Pinus kesiya International Provenance Trials: Overview

bullet1 Swaziland

bullet2 Conclusion and recommendations

The results indicate that P. kesiya presents a potential on sites similar to the test sites provided that the appropriate seed sources are applied. The best P. kesiya sources compare favourable to the controls at both trial sites.

The best performing sources (growth) are the Philippines sources (esp. Mt. Province) and the Vietnamese sources (esp. Lang Hanh and Thac Prenn).

The Zambia CSO has a good height and diameter growth and an excellent stemform. Of concern is the poor survival rate expressed at both trial sites. As stressed above the survival, and possible reasons for low survival, should be investigated further before it can be recommended as a major source for plantation establishment.

The John Meikle CSO is another potential source. As the two tested seedlots are single mother tree progenies, the present trials cannot give precise information of the performance of this seed orchard offspring. Further testing is required.

The best un-improved source (seed collection in natural forest) is the Mt. Province source from the Philippines. It has a high survival rate, is a good volume producer, and has small branches. However, results from the trials indicate that the stemform is poorer than the improved sources, and also poorer than many of the other natural sources. Wood density is average.

The Vietnamese sources (esp. Lang Hanh and Thac Prenn) are also promising. They are above average in growth, have good stemform and pilodyn, and have branch diameters about average.

The Chinese, Thai and Madagascar sources are intermediate in growth and wood quality.

The Myanmar sources of P. kesiya and the sources of P. yunnanensis are very poor in both growth and quality traits and have no potential as sources for plantation establishment.

The trial was 8 years of age at assessment, and it may thus be premature to draw very specific and detailed conclusions based on the results. It is thus recommended that the trials are maintained, and are re-assessed and analyzed 3-5 years from now.