and herbicide treatments in New Brunswick. For Chron. 86:444–454. 10.5558/tfc86444-4
   Google Scholar
• Carvell K. 1964. Planting depth affects survival and growth of white pine. Bull W V Agric Exp Stn. 490:7–16.
   Google Scholar
• Danielsson M, Kännaste A, Lindström A, Hellqvist C, Stattin E, Långström B, Borg-Karlson A-K. 2008. Mini-seedlings of Picea abies are less attacked by Hylobius abietis than conventional ones: is plant chemistry the explanation? Scand J For Res. 23:299–306. 10.1080/02827580802203560
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis AS, Jacobs GF. 2005. Quantifying root system quality of nursery seedlings and relationship to outplanting performance. New For. 30:295–311. 10.1007/s11056-005-7480-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faure-Lacroix J, Tremblay J-P, Thiffault N, Roy V. 2013. Stock type performance in addressing top-down and bottom-up factors for the restoration of indigenous trees. For Ecol Manage. 307:333–340. 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossnickle SC. 2000. Ecophysiology of northern spruce species: the performance of planted seedlings. Ottawa (ON): NRC Research Press; 409 p.
   Google Scholar
• Grossnickle SC. 2005. Importance of root growth in overcoming planting stress. New For. 30:273–294. 10.1007/s11056-004-8303-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossnickle SC. 2012. Why seedlings survive: influence of plant attributes. New For. 43:711–738. 10.1007/s11056-012-9336-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hägglund B, Lundmark J-E. 1982. Handledning i bonitering med skogshögskolans boniteringssystem. Del 1 Definitioner och anvisningar [Guidelines for site index measurements. Part 1. Definitions and instructions]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen; 53 p. ISBN 91-85748-11-0. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Hallsby G. 2013. Plantering av barrträd [Planting conifer species]. Skogsskötselserien no 3. Skogsstyrelsens förlag; 59 p. Available from: http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Aga-och-bruka/Skogsbruk/Skogsskotselserien/Plantering-av-barrtrad/. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Jobidon R, Charette L, Bernier PY. 1998. Initial size and competing vegetation effects on water stress and growth of Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP seedlings planted in three different environments. For Ecol Manage. 103:293–305. 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00228-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobidon R, Roy V, Cyr G. 2003. Net effect of competing vegetation on selected environmental conditions and performance of four spruce seedling stock sizes after eight years in Québec (Canada). Ann For Sci. 60:691–699. 10.1051/forest:2003063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson K, Nilsson U, Allen HL. 2007. Interactions between soil scarification and Norway spruce seedling types. New For. 33:13–27. 10.1007/s11056-006-9010-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson K, Nilsson U, Örlander G. 2013. A comparison of long-term effects of scarification methods on the establishment of Norway spruce. Forestry. 86:91–98. 10.1093/forestry/cps062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamhamedi MS, Bernier PY, Hébert C, Jobidon R. 1998. Physiological and growth responses of three sizes of containerized Picea mariana seedlings outplanted with and without vegetation control. For Ecol Manage. 110:13–23. 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00267-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen HS, South DB, Boyer JM. 1986. Root growth potential, seedling morphology and bud dormancy correlate with survival of loblolly pine seedlings planted in December in Alabama. Tree Phys. 1:253–263. 10.1093/treephys/1.3.253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li GL, Liu Y, Zhu Y, Yang J, Sun HY, Jia ZK, Ma LY. 2011. Influence of initial age and size on the field performance of Larix olgensis seedlings. New For. 42:215–226. 10.1007/s11056-011-9248-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Månsson J, Kalén C, Kjellander P, Andrén H, Smith H. 2007. Quantitative estimates of tree species selectivity by moose (Alces alces) in a forest landscape. Scand J For Res. 22:407–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis HA, Brand DG. 1990. An ecophysiological basis for understanding plantation establishment. Can J For Res. 20:375–390. 10.1139/x90-056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson A. 1996. Predicting field performance using seedling quality assessment. New For. 13:223–248.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald PM. 1991. Container seedlings outperform bareroot stock: survival and growth after 10 years. New For. 5:147–156. 10.1007/BF00029305
   Google Scholar
• Morén A-S, Perttu KL. 1994. Regional temperature and radiation indices and their adjustment to horizontal and inclined forest land. Stud For Suec. Uppsala. 194:19 p.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson U, Elfving B, Karlsson K. 2012. Productivity of Norway spruce compared to Scots pine in the interior of northern Sweden. Silva Fenn. 46:197–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson U, Luoranen J, Kolström T, Örlander G, Puttonen P. 2010. Reforestation with planting in northern Europe. Scand J For Res. 25:283–294. 10.1080/02827581.2010.498384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson U, Örlander G. 1995. Effects of regeneration methods on drought damage to newly planted Norway spruce seedlings. Can J For Res. 25:790–802. 10.1139/x95-086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordlander G, Hellqvist C, Johansson K, Nordenhem, H. 2011. Regeneration of European boreal forests: effectiveness of measures against seedling mortality caused by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis. For Ecol Manage. 262:2354–2363. 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Normark E. 2011. Riktlinjer för uthålligt skogsbruk [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Örnsköldsvik: Holmen Skog; 59 p. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Örlander G, Gemmel P, Hunt J. 1990. Site preparation – a Swedish overview. FRDA Report 105. 61 p . ISSN .
   Google Scholar
• Örlander G, Gemmel P, Wilhelmsson C. 1991. Markberedningsmetodens, planteringsdjupets och planteringspunktens betydelse for plantors etablering i ett omrade med låg humiditet i södra Sverige [Effects of scarification, planting depth and planting position on Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris seedling establishment in a low humidity area in southern Sweden]. Umeå: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Siviculture; 92 p. Report no 33. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner LS, Rose R. 2006. Synergistic stem volume response to combinations of vegetation control and seedling size in conifer plantations in Oregon. Can J For Res. 36:930–944. 10.1139/x05-292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderström V. 1979. Ekonomisk skogsproduktion. Del 2. Föryngring [Economical forest production. Part 2. Regeneration]. Borås: LTs Förlag; p 235–507. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• South DB, Mitchell RJ. 1999. Determining the “optimum” slash pine seedling size for use with four levels of vegetation management on a flatwoods site in Georgia, U.S.A. Can J For Res. 29:1039–1046. 10.1139/x99-048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiffault N. 2004. Stock type in intensive silviculture: a (short) discussion about roots and size. For Chron. 80:463–468. 10.5558/tfc80463-4
   Google Scholar
• Thiffault N, Jobidon R, Munson AD. 2003. Performance and physiology of large containerized and bare-root spruce seedlings in relation to scarification and competition in Québec (Canada). Ann For Sci. 60:645–655. 10.1051/forest:2003057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorsen Å, Mattsson S, Weslien J. 2001. Influence of stem diameter on the survival and growth of containerized Norway spruce seedlings attacked by Pine weevils (Hylobius spp.). Scand J For Res. 16:54–66. 10.1080/028275801300004415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuttle CL, South DB, Golden MS, Meldahl RS. 1987. Relationship between initial height and survival and growth of Loblolly pine seedlings planted during a droughty year. South J Appl For. 11:139–143.
   Google Scholar
• Wallgren M, Bergström R, Bergqvist G, Olsson M. 2013. Spatial distribution of browsing and tree damage by moose in young pine forests, with implications for the forest industry. For Ecol Manage. 305:229–238. 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar