Genetic Considerations in the Operational Production of Hardwood Nursery Stock in the Eastern United States

References

1. 1. Abrams MD,
   2. Kloeppel BD,
   3. Kubiske ME.

   1992. Ecophysiological and morphological responses to shade and drought in two contrasting ecotypes of Prunus serotina.Tree Physiology 10:343–355.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
2. 1. Anagnostakis SL.

   1987. Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen. Mycologia 79:23–27.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. 1. Beineke WF.

   1989.Twenty years of black walnut genetic improvement at Purdue University. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 6:68–71.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Beineke WF.

   1994. Black walnut plantation management. West Lafayette (IN): Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. FNR-119. 15 p.
5. 1. Bey CF.

   1980. Growth gains from moving black walnut provenances north-ward. Journal of Forestry 78:640–645.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
6. 1. Bey CF,
   2. Williams RD.

   1975. Black walnut trees of southern origin growing well in Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science Proceedings 84:123–127.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Bresnan DF,
   2. Rink G,
   3. Diebel KE,
   4. Geyer WA.

   1994. Black walnut provenance performance in seven 22-year-old plantations. Silvae Genetica 43:246–252.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
8. 1. Burnham CR.

   1981. Blight-resistant American chestnut: there’s hope. Plant Disease 65:459–460.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Burnham CR,
   2. Rutter PA,
   3. French DW.

   1986. Breeding blight resistant chestnuts. Plant Breeding Reviews 4:347–397.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Confalonieri M,
    2. Balestrazzi A,
    3. Bisoffi S,
    4. Carbonera D.

    2003. In vitro culture and genetic engineering of Populus spp.: synergy for forest tree improvement. Plant Cell,Tissue and Organ Culture 72:109–138.

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Debell DS,
    2. Harrington CA,
    3. Clendenen GW,
    4. Zasada JC.

    1997.Tree growth and stand development of four Populus clones in large monoclonal plots. New Forests 14:1–18.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Harbard JL,
    2. Griffin AR,
    3. Espejo J.

    1999. Mass controlled pollination of Eucalyptus globulus: a practical reality. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:1457–1463.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 1. Hebard FV.

    2002. Meadowview notes 2001–2002. Journal of the American Chestnut Foundation 16:7–18.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Jacobs DF.

    2003. Nursery production of hardwood seedlings. West Lafayette (IN): Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. FNR-212. 8 p.
15. 1. Jayawickrama KJS.

    2001. Potential genetic gains for carbon sequestration: a preliminary study on radiata pine plantations in New Zealand. Forest Ecology and Management 152:313–322.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Karnosky DF.

    1979. Dutch elm disease: a review of the history, environmental implications, control, and research needs. Environmental Conservation 6:311–322.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Kriebel HB,
    2. Merritt C,
    3. Stadt T.

    1988. Genetics of growth rate in Quercus rubra: provenance and family effects by the early third decade in the North Central U.S.A. Silvae Genetica 37:193–198.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Kubiske ME,
    2. Abrams MD.

    1992. Photosynthesis, water relations, and leaf morphology of xeric versus mesic Quercus rubra ecotypes in central Pennsylvania in relation to moisture stress. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22:1402–1407.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Lee JC,
    2. Skelly JM,
    3. Steiner KC,
    4. Zhang JW,
    5. Savage JE.

    1999. Foliar exposure of black cherry (Prunus serotina) clones to ambient ozone exposure in central Pennsylvania. Environmental Pollution 105:325–331.

    OpenUrlPubMed
20. 1. Li B,
    2. McKeand S,
    3. Weir R.

    1999.Tree improvement and sustainable forestry—impact of two cycles of loblolly pine breeding in the U.S.A. Forest Genetics 6:229–234.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Meilan R,
    2. Han K-H,
    3. Ma C,
    4. DiFazio SP,
    5. Eaton JA,
    6. Hoien E,
    7. Stanton BJ,
    8. Crockett RP,
    9. Taylor ML,
    10. James RR,
    11. Skinner JS,
    12. Jouanin L,
    13. Pilate G,
    14. Strauss SH.

    2002. The CP4 transgene provides high levels of tolerance to Roundup^® herbicide in field-grown hybrid poplars. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:967–976.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Meilan R,
    2. Ellis D,
    3. Pilate G,
    4. Brunner A,
    5. Skinner J.

    2004. Accomplishments and challenges in genetic engineering of forest trees: reflections on 15 years of steady progress. In: Strauss SH, Bradshaw HD, editors. Forest biotechnology: scientific opportunities and social challenges. Washington (DC): Resources for the Future Press. p 36–51.
23. 1. Ostry ME.

    1998. Butternut canker in North America 1967–1997. In: Laflamme G, Berube JA, Hamelin RC, editors. Proceedings, foliage, shoot and stem diseases. Laurentian Forestry Centre. Quebec City, Canada. Natural Resources Canada. Information Report Lau-X-122. p 121–128.
24. 1. Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers du Québec.

    2003. Dictionaire de la foresterie—Dictionary of Forestry—Diccionario de forestería. Côté M, editor. Distribution de livres Univers. 744 p.
25. 1. Rieckermann H,
    2. Goldfarb B,
    3. Cunningham MW,
    4. Kellison RC.

    1999. Influence of nitrogen, photoperiod, cutting type, and clone on root and shoot development of rooted stem cuttings of sweetgum. New Forests 18:231–244.

    OpenUrl
26. 1. Riemenschneider DE.

    1997. Breeding and nursery propagation of cottonwood and hybrid poplars for use in intensively cultured plantations. In: Landis TD, Thompson JR, technical coordinators. National proceedings, forest and conservation nursery associations. Portland (OR): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-419. p 38–42.
27. 1. Rink G.

    1984.Trends in genetic control of juvenile black walnut height growth. Forest Science 30:821–827.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Rink G,
    2. Coggeshall MV.

    1995. Potential height gain from selection in a five-year-old white oak progeny test. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 19:10–13.

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Rink G,
    2. Van Sambeek JW.

    1985.Variation among black walnut seedling families in resistance to competition and allelopathy. Plant and Soil 88:3–10.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Robison DJ,
    2. Raffa KF.

    1998. Productivity, drought tolerance and pest status of hybrid Populus: tree improvement and silvicultural implications. Biomass and Bioenergy 14:1–20.

    OpenUrl
31. 1. SAS Institute Inc.

    1999. SAS/STATR user’s guide, version 8. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc. 3884 p.
32. 1. Schultz RP.

    1999. Loblolly—the pine for the twenty-first century. New Forests 17:71–88.

    OpenUrl
33. 1. St Clair JB,
    2. Kleinschmit J.

    1986. Genotype-environment interaction and stability in ten-year height growth of Norway spruce clones (Picea abies Karst.). Silvae Genetica 35:177–186.

    OpenUrl
34. 1. [USDA NRCS] USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

    2004. The PLANTS database, version 3.5. URL: http://plants.usda.gov (accessed 1 Dec 2004). Baton Rouge (LA): National Plant Data Center.
35. 1. [USDA] United States Department of Agriculture.

    2003. National directory of plant material providers. URL: http://www.rngr.net/Applications/directory (accessed 1 Oct 2003).
36. 1. Walter C,
    2. Carson SD,
    3. Menzies MI,
    4. Richardson T,
    5. Carson M.

    1998. Review: application of biotechnology to forestry—molecular biology of conifers. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 14:321–330.

    OpenUrl
37. 1. Zobel B,
    2. Talbert J.

    1984. Applied forest tree improvement. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons Inc. 505 p.