Details of the trials sites and trial design can be found in the full report for South Africa (download now).
P. kesiya was first introduced to South Africa in 1906 from Assam and later in 1915 from the Philippines (Poynton 1979). The species had a good growth potential but stemform was poor compared to most other pines. Early tests showed that the Philippine sources had far better growth and quality than the Assam one.
In 1972-3, 5 provenance trials were established in South Africa as part of the first international series of trials organised by FAO and the Australian Forest Research Institute. 23 entries were tested; 17 seedlots from the Philippines, two seedlots from Zambia (one of Vietnamese, one of Philippine origin), two offsprings from seed orchards in South Africa and P. caribaea and a P. elliottii controls. Three of the trials have been assessed and analysed, and results are described in Darrow (1984). The South African seed orchard offsprings and the Zambia sources are in general of higher production and of better quality than the seedlots originating from the natural range (Darrow 1984).
Present trial – B65 at Grootgeluk
The Forest Research Division of Sappi has established two trials of P. kesiya in connection with the international series of trials co-ordinated by DFSC and OFI. The trials were established at Grootgeluk and Melmoth. The Melmoth trial has later been affected by fire, and only the Grootgeluk trial has been assessed as part of the present work.
Of the 6 replications and 90 seedlots tested, in the present assessment, only the ‘full’ provenances have been assessed, not the single tree progenies. This leaves 36 seedlots for assessment. The seedlots 1623-1634 are P. yunnanensis, the rest is P. kesiya (except for the controls).The Zimbabwe CSO seedlot (1776/88) originates from a single clone according to available information. Seed from all the ramets of this clone in the orchard has been bulked and thus represent half-sibs where the male percentage is (theoretically) a mixture of all the other clones in the seed orchard. The results for this seedlot should be interpreted with caution, as the seedlot does not provide a fair representation of the seed orchard offspring as such.
Furthermore, there is some uncertainty about the number of mother trees in the seedlots 1766 (Wat Chan, Thailand), 1638 (Lancang, China) and 1639 (Simao, China). Results of these seedlots therefore need to be interpreted with care.