Performance of genetically improved Norway spruce in one-third rotation-aged progeny trials in southern Finland

References

• Ahtikoski A, Haapanen M, Hynynen J, Karhu J, Kärkkäinen K. 2018. Genetically improved reforestation stock provides simultaneous benefits for growers and a sawmill, a case study in Finland. Scandinavian J. For Res. 33(5):484–492. doi:10.1080/02827581.2018.1433229.
   Google Scholar
• Aspinwall M, McKeand S, King J. 2012. Carbon sequestration from 40 years of planting genetically improved loblolly pine across the southeast United States. For Sci. 58(5):446–456. doi:10.5849/forsci.11-058.
   Google Scholar
• Berlin M, Almqvist C, Haapanen M, Högberg K, Jansson G, Persson T, Ruotsalainen S. 2019. Common Scots pine deployment recommendations for Sweden and Finland. Skogsforsk Arbetsrapport. 1017:1–65.
   Google Scholar
• Buford M, Bukhardt H. 1987. Genetic improvement effects on growth and yield of loblolly pine plantations. For Sci. 33(3):707–724.
   Google Scholar
• Burdon R, Carson J, Shelbourne C. 2008. : Achievements in forest tree genetic improvement in Australia and New Zealand 10: Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Australian Forestry. 71(4):263–279. doi:10.1080/00049158.2008.10675045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson S, Garcia O, Hayes J. 1999. Realized gain and prediction of yield with genetically improved Pinus radiata in New Zealand. For Sci. 45(2):186–200.
   Google Scholar
• Dhakal L, White T, Hodge G. 1996. Realized genetic gains from slash pine tree improvement. Silvae Genetica. 45(4):190–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egbäck S, Karlsson B, Högberg K-A, Nyström K, Liziniewicz M, Nilsson U. 2018. Effects of phenotypic selection on height-diameter ratio of Norway spruce and Scots pine in Sweden. Silva Fennica. 52(2):1–15. doi:10.14214/sf.7738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould J, Marshall D. 2010. Incorporation of Genetic Gain into Growth Projections of Douglas-Fir Using ORGANON and the Forest Vegetation Simulator. West. J Appl. For. 25(2):55–61. doi: 10.1093/wjaf/25.2.55
   Google Scholar
• Haapanen M, Hynynen J, Ruotsalainen S, Siipilehto J, Kilpeläinen M. 2016. Realized and projected gains in growth, quality and simulated yield of genetically improved Scots pine in southern Finland. Europ J For Res. 135(6):997–1009. doi:10.1007/s10342-016-0989-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton D, Rehfeldt G. 1994. Using individual tree growth projection models to estimate stand-level gains attributable to genetically improved stock. For Ecol Manage. 68:189–207. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(94)90045-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansson G, Hansen J, Haapanen M, Kvaalen H, Steffenrem A. 2017. The genetic and economic gains from forest tree breeding programmes in Scandinavia and Finland. Scandinavian J. For Res. 32(4):273–286. doi:10.1080/02827581.2016.1242770.
   Google Scholar
• Laasasenaho J. 1982. Taper curve and volume functions for pine, spruce and, birch. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae. 108:1–74.
   Google Scholar
• Littell R, Milliken G, Stroup W, Wolfinger R, Schabenberger O. 2006. SAS for mixed models, Second Edition. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc. 814 p.
   Google Scholar
• Liziniewicz M, Berlin M. 2019. Differences in growth and areal production between Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) regeneration material representing different levels of genetic improvement. For Ecol Manag. 435:158–169. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liziniewicz M, Berlin M, Karlsson B. 2018. Early assessments are reliable indicators for future volume production in Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) genetic field trials. For Ecol Manag. 411:75–81. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.01.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liziniewicz M, Karlsson B, Helmersson A. 2019. Improved varieties perform well in realized genetic gain trials with Norway spruce seed sources in southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journ For Res. 34:409–416. doi:10.1080/02827581.2019.1622035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke statistics. 2020. https://stat.luke.fi/metsa. [Cited 23 April 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Nikkanen T. 2002. Functioning of a Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seed orchard. Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Papers. 850:1–58.
   Google Scholar
• Owens J, Blake M. 1985. Forest tree seed production. Canadian Forestry Service, Petawawa National Forestry Institute, Chalk River. Ontario. Information Report PI-X. 53:1–161.
   Google Scholar
• Pakkanen A, Nikkanen T, Pulkkinen P. 2000. Annual variation in pollen contamination and outcrossing in a Picea abies seed orchard. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 15:399–404. doi:10.1080/028275800750172574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosvall O, Jansson G, Andersson B, Ericsson T, Karlsson B, Sonesson J, Stener L. 2001. Genetiska vinster i nuvarande och framtida fröplantager och klonblandningar [Summary: Genetic gains from present and future seed orchards and clone mixes]. Redogörelse nr 1, Skogforsk. 35.
   Google Scholar
• Ruotsalainen S, Nikkanen T. 2001. Kuusen siemenviljelysaineiston menestyminen Pohjois-Suomessa. Summary: Survival and growth of Norway spruce seed orchard material in northern Finland. Finnish For Res Inst Res Pap. 709:1–33.
   Google Scholar
• St. Clair J. 1993. Evaluating realized gains from tree improvement. Proceedings: IUFRO S4.01 conference; Blacksburg, VA. Publication FWS-1-93 of the College of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute : 145–157.
   Google Scholar
• Stener L. 2015. The status of tree breeding and its potential for improving biomass production – a review of breeding activities and genetic gains in Scandinavia and Finland. Skogforsk. Uppsala.
   Google Scholar
• Ye T, Jayawickrama K, St. Clair J. 2010. Realized gain from block-plot coastal Douglas-fir trials in the Northern Oregon Cascades. Silvae Genetica. 59(1):29–39. doi: 10.1515/sg-2010-0004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar