4.5 Review

Wood durability in terrestrial and aquatic environments - A review of biotic and abiotic influence factors

Journal

WOOD MATERIAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 82-105

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2020.1779810

Keywords

Decay; fungi; bacteria; soil contact; freshwater contact; marine environment

Funding

  1. Bundesministerium fur Ernahrung und Land-wirtschaft [22007617]
  2. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) [873191]
  3. ForestValue [773324]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Factors such as temperature, moisture, wood-decaying fungi, bacteria, subterranean insects, and marine borers are important in the degradation of wood used in ground and water contact. The durability of wood is influenced by its inherent characteristics, including heartwood and sapwood differences. Wood durability testing methods, classification, and models for regional-level modeling are discussed.
Factors relevant to degradation are important in every wood application. For wood used in ground and water contact; well documented abiotic factors (or agents) include exposure to temperature and moisture linked to the physiological requirements of biotic degradation agents such as wood-decaying fungi and bacteria. Other biotic degradation agents such as subterranean insects and marine borers occur overshadowing the effect of fungal and bacterial decay, but are restricted in geographical distribution and to aquatic applications, respectively. This review focusses on decay specific to soil exposure. The inherent material characteristics are important to durability in that heartwood and sapwood show differences in resistance to degradation between species, provenance, and individual trees. Wood durability testing methods and classification, as well as a summary of prominent models and variables suitable for regional-level modelling of in-ground wood durability are presented.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available