4.0 Article

Susceptibility of Corymbia species and hybrids to arthropod herbivory in Australian subtropical hardwood plantations

Journal

SOUTHERN FORESTS-A JOURNAL OF FOREST SCIENCE
Volume 72, Issue 3-4, Pages 147-152

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.2989/20702620.2010.547247

Keywords

Corymbia citriodora; Corymbia torelliana; Corymbia variegata; Corymbia henryi; eucalypt; hardwood; heritability; pest

Categories

Funding

  1. Queensland Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry
  2. Forestry Plantations Queensland
  3. Forest Enterprises Australia Ltd
  4. Elders Forestry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Corymbia hybrids are becoming significant plantation varieties in subtropical and tropical Australian plantation forestry. Although primarily developed for disease resistance and amenability to clonal propagation, they have also proven to have good growth rates and site plasticity. Here we examined the susceptibility of pure Corymbia species and hybrids to pest attack. Three trial sites containing C. citriodora subsp. variegata, C. torelliana, and the hybrids C. torelliana x C. citriodora subsp. variegata, C. torelliana x C. citriodora subsp. citriodora and C. torelliana x C. henryi were assessed for pest identity, incidence and severity. Pests caused about three-quarters of the visible crown damage to trees in these trials. At the site that had the most arthropod damage, hybrid trees had higher damage scores and higher growth scores (height, diameter at breast height over bark, and volume) than pure species. Site was more important than taxon in explaining damage scores, and taxa performed differently for most traits between sites. Tree growth was negatively correlated with general crown damage, while arthropod damage alone showed no significant relationship with growth. Our results highlight the importance of establishing taxa trials across a range of sites when selecting for pest resistance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available