Effect of genetic sources on anatomical, morphological, and mechanical properties of 14-year-old genetically improved loblolly pine families from two sites in the southern United States.

Tree improvement programs on loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) in the southeastern USA has focused primarily on improving growth, form, and disease tolerance. However, due to the recent reduction of design values for visually graded southern yellow pine lumber (including loblolly pine), attention has been drawn to the material quality of genetically improved loblolly pine. In this study, we used the time-of-flight (TOF) acoustic tool to assess the effect of genetic families on diameter, slenderness, fiber length, microfibril angle (MFA), velocity and dynamic stiffness estimated using green density (DMOE_G) and basic density (DMOE_B) of 14-year-old loblolly pine stands selected from two sites. All the 184 and 204 trees of the selected eight half-sib genetic families on sites 1 and 2 respectively were tested using TOF acoustic tool, and two 5 mm core samples taken at breast height level (1.3 m) used to for the anatomical and physical properties analysis. The results indicated a significant positive linear relationship between dynamic MOEs (DMOE_G and DMOE_B) versus tree diameter, slenderness, and fiber length while dynamic MOEs negatively but nonsignificant correlated with MFA. While there was no significant difference in DMOE_B between sites; velocity² for site 1 was significantly higher than site 2 but DMOE_G was higher for site 2 than site 1. Again, the mean DMOE_G and DMOE_B reported in the present study presents a snapshot of the expected static MOE for green and 12% moisture conditions respectively for loblolly pine. Furthermore, there were significant differences between families for most of the traits measured and this suggests that forest managers have the opportunity to select families that exhibit the desired fiber morphology for final product performance. Lastly, since the dynamic MOE based on green density (DMOE_G), basic density (DMOE_B) and velocity² present difference conclusions, practitioners of this type of acoustic technique should take care when extrapolating results across the sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]