4.7 Review

Wood and Fiber Quality of Plantation-Grown Conifers: A Summary of Research with an Emphasis on Loblolly and Radiata Pine

期刊

FORESTS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f9060298

关键词

durability; microfibril angle; Pinus radiata; Pinus taeda; silviculture; specific gravity; wood density

类别

资金

  1. UGA Wood Quality Consortium
  2. New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment [C04X1306]
  3. Forest Growers' Levy Trust, as part of the Growing Confidence in Forestry's future research programme
  4. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) [C04X1306] Funding Source: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With conifer plantations having an increasingly important role in meeting the fiber needs of society, an understanding of the effect of silvicultural practices on wood quality is critical. The perception of wood quality varies, making it hard to define in a single statement; however, possibly the most succinct definition is a measure of the aptness of wood for a given use. In general, properties that have a positive influence on a specific product assist in defining changes in wood quality. Since wood properties exhibit large variability within annual rings, within trees, and among trees in a stand, and have both genetic and environmental components (i.e., vary with different physiographical regions), it is imperative to have an understanding of wood properties at multiple levels. In this paper, we review the typical variation patterns in wood properties of conifers, with specific emphasis on loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), and radiata pine (Pinus radiata D.Don), two of the most common conifer plantation species globally. We also describe the impact of conventional silvicultural treatments on wood quality. Modeling efforts to predict variation in wood properties within trees, and in response to silvicultural treatments are also summarized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据