Potential of Alternative Tsuga spp. as Landscape Replacements for T. canadensis: Longer-Term Evaluation and Propagation of T. chinensis.

Richard W. Harper; Paul A. Weston

doi:10.48044/jauf.2016.030

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1.
Early-stage Tsuga chinensis cuttings under poly tent in greenhouse.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2.
Height of Tsuga spp. in the research plots at Lasdon Park. Bars for 2012 accompanied by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by ANOVA followed by mean comparisons using LSD at P = 0.05 (only T. canadensis and T. chinensis could be tested; see text for details). Species abbreviations are as follows: can = T. canadensis, car = T. caroliniana, het = T. heterophylla, mer = T. mertensiana, chi = T. chinensis, div = T. diversifolia, sie = T. sieboldii.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 3.
Tsuga spp. Front Gate plot at Lasdon Park & Arboretum, spring 2004.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 4.
Tsuga spp. Front Gate plot at Lasdon Park & Arboretum, summer 2012.

Tables

Figures

View popup

Table 1.

Summary of Tsuga susceptibility to hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae). Ratings are: S = susceptible, T = tolerant, R = resistant, ? = questionable.

	Species^{^z}
Author(s)/year	can	car	het	mer	div	sie	chi
McClure/1992	S	S	T	T	S	S	---
del Tredici & Kitajima/2004	S	S	?	---	R	_?	R
Montgomery & Lagalante/2008	S	S	?	R	R	S	R
Montgomery et al./2009	S	S	---	---	---	S	R
Weston & Harper/2009	S	S	S	R	R	R	R
Harper & Weston (current study)	S	S	S	R	S	R	R

↵^z Species abbreviations are as follows: can = T. canadensis, car = T. caroliniana, het = T. heterophylla, mer = T. mertensiana, chi = T. chinensis, div = T. diversifolia, sie = T. sieboldii.
Note: Dashes (---) indicate species that were not evaluated in certain studies.

View popup

Table 2.

Survival of seven species of Tsuga evaluated in test plots at Lasdon Park Arboretum. The number of trees in each of the plots planted in 2003 and remaining alive in 2012 is shown, along with percent survivorship for each plot and averaged across plots.

Species	Year	Plot^{^z}			Average^{^y}
		1	2	3
T. canadensis	2003	12	12	12
	2012	6	8	12
	% survival	50.0	66.7	100.0	72.2
T. caroliniana	2003	6	6	6
	2012	0	1	0
	% survival	0.0	16.7	0.0	5.6**
T. chinensis	2003	6	6	6
	2012	6	5	6
	% survival	100.0	83.3	100.0	94.4
T. diversifolia	2003	6	6	6
	2012	1	2	0
	% survival	16.7	33.3	0.0	16.7**
T. heterophylla	2003	4	4	3
	2012	3	1	0
	% survival	75.0	25.0	0.0	33.3*
T. mertensiana	2003	6	6	6
	2012	1	1	0
	% survival	16.7	16.7	0.0	11.1**
T. sieboldii	2003	6	6	6
	2012	0	1	0
	% survival	0.0	16.7	0.0	5.6**

↵^z Plot numbers are as follows: 1 – Front Gate, 2 – Magnolia Garden, 3 – Hemlock Hedge.
↵^y Asterisks indicate significant mortality as determined by χ² test; * = significant at P < 0.05, ** = significant at P < 0.01.