Pinus kesiya International Provenance Trials: Overview

bullet1 Colombia

bullet2 Discussion

bullet3 Growth

The Pinus tecunumanii sources (controls) are superior to the P. kesiya sources, especially at the Romerito trial site. Also the P. maximinoi control is superior to the P. kesiya sources, although its growth at the Granada site is less convincing.

The best performing P. kesiya source is the South Africa control. It is only represented in the Granada trial. The exact origin of this source is not known.

The seed lots from John Meikle CSO in Zimbabwe and the CSO from Zambia are also among the best performing P. kesiya sources. It is important to note that the John Meikle seed lots are single clone collections, and therefore not a fair representation of the CSO as such.

Poor volume producers at both trial sites are the Chinese sources and the sources from Burma. This confirms results from other trials in the series.

The Vietnamese, Thai, Philippine and Madagascar sources are intermediate, with small and not statistically significant - differences among them. The ranking differs in the two trials.

Thac Prenn (only at Romerito) and Ho Tien, both from Vietnam, seems to be in the top end of the intermeditate group, but again, the differences are not statistically significant.

bullet3 Adaptation

Survival is high in both trials. There are significant differences among sources, but this is not so relevant at this relative late stage (trials 8 years old) with competition and self-thinning within plots.

Many of the P. kesiya sources show a high frequency of foxtails, especially in the Romerito trial.

The Burmese sources generally have a low frequency of foxtails together with some of the Chinese sources. The Jinghong source of China, however, has a high frequency.

For the Vietnamese, Thai, Philippines and Madegascar sources there is no clear geographical pattern. Many sources have high frequencies of foxtails. Especially some of the Vietnamese sources (Dathien and Hotien) have many foxtails, but the differences are not statistically significant.

bullet3 Quality

The 1998 assessment did not include wood quality traits.