Climatic limitations to growth in loblolly and shortleaf pine ( Pinus taeda and P. echinata): A dendroclimatological approach

• Published in: Forest ecology and management 1989, Vol.26 (2), p.113-122
• Main Authors: Friend, Alexander L., Hafley, William L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agricultural and forest climatology and meteorology. Irrigation. Drainage; Agricultural and forest meteorology; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; Biological and medical sciences; Climatic models of plant production; CLIMATIC REQUIREMENTS; CRECIMIENTO; CROISSANCE; EXIGENCE CLIMATIQUE; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General agronomy. Plant production; Generalities. Techniques. Climatology. Meteorology. Climatic models of plant production; GROWTH; NECESIDADES CLIMATICAS; PINUS ECHINATA; PINUS TAEDA
• ISSN: 0378-1127; 1872-7042
• DOI: 10.1016/0378-1127(89)90039-X

Dendroclimatological techniques were used to assess the limitations of climate to the tree-ring growth of loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine ( P. echinata Mill.) at two sites in central North Carolina. The climatic influence on tree-ring growth was determined from regression analysis of mean monthly climate and standardized tree-ring widths. Climate accounted for 20–40% of the variation in the standardized tree-ring widths of the two species. The results suggested that climate of the early and late growing seasons provided the most consistent influences to cambial growth in this region. Radial growth was most strongly related to 3 parameters of annual climate: (1) days-with-rain in September through November of previous growth-year (negative influence on growth); (2) cumulative mean monthly air temperature in March through May (positive); and (3) estimated September soil water content (positive). A preliminary examination of potential mean climatic limitations to growth successfully predicted two growth-sensitive climatic variables (2 and 3 above). However, not all ‘normal’ annual climatic limitations were sensitive predictors of growth. This indicated that (a) climatic variations which influence year-to-year variations in growth are not always the most severe seasonal stresses, and (b) indirect and time-delayed effects (1 above) are important considerations in predicting the effects of climate on growth.