Conifers Network: Report of the fourth meeting (18-20 ... - Euforgen

Conifers NetworkReport of the fourth meeting (18–20 October 2003, Pitlochry, United Kingdom)J. Koskela, C.J.A. Samuel, Cs. Mátyás, andB. Fady, compilersEUFORGENIPGRI and INIBAPoperate under the nameBioversity InternationalSupported by the CGIARE u r o p e a n F o r e s t G e n e t i c R e s o u r c e s P r o g r a m m e ( E U F O R G E N )

Conifers NetworkReport of the fourth meeting (18–20 October 2003, Pitlochry, United Kingdom)J. Koskela, C.J.A. Samuel, Cs. Mátyás, andB. Fady, compilersE u r o p e a n F o r e s t G e n e t i c R e s o u r c e s P r o g r a m m e ( E U F O R G E N )

iiCONIFERS NETWORKBioversity International is an independent international scientific organization that seeks to improve thewell-being of present and future generations of people by enhancing conservation and the deployment ofagricultural biodiversity on farms and in forests. It is one of 15 centres supported by the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an association of public and private members who supportefforts to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health,and protect the environment. Bioversity has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in morethan 20 other countries worldwide. The Institute operates through four programmes: Diversity for Livelihoods,Understanding and Managing Biodiversity, Global Partnerships, and Commodities for Livelihoods.The international status of Bioversity is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January2007, had been signed by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, BurkinaFaso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia,Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal,Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine.Financial support for Bioversity’s research is provided by more than 150 donors, including governments,private foundations and international organizations. For details of donors and research activities please seeBioversity’s Annual Reports, which are available in printed form on request from bioversitycgiar.orgor from Bioversity’s website (www.bioversityinternational.org).European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) is a collaborative programme amongEuropean countries aimed at ensuring effective conservation and sustainable utilization of forest geneticresources in Europe. It was established in 1994 to implement Resolution 2 of the Strasbourg MinisterialConference for the Protection of Forests in Europe. EUFORGEN is financed by participating countries and iscoordinated by Bioversity International, in collaboration with the Forestry Department of FAO. It facilitatesthe dissemination of information and various collaborative initiatives. The Programme operates throughNetworks in which scientists, managers and policy-makers work together to analyse needs, exchangeexperiences and develop conservation methods for selected tree species. The Networks also contribute tothe development of appropriate conservation strategies for the ecosystems to which these species belongand promote integration of gene conservation into sustainable forest management. Network members andother experts from the participating countries carry out an agreed workplan with their own resources asinputs in kind to the Programme. EUFORGEN is overseen by a Steering Committee composed of NationalCoordinators nominated by the member countries. Further information on EUFORGEN can be found fromits website (www.euforgen.org).The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Bioversity or the CGIAR concerning the legalstatus of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof these organizations.Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only forinformation.Citation: Koskela, J., Samuel, C.J.A., Mátyás, Cs. and Fady, B., compilers. 2007. Conifers Network, Report ofthe fourth meeting (18-20 October 2003, Pitlochry, United Kingdom). Bioversity International, Rome, Italy.iv+71 pp.ISBN 978-92-9043-768-0Bioversity InternationalVia dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRome, Italy© Bioversity International, 2007

CONTENTSiiiContentsSummary of the fourth EUFORGEN Conifers Network meeting 1Introductory country reports 13Conifer genetic resources in Iceland 15T. EysteinssonSingle nucleotide polymorphisms in forest trees 19Review on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and population genetic studiesin conifer species 21G.G. VendraminGenetic resources of exotic conifers 29The introduction, evaluation and use of non-native conifer species in Britain 31C.J.A. SamuelBreeding programmes of exotic conifers in Britain 35S. LeeDeveloping a policy for long-term archiving of conifer breeding material 39R. SykesIntroduced forest tree species: some genetic and ecological consequences 41B. FadyAttempts in identifying the origin of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)Franco) stands in Germany 53A.O. König, W. Maurer, H.P. Schmitt, W. Arenhövel, H.M. Rau and B.R. StephanDouglas-fir provence tests in Serbia 61V. Isajev and V. LavadinovicProgramme of the fourth meeting 67List of participants 69

Summary of the fourth EUFORGEN Conifers Network meeting

SUMMARYFourth EUFORGEN Conifers Network meeting, Pitlochry,Scotland, 18-20 October 2003Opening of the meetingC.J.A. Samuel welcomed the participants on behalf of local organizers and provided a short presentationon forestry in Scotland and the UK. He described how the forest sector is structured in the UK andstressed the importance of conifers, especially the role of exotic conifers in Scotland. He also introducedhis colleagues from the Forest Research, i.e. C. Baldwin, E. Ker and R. Sykes.C. Mátyás, Chair of the Network, welcomed the participants from 26 countries and thanked the localorganizers for the arrangements. All participants then briefly introduced themselves.The Chair reminded the Network members of the importance of producing visible and usefuloutputs. He highlighted the task of EUFORGEN which should support conservation activities inthe participating countries. At the same time, EUFORGEN should raise awareness of forest geneticresources among forestry professionals, decision makers and the public in general.J. Koskela introduced himself as the new EUFORGEN Coordinator since 1 January 2003. He thenpresented the tentative agenda of the meeting which was adopted with some amendments. J. Fennessy,B. Fady and T. Skrøppa were nominated as rapporteurs for the meeting.EUFORGEN updateJ. Koskela provided a short update on the two recent external reviews which were carried out on IPGRI ¹ :one assessed the performance of Bioversity International as a whole and the other focused solely onthe Bioversity Regional Office for Europe. The two reviews were carried out as the regular five-yearmonitoring cycle of CGIAR and Bioversity activities, respectively. Results of both reviews were positiveand several recommendations made during the Europe review were specifically addressed to theEUFORGEN Steering Committee. These recommendations will be presented to the Steering Committeefor discussion during its next meeting in May 2004. He thanked those participants who responded tothe Bioversity surveys which were sent to Bioversity’s partners in Europe as part of the reviews.J. Koskela informed the meeting that the new Director General of Bioversity, Dr. Emile Frison,commenced his duties on 1 August 2003. He then presented the reports on recent meetings and outputsof EUFORGEN and listed various other meetings where the Secretariat promoted the EUFORGENProgramme. He briefly highlighted the outputs of the 4th Ministerial Conference on the Protection ofForests in Europe (MCPFE), held in Vienna, Austria at the end of April 2003. The MCPFE Liaison Unitwill move from Vienna to Warsaw by the end of 2003 as Poland takes the Chair in the MCPFE process.Relating to EUFORGEN activities, he informed the meeting that a collaborative capacity-buildingprogramme, ‘Conservation and use of biological diversity for development’, is being developed betweenBioversity and the Government of Austria. It is planned that this initiative will include an internationaltraining programme on forest genetic resources. Its focus is on providing short-term training coursesand scholarships, especially for developing countries and European countries in transition.Introductory country report by IcelandT. Eysteinsson gave a general presentation on forestry in Iceland. The native tree species are birch, rowanand aspen, while common juniper is the only native conifer. Before human settlement, the native birchforests covered about 30% of the land area but currently the figure is only 1%. Modern forestry in Icelandstarted in 1899 with the first pine enclosures. In the 1940s, large-scale seed import took place for afforestationpurposes and the period from 1960 to 1990 was known as a learning period with development of forestresearch. The present forest management goals are mainly multiple uses, with emphasis on timberproduction. Other important elements are soil conservation, land reclamation, amenity and recreation.The most important exotic conifers are Siberian larch, Sitka spruce and lodgepole pine.¹From 1 December 2006, IPGRI and INIBAP operate under the name Bioversity International.

CONIFERS NETWORKProgress made in various countriesCentral and Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, RussianFederation, Slovakia and Slovenia)Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic reported that general insecurity in forest management hasincreased due to the ongoing transition process towards market economies. In the Czech Republic, forexample, there are too many owners of small forests, and some of them do not have any particularinterest in forest management. Some good results from the past have been lost after many personnelchanges in various organisations. This situation has also increased lack of responsibility among thoseorganisations which offer services in forestry and their staff have inadequate capacity to monitoractivities at an appropriate level. Substantial changes in ownership structure have also taken placein Slovenia. In Hungary, large private owners have greater interest and they are doing more for FGR(forest genetic resources) conservation than state forest services. However, the privatisation process issometimes less transparent and probably based on particular interests of individuals and groups.The forests still face serious health problems, although the situation is improving in the CzechRepublic with decreasing industrial pollution and emissions. Too high a number of large game speciesis a problem in Hungary and the Czech Republic. In recent years, extreme weather conditions, e.g. floodand drought, have increased stress on the forest ecosystems. Consequently, the frequency of bark beetleoutbreak is increasing which creates a specific and long-lasting problem.There are problems in communication between environmental NGOs, state agencies responsiblefor forests and those responsible for the environment. There are conflicting views regarding NATURA2000 between private forest owners and representatives of environmental agencies. Russia reportedthat illegal logging and trade is continuing, particularly in the Far East, Siberia and the Caucasusregion. Decreasing profitability of forestry and lack of funds for forestry activities is creating problemsto conservation of FGR in Central and Eastern Europe.Legislation changes in most countries are connected to the preparatory phase of accession to theEC requiring harmonisation of national legislation with the acquis communautaire (the entire body ofEuropean laws). In addition, national strategies and/or programmes on conservation and utilisationof FGR are in preparation in several countries and many newly adopted national forest programmesinclude chapters on FGR. Some of the ongoing projects on FGR and tree breeding include:• Development of molecular and biochemical databases on forest trees for monitoring movement offorest reproductive material;• Tree breeding and preservation of valuable and threatened populations;• Silvicultural techniques and genetic composition of tree species;• Reproduction methods such as vegetative propagation and in vitro culture;• Approval and record keeping of forest reproductive material and information services for forest owners.Increased public awareness is considered important and publications and videos are underpreparation in Central and Eastern European countries.Mediterranean region (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Italy, Macedonia,Malta, Serbia and Montenegro, Spain and Turkey)The Mediterranean eco-geographical group was represented by 10 countries. The species of interestfor this group are: Abies spp., Picea abies, Pinus pinaster, Taxus baccata, Pinus nigra, Pinus pinea, Pinushalepensis, Pinus brutia, Pinus peuce, Pinus heldreichii, Cupressus spp., Cedrus spp., Juniperus spp. andTetraclinis articulata.Research projects on characterization of genetic resources of some Mediterranean conifer species (e.g.Abies alba in Croatia, Pinus nigra in Macedonia, Turkey, Serbia and Montenegro) are in progress using acombined approach with neutral and adaptive molecular markers. In France, Spain and Italy demographyand parentage analyses are being carried out for Abies alba, Pinus halepensis and Pinus pinaster. The mainobjectives of these studies are to gather information on the distribution of neutral and adaptive variationin the natural range of the species, to identify ‘hot spots’ of diversity and to monitor gene flow. Maps wereprepared using neutral markers regarding the distribution of genetic diversity of Pinus pinaster, Pinushalepensis and Picea abies. The results of these projects can be summarized as follows:• New information on colonisation dynamics, gene flow and hybridisation processes as well as onmigration of populations;

SUMMARY•••First evidence on the distribution of adaptive variation at the molecular level for Pinus pinaster, Pinushalepensis, Pinus nigra and Picea abies;Development of methods for provenances and seed lot identification for Pinus pinaster;Establishment of new provenances trials and progeny tests for Abies alba, Pinus nigra, Pinus brutiaand Pinus halepensis and analysis of quantitative traits.Various in situ conservation measures have also been undertaken, including establishment of fouradditional conservation units for Abies alba in south-eastern France, revision of Abies alba seed standsin Croatia and identification of three additional gene conservation units for Pinus brutia in Turkey. Forex situ conservation, the number of Pinus pinaster and Pinus halepensis populations stored in seed bankshas increased in France and Italy. Additional samples for DNA banks of Pinus halepensis, Pinus pinaster,Picea abies, Abies alba, Picea omorika and Pinus brutia have been stored at -80°C in Italy and France. InBulgaria, the number and size of gene reserves for Picea abies and Abies alba have also increased.Regarding changes in relevant policies, Spain, France, Turkey and Bulgaria have harmonized theCouncil Directive 1999/105/EC on the marketing of forest reproductive material in their legislation.In Spain, a National Committee on Breeding and Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources has beenestablished to coordinate the activities of the different autonomous communities. Spain has recently alsoprepared a new forest law including aspects related to breeding and conservation of FGR. New laws onforest reproductive material have also been adopted in Serbia and Montenegro, and Macedonia. Publicawareness and training activities include:•••••Organization of the 2nd edition of an international course on conservation of FGR in Spain;Participation at the French Agricultural Exhibition “Our forests: a genetic treasure”;Participation in TV programmes;Contribution to the preparation of books devoted to conservation genetics;An international course in Colombia was organised by Spain in collaboration with some SouthAmerican countries.Northern Europe (Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden)At the Nordic level, conservation of genetic resources is one of the areas that have a high priority in theagricultural sector. The Nordic Genetic Resources Board was established with one representative fromthe Ministry of Agriculture and one from the Ministry of the Environment in each country.On request from the Nordic Council of Ministers, a Nordic Network for Forest Tree Gene Conservationwas established in 2003 with one representative from each Nordic country. This is similar to the NordicGene Bank for agricultural plants and the Nordic Gene Bank for farm animals. The objective is to promoteand co-ordinate the conservation of genetic resources of forest trees in the region. Raising public awarenessat different levels has a high priority in Nordic co-operation. The joint annual publication “NordicGENresources” with contributions from all three sectors is one of the public awareness initiatives.A report of the legal issues of genetic resources of agricultural plants, agricultural animals and foresttrees was presented to the Nordic Council of Ministers in June 2003 (A Nordic Approach to Accessand Rights to Genetic Resources, ANP 2003:717, 99pp, available free of charge from nmr.dk). Itrecommended that legally, forest trees should be considered to be in the public domain. The Councildecided, however, that the legal status of the genetic resources of forest trees is still unclear and that thetopic should be further evaluated.In Norway, efforts have been made to evaluate the role of nature conservation reserves in geneconservation. It seems that their role will be different both for species and countries. Investigationsalong the same lines are being initiated in Sweden and Finland. In Iceland, gene conservation has thehighest priority in state-owned forests.A pilot project monitoring the genetic resources of rare and scattered tree species was initiated inNorway. Abundance, size, distribution and damage by grazing animals was assessed in 1000 m 2 plotsin a 3 x 3 km grid in three counties, as an additional registration in the national forest survey.Breeding of Norway spruce and Scots pine is continuing both in Sweden and Finland with theestablishment of new generation seed orchards. A long-term breeding strategy for Finland waspresented this year. It has been evaluated and will be revised by the end of 2003. The breeding strategiesin these two countries combine long-term breeding and gene conservation.In Lithuania, a law on genetic resources of plants, including forest trees, came into force in 2003. Anew gene bank as a state-funded institution for the management of plant genetic resources is underestablishment. The area of the Norway spruce gene reserves in Lithuania has been reduced due to barkbeetle outbreaks.

CONIFERS NETWORKIn both Iceland and Norway, it has been observed that rather fast development of landraces maytake place in forest trees. This has been shown as adaptation to climatic conditions and susceptibility tothe green spruce aphid in Sitka spruce.Characterization using molecular markers in Norway spruce from the assumed refugia and alongthe migration routes is underway in Norway. Combined with results from dating pollen profiles, it willmost likely provide new information about the immigration of the species after the last glacial period.In a joint Norwegian–Finnish project isozyme studies have been made for a large number of Taxusbaccata populations from the western and northernmost range of the species.Western Europe (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and UnitedKingdom)In general, few major developments were reported among this group of countries. Difficulties inobtaining data were highlighted. These were due to insufficient resources and low interest in geneticconservation in conifers.Switzerland reported the successful publication of a Gene Conservation Concept, a documentcovering all forest tree species (published in French and German only). Forests of special geneticinterest are presently being identified.A symposium on Genetic Conservation and Breeding of Taxus baccata was held in Austria.Forthcoming work is in hand to investigate molecular methods to be used as diversity measures andfor seed lot identification across a range of species.In Germany, the National Concept on the conservation of forest genetic resources was last reviewedand published in 2000. All activities are coordinated by a national working group and the reportingperiod runs from 2001 to 2004. At this stage, only reports from some federal states have been receivedas levels of activity among states are variable. The following list summarises these activities:••••For several species (Abies alba, Picea abies, Taxus baccata, Pseudotsuga menziesii), stands, populations inexperiments or individuals have been characterized by isozyme markers;The establishment of clonal archives, seed orchards and conservation plantations has continued;A IUFRO (International Union of Forest Research Organizations) meeting on ‘Ecology andsilviculture of Silver fir’ was held in September 2002 with some 30 contributions;For Pseudotsuga menziesii a number of states have checked several hundred stands to assess theiradaptation and suitability for further propagation (seed collection) and natural regeneration.Isozyme analyses have been applied using the allele frequencies of the 6-PGDH-A locus todistinguish between sources of the coastal and interior type. However, morphological characterssuch as needle cast, poor stem form, resin flow, early and heavy coning and mortality have beenconsidered as undesirable characters;In an EU-funded project, possible changes in the genetic structure of populations transferred fromNorth America to Europe have been investigated.•Documentation, information and public awarenessEUFORGEN website and bibliographyJ. Koskela presented the new structure of the EUFORGEN website, which is accessible directly througha new address (www.euforgen.org) while the old address under the Bioversity website also remainsoperational. The website is database-driven and includes a number of new features such as a ‘what’snew’ section, species summary pages and an improved search engine. The EUFORGEN grey literaturedatabase is maintained as part of the new website and it currently includes nearly 2000 references.There is a need to include information on where to find a given reference and it was decided to indicatenetwork members as contact persons in each country.Conifers and EUFORGEN postersAn updated version of the Conifers Network poster and a general EUFORGEN poster were displayedand copies in A4 size were distributed to the participants. The Network poster was originally developedfor the DYGEN (Dynamics and Conservation of Genetic Diversity in Forest Ecosystems) Conference

SUMMARYand revised for the World Forestry Congress. These posters as well as other Network posters areavailable from the EUFORGEN website.Image databaseB. Fady updated Network members on the progress made on the image collection database. Theparticipants were asked to provide additional slides on threats (pollution, pests and diseases),silviculture, utilization, genetics and breeding before 30 November 2003. Slides should be providedwith the following information: name of photographer, country, species, item number and anyadditional comments. A reminder will be sent to all participants after the meeting. It was agreed thatphotos can be used freely for public awareness purposes provided that the name of the photographerand EUFORGEN (e.g. B. Fady/EUFORGEN Conifers Network) are acknowledged.T. Skrøppa gave a presentation on the Norwegian website on conservation of forest tree geneticresources (http://www.skogoglandskap.no/temaer/genetic_resources). On this website, detailedinformation can be found on strategies for forest tree gene conservation in Norway, and relatedissues.Meetings, projects and other initiativesOutcomes of the DYGEN ConferenceC. Mátyás reported outcomes of the Dynamics and Conservation of Genetic Diversity in ForestEcosystems (DYGEN) Conference, which was held in Strasbourg in December 2002. Most topicsdiscussed during the conference have relevance for developing strategies for genetic conservation,such as mating and population size, effects of post-glacial migration and of human activity on geneticstructure, or the impact of past and future climatic changes.There is no doubt that maintaining the dynamics of evolution and adaptation must remain the maingoal of gene conservation. In view of expected long-term environmental changes, adaptability andphenotypic plasticity are traits of primary importance. However, the gap between molecular markerdata and adaptive traits is still not overcome. In this respect the legacy of post-glacial migrations(organellic lineages) provides limited support, and historic differences have been erased by selectionand gene flow.Important strategic issues, such as the role of science in shaping forest policy, were also discussedduring the DYGEN Conference. There was general agreement that genetic issues must be mademore visible for decision-makers and the general public. The summaries of the conference sessionsare published in the latest issue of Forest Genetics (2002, 9(4):333-340) and selected papers will bepublished in Forest Ecology and Management.EVOLTREE proposalG.G. Vendramin provided a short overview of the proposal submitted to the European Commissionfor the creation of a network of excellence on genomics of forest tree species. The title of the proposalis Evolution and Management of Diversity in European Forest Trees (EVOLTREE). EVOLTREE aimsto implement genomic approaches for monitoring, predicting and managing genetic diversity inEuropean forest trees for sustainable resource management and environmental protection. The aimof EVOLTREE is to transfer basic knowledge of gene function and genetic diversity into the forestsector, both by improving management practice and by tracing wood or seed products. It integratesinterdisciplinary research (genomics, population and quantitative genetics, ecology, eco-physiology,palaeoecology, reproductive biology, modelling, bioinformatics, conservation biology, silviculture) todecipher the structure, expression and polymorphism of genes of adaptive significance and attemptsto gain new insight into ecosystem function.EVOLTREE is a consortium of 32 partners from 14 different countries. Besides the very positivescientific evaluation, the proposal was rejected because forest genomics was not considered as a highpriority topic. It is the intention of the coordinator (A. Kremer) to resubmit the proposal. Possiblechanges in the content and eventually in the partnership will depend on the final version of the nextcall (Topic III.1.3) that will be published in January 2004.

CONIFERS NETWORKResults of analyzing SNPs in conifersG.G. Vendramin gave a talk about the detection and usefulness of a new category of markers, namelysingle nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), for population genetic studies in conifer species. Directanalysis of genetic variation at the sequence level using SNPs offers several advantages over othertypes of DNA marker systems. Information about the frequency and distribution of SNPs in forest treespecies is still lacking.The work consisted of a preliminary analysis of SNPs distribution in Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis)and the evaluation of their usefulness in population genetic analyses. Based on isozymes, nuclear andchloroplast microsatellite data, it appears to carry high levels of variability, most of which (>85%)resides within populations. In this first phase attention was paid to a CAD gene, which is involved inlignin biosynthesis. Five populations sampled in different parts of the natural range (Israel, Greece,Italy, Spain and Morocco) of the species were analyzed.Based on preliminary data from about 1200 bp (base pairs), the frequency of nucleotide changesappears to be high, with an average of one SNP every 143 bases overall. This frequency, which ismuch higher than that observed in humans, appears to be lower (but of the same magnitude) thanfrequencies observed in maize, Picea abies and Pinus pinaster, which are commonly considered specieswith extremely high levels of variability.The estimated value of nucleotide variation appeared low. On the other hand, the geneticdifferentiation among populations was higher (about 42%) than that estimated using neutral markers(ranging from 2–12%), suggesting that this gene is under selection. The analysis of SNPs in candidategenes was a first attempt to detect putative adaptive variation and may provide extremely usefulinformation for designing conservation units.New EC Regulations on Genetic Resources in AgricultureJ. Koskela reported on the development of new EC Regulations on Genetic Resources in Agriculture.The EC is currently working on a revision of Regulation 1467 from 1994. The draft proposal waspresented and discussed during two meetings held in Brussels in early 2003. The focus of this newregulation will be on animal gene conservation and the budget will be €7–10 million for a period ofthree years. The scope of the Regulation also includes crop, microbial and forest genetic resources withthe focus on conservation, characterization, collection, utilization, documentation and evaluation. Onfarmconservation and inventories are also likely to be eligible but research activities are specificallyexcluded. EUFORGEN is mentioned as the only forest-related framework in the draft document. Thefirst call is expected to open by the end of 2003 or early 2004, and a second call is scheduled for 2005after ten new countries have joined the EU. The Regulation is expected to provide funding for one ortwo forest-based projects. It was suggested that a proposal could be developed based on the commonaction plan concept.In addition to the EC Regulation on genetic resources, the participants discussed the EC Directive onforest reproductive material. Concern was expressed that this might lead to inappropriate use of forestreproductive material.Progress made in the Network activitiesTechnical GuidelinesJ. Koskela provided an update on the state of the Technical Guidelines (TGs) production process. Thesix-page Technical Guidelines are specifically targeted for forest managers while Technical Bulletins aremore comprehensive presentations of relevant information targeted for both scientists and managers.The first set of TGs was published in April 2003, including Picea abies, Pinus pinaster and Pinus brutia/halepensis. Two new TGs for conifers (Abies alba, Pinus sylvestris) will be published as part of the secondset in November 2003. A third set is scheduled for publication in February 2004. The state of the variousconifer TGs is as follows:••Abies alba (Heino Wolf): text has been circulated and the draft map will be distributed shortly.Pinus sylvestris (Csaba Mátyás, Sam Samuel, Lennart Ackzell): draft will be sent to the Secretariatsoon after the meeting.Taxus baccata (Rudolf Bruchanik, Ladislav Paul) draft text was provided just before the meeting.•

SUMMARY•••••Pinus nigra (Vasilije Isajev, Bruno Fady, Hacer Semerci, Vlatko Andonovski): deadline for the drafttext is 15 Jan 2004.Pinus cembra (Marcus Ulber, Gregor Bozic, Felix Gugerli): final text is ready for circulation.Larix decidua (Jan Matras): draft text was provided during the meeting.Juniperus communis (Sam Samuel, Vahid Hadjiyev, Maia Akhalkatsi, Mikhail Pridnya): This wasrescheduled for future publication and it was agreed that Pinus peuce would be prepared byAlexander Alexandrov and Vlatko Andonovski (deadline for text is 30 December 2003).Pinus pinea (Giuseppe Vendramin, Bruno Fady, Sonia Martin): draft text will be provided by 30November 2003.Pinus leucodermis/ P. heldreichii (Giuseppe Vendramin, Bruno Fady): draft text will be provided by30 November 2003.•Best practice for genetically sustainable forest managementC. Matyas informed the meeting that the paper published in Hungarian is now available in English.However, it was agreed that this issue was more relevant to the whole of EUFORGEN and that it shouldbe directed to the next Steering Committee meeting in 2004.Common action planThe goal is to establish a pan-European network of in situ gene conservation units using Picea abiesas a model species. Only a few contributions were received; in part due to lack of a clear definitionof in situ gene conservation units. The table will be modified to include different categories of insitu conservation areas (e.g. gene reserves, seed stands, national parks, strictly protected areas). TheSecretariat will send out a revised table and the definitions to the participants shortly and they shouldprovide data currently available to the Secretariat by 15 December 2003.List of priority speciesThe list of priority conifer species was discussed and it was agreed that the scoring would be changedfrom ten classes to four. The four classes are: 1) high priority, 2) medium priority, 3) low priority and 4)no priority. In the case of a species not used in forestry in a country, the table should indicate a blank.The Secretariat will provide an updated table with existing priority species for the participants to bescored. If needed, new species can be added into this table. The deadline for providing the priorityspecies to the Secretariat is 30 November 2003.After receiving feedback, the Secretary will then finalise the table and divide the last column(number of countries in which a given species received scores) into four sub-columns indicating thenumber of countries per each priority class.Outputs of the MCPFE process and development of EUFORGEN Phase IIIJ. Koskela presented recent outputs from the MCPFE process, i.e. the fourth Ministerial Conference onthe Protection of Forests in Europe (28–30 April 2003) and the Expert Level Meeting (16–17 Oct 2003),both held in Vienna, Austria. After the EUFORGEN Steering Committee meeting in Sweden in June2002, a task force produced a EUFORGEN strategy paper for the preparatory process of the ViennaMinisterial Conference. Based on this paper and other efforts, conservation of FGR was highlighted inthe Vienna outputs.At the Vienna Ministerial Conference, the European ministers responsible for forestry and the ECcommitted themselves to “take further steps to maintain, conserve, restore and enhance biologicaldiversity of forests, including their genetic resources, in Europe and also on a global scale” (paragraph 22of the Vienna Declaration). In Resolution 4 on Forest Biological Diversity, the ministers also committedthemselves to “promote the conservation of forest genetic resources as an integral part of sustainableforest management and continue the pan-European collaboration in this area” (paragraph 16).Following the Vienna Ministerial Conference, the Liaison Unit organized the Expert Level Meeting tofinalise a draft Work Programme, which was prepared by the Liaison Unit and the countries coordinatingthe MPCFE process. The draft Work Programme did not include FGR as a focus area. However, theEUFORGEN Secretariat provided feedback to the Liaison Unit and proposed several actions to be added

10 CONIFERS NETWORKinto the Work Programme during the Expert Level Meeting. The adopted Work Programme now includesFGR as a focus area under the Vienna Resolution 4 (Forest Biological Diversity) with two actions: 1)Promote conservation of forest genetic resources as an integral part of sustainable forest managementand continue pan-European collaboration in this area through EUFORGEN and 2) International trainingprogramme on FGR as part of the collaborative capacity building programme ‘Conservation and use ofbiological diversity for development’ that is being developed between Bioversity and the Governmentof Austria. Furthermore, under Resolution 5 (Climate Change and Sustainable Forest Management) andfocus area ‘Adaptability of forests’, the Work Programme includes a workshop on the role of geneticdiversity in improving adaptability of forests to climate change and in maintaining the productivity offorests under changing environmental conditions. IUFRO and EUFORGEN/Bioversity were identified asleading agencies to organize this workshop in 2005.These MCPFE outputs imply that EUFORGEN Phase III should continue implementation of theStrasbourg Resolution S2 on Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources and as a new element, alsocontribute to implementation of the Vienna Resolution V4 on Forest Biological Diversity by betterlinking gene conservation and forest management.The participants then discussed the future of EUFORGEN and concluded that the Programmeshould continue for its third phase. The participants identified several issues that are relevant to futurework. The discussion emphasized that EUFORGEN should play an important role in advising nationalprogrammes on FGR and that genetic considerations should be included in forest management. Conifersshould be addressed regardless of how EUFORGEN will be organized in Phase III. Exotic conifers ofimportance for European forestry should be included in work plans for Phase III. The participants alsohighlighted need for better linkages between EUFORGEN and processes on forest biological diversityat global and pan-European levels. EUFORGEN should also promote cross-sectoral co-operation innatural resource management with all relevant stakeholders.Seminar on conserving and using exotic conifersThe International Conifer Conservation Programme (M. Gardner)M. Gardner gave a presentation on conservation activities of threatened conifer species. Globally thereare about 800 conifer species of which 355 are listed by IUCN-The World Conservation Union as beingof conservation concern. They are threatened by logging, fire, insect attacks and invasive species.Seventy may become extinct in the near future. He also provided several examples of threatened coniferspecies at global level. The major focus of the International Conifer Conservation Programme is theintegration of ex situ with in situ conservation through scientific research, education and training, andcultivation. He also described the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation adopted in The Hague inApril 2002 at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD). The Strategy attempts to deliver several outputs by 2010 including an assessment ofthe conservation status of all threatened plant species, ensuring that 60% of all threatened plant speciesare conserved both in situ and ex situ.The introduction, variation and use of non-native conifer species in Britain (C.J.A Samuel)C.J.A. Samuel commenced his presentation by giving some historical information on the many plantcollectors, mainly Scottish, who introduced different exotic conifer species into Britain. He thenpresented 20th century trends in the use of conifers in the UK. Around 400 provenance experimentswere established over the period 1926–1985. Results have revealed good increases in production fromup to ten degrees transfer northwards in latitude on appropriate sites for North American conifers.Before the late 1960s, the problems in establishing provenance trials related to limited seedavailability (mainly commercial seed lots and lack of information on collection methods), populationsizes and sampling. In the 1960s, IUFRO developed guidelines on sampling natural populations, coordinatedseed collections and improved trial design. In conclusion, he raised a number of differentquestions on the conservation and use of exotic conifer species in the UK.Breeding programmes of exotic conifers in Britain (S. Lee)S. Lee presented a paper on breeding programmes of exotic conifers in the UK (Sitka spruce, Douglasfir,lodgepole pine, Corsican pine and hybrid larch) and one native species, Scots pine. He reportedprogress made since the activities were initiated and provisions made for genetic conservation. He also

SUMMARY 11provided some details on tree selection and progeny testing in these species. The objective was to breedfor timber suitable for the construction industry. Tested clonal seed orchards established at a number oflocations were now in production and improved seed for vegetative propagation was obtained throughartificial pollination. Similar programmes were developed for a number of species. In conclusion, hehighlighted pressures on tree breeders due to a shift to multi-purpose forestry and the increasing useof native species.Developing a policy for long-term archiving of breeding material (R. Sykes)R. Sykes presented a paper on clonal archiving in the UK breeding programme. This programmestarted in the 1950s and all selections were routinely archived until the late 1970s. The early materialgrew to inaccessible heights for pollination work and resulted in the introduction of top pruningin the 1980s. This policy was reviewed in the 1990s. He described the structure and layout of theearly clonal archiving system. As a result of the review, a new archiving system was introduced. Infuture, as well as clones from the breeding population, a proportion of those originally selected willbe retained to supply any future breeding material which may be needed in response to changingselection objectives.Introduced forest tree species: some genetic and ecological consequences (B. Fady)B. Fady presented a paper on handling exotic species from the genetic conservation point of view usingCedrus atlantica as a case study. The presentation aimed at evaluating some of the genetic and ecologicalconsequences of species introduction for the management of both local ecosystems and the introducedspecies. He presented evidence that introduced forest species may have a very significant genetic andecological impact on local ecosystems. Using examples drawn from research carried out at INRA-Avignon (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) on Cedrus species, he also demonstratedthat introduced tree species experience rapid and quite considerable ecological and genetic change. Theyseem to evolve quickly into new landraces as a result of selection, genetic drift, population admixtureand changes in spatial structure of their mating system. Several aspects relevant for in situ and ex situconservation of introduced resources, both in their new and original environments, were presented.Identifying origins of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) plantations in Germany (A. König)A. König made a presentation demonstrating how several Federal States of Germany monitor theirDouglas-fir stands to conclude on their adaptation and suitability for future silvicultural use. Ingeneral, provenance trials have demonstrated that interior provenances are maladapted and exhibitinferior characteristics when planted in Germany. Forest administrations want to exclude unsuitedstands from further propagation either as seed stands or for natural regeneration. Rhineland–Palatinate,Northrhine–Westfalia and Thuringia used different frequencies of alleles at the 6-PGDH-A isozymelocus in order to discriminate between provenances/stands of coastal and interior origins. The Stateof Hesse, however, assessed maladaptation on the basis of several phenotypic characteristics, such asneedle discolouration, needle cast, growth distortions, extraordinary coarse branches, resin flow andmortality after the establishment phase.Douglas-fir provenance tests in Serbia (V. Isajev and V. Lavadinovic)It is a very common practice to introduce exotic conifers as garden specimens in several parts of Serbiabut little attention is paid to provenances. In a Douglas-fir provenance trial 31 different provenanceswere introduced from Washington, Oregon and New Mexico. They were established some 25 years agoat two sites with different environmental conditions and different elevations. Two Oregon provenanceshad the best performance at both sites.Conclusions based on the seminar and the discussionsIn many European countries, public opinion favours native tree species over exotics. Despite obviousmistakes made in cultivation of exotic conifers, their role in production forestry and amenity isundisputed, especially in countries/regions with a low percentage of remaining native forests orimpoverished dendroflora (Ireland, UK and Iceland).The meaning and importance of autochthony should be understood in broader terms. This isdue to human impact on site conditions, extensive use of genetically improved forest reproductivematerial and predicted climate change. Therefore, the use of non-native material under clearly definedconditions should be considered as an acceptable option.

12 CONIFERS NETWORKThe cultivation of exotic species may have certain ecological and genetic consequences which haveto be monitored carefully (e.g. diversity loss of ecosystems and introgression). In some species, diseaseand pest problems develop only after a considerable time lag and may be difficult to eradicate due tolack of natural control.Analyses of second-generation performance of some introduced tree species show that adaptationto new environmental conditions can be relatively fast and consequently the gene pool may changesignificantly within one generation. This fast adaptational process may lead to the emergence oflandraces. Such locally adapted genetic material should be conserved by appropriate methods.Breeding strategy and policy changes can lead to changes in the current valuation of species. Theproper conservation of selected/improved genotypes and archiving of pertinent information areimportant.Traditional plantings of exotic species in arboreta are useful for public awareness. Recent initiativesof arboreta to develop conservation programmes of threatened forest tree species are also valuable froma genetic point of view.Exotic tree species should be incorporated in both the national programmes of FGR conservationand in the multilateral programmes of EUFORGEN and other international organisations.Any other business••Iceland indicated its interest in join EUFORGEN.A. Alexandrov informed the meeting that an IUFRO 5-needle pine meeting will be held in Bulgaria3–7 September 2004.Missing contributions to the meeting report should be sent to the Secretariat by 15 December 2003.•Date and place of next meetingCyprus indicated its interest to organise the next meeting in spring 2005. The offer was accepted,provided that the Conifers Network will continue in its present form during Phase III of EUFORGEN.Adoption of the summary of the meetingThe meeting summary was adopted and the Chair (C. Mátyás) closed the meeting.

Introductory country reports

INTRODUCTORY COUNTRY REPORTS 15Conifer genetic resources in IcelandThrostur EysteinssonIceland Forest Service, Midvangi 2-4, IS-700 Egilsstadir, Iceland; Email:skogur.isForests and native speciesIceland has the lowest forest cover in Europe in terms of percentage of total land area—about 0.3%. Thistranslates to between 30 000 and 40 000 ha of forested land. About two-thirds of this is native downybirch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.) forest and about one-third is planted forest of various species, mostlyexotic conifers. In addition to this, about 100 000 ha or 1% of the total land area is classified as ‘otherwooded land’, which is mostly downy birch scrub less than 5 m in height (Anonymous 2000).Other native tree species in Iceland are rowan (Sorbus aucuparia L.), which is wide-spread but uncommon,aspen (Populus tremula L.), which is very rare, and tea-leaved willow (Salix phylicifolia L.), which is commonbut only rarely attains tree height (5 m). Other native woody species never reach 5 m in height.Common juniper (Juniperus communis L.) is the only native gymnosperm in Iceland. It is fairlycommon throughout most of the Icelandic lowlands and is found up to an elevation of over 500 m. It isprostrate in form when growing in open land but becomes upright in the shade of a woodland canopy;however, it rarely reaches 1 m in height. The tallest Icelandic juniper known is a multiple stemmedindividual of about 2 m in height growing in a birch forest in north Iceland.ForestryTraditionally, the birch woods of Iceland were economically important as a source of building material, fuel,fodder for livestock and charcoal, needed to smelt bog iron and make iron tools. Woodlands continued to beimportant as a source of fuel and winter fodder for sheep until the 1930s, after which wood fuel was replacedby geothermal heat and imported oil. Furthermore, birch was replaced as a source of fodder by cultivatedhayfields. Thus, traditional forest utilisation practices, which were unsustainable, have all but disappeared.Modern forestry is considered to have started with the planting of the ‘Pine Stand’ at Thingvellir in1899, Iceland’s first forest plantation. The seedlings came from Denmark and the pines that still surviveare mountain pine (Pinus mugo Turra and P. uncinata Mill. ex Mirb.) and Siberian stone pine (P. sibirica DuTour). In the following years, small plantations were established at four other sites and three tree nurserieswere set up, one of which is still in operation and celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2003. Several exoticconifers were tried in Iceland during the first decade of the 20th century; in addition to the pines alreadymentioned, these include Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), Engelmannspruce (Picea engelmannii (Parry) Engelm.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), Siberian larch (Larixsibirica Ledeb.) and European larch (Larix decidua Mill.) (Blöndal and Gunnarsson 1999).After these limited early trials, emphasis in forestry shifted from planting to protecting nativewoodland remnants. During the first half of the 20th century the state acquired and protected fromgrazing several important forests and woodlands, which today comprise our national forests.By the 1930s it was clear that some of the conifers planted 30 years earlier were growing quite well,notably Scots pine, Norway and Engelmann spruce and Siberian larch. After an understandable delaycaused by World War II, trial and error outplanting of conifers started in the late 1940s and increasedgreatly during the 1950s, reaching over 1.5 million seedlings per year during 1960–62 (Petursson 1997).This was of course dependent on imported seed.Beginning in 1944, several expeditions were made to Alaska to collect seed and make contacts thatwould continue to collect seed and sell them to Iceland. In the early 1950s, similar connections weremade with the Soviet Union, especially to obtain larch seed and contacts were renewed with northernNorway for Scots pine and Norway spruce (Blöndal and Gunnarsson 1999).Literally hundreds of kilogrammes of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.), mountain hemlock(Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.) and western hemlock (T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) seeds were shippedto Iceland from Alaska during the 1940s and 1950s; potentially, enough to plant thousands of hectares.However, most of those hectares were never planted since much of the Sitka spruce and almost all of thehemlock never made it out of the rather primitive nurseries, due mostly to frost heaving in the nurserybeds as well as sensitivity of these species to autumn frosts. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) fromAlaska fared better in the nurseries as did both Scots pine and Norway spruce from Norway and larch fromSiberia. Scots pine did not die until after planting (caused by infestations by the pine woolly aphid (Pineus

16 CONIFERS NETWORKpini Gmelin, L.), Siberian larch survived poorly in the wet, maritime climate of south and west Iceland andNorway spruce performed poorly, although survival is generally good (Blöndal and Gunnarsson 1999).After these early setbacks, the 30 years between 1960 and 1990 was a period of learning forIcelandic foresters. Practical experience was gained through trial and error but scientific knowledgewas also gained in silviculture and choice of seed origins for conifers in Iceland. This provided abasis for embarking on afforestation on a larger scale, with multiple use (including commercial timberproduction) as a feasible goal.The Iceland Forest ServiceThe Iceland Forest Service (IFS) is the state forestry authority. Established in 1907, it has as its mandate toprotect and preserve natural forests and forest remnants, to grow new forests where appropriate and to adviseon forests and forestry-related matters. To these ends the IFS manages the national forests, 58 native forestsand afforestation areas, with combined conservation, recreation, research and development goals. Research isan increasingly important role of the IFS as afforestation increases. Emphasis in research is on forest geneticsand adaptation, pests and diseases, afforestation conditions and establishment techniques, forest ecology,carbon sequestration and forest inventory. Forestry extension and planning has been an important part of IFSactivities but this is increasingly being provided by the Regional Afforestation Projects.For most of the second half of the 20th century, the main activities of the IFS were seedling production(with as many as six nurseries in operation) and planting trees (mostly in IFS owned lands). Seedlingproduction has now been privatized and planting is only a minor part of IFS activities today.The head office of the IFS is in Egilsstadir in east Iceland and the research station— Iceland ForestResearch—is located at Mógilsá, just north of Reykjavík. In addition to this, there are six district forestryoffices, mostly located within the national forests. The IFS has a full time staff of about 50 professionalsand support staff and employs another 30–40 staff seasonally.Regional Afforestation ProjectsBeginning in 1990 in east Iceland, a total of five Regional Afforestation Projects (RAPs) have now beenset up covering the whole country. The RAPs manage the government grants scheme for afforestationon farms, each in its own region of the country. They are independent of the IFS in that they each havetheir own board of directors, consisting mostly of local people, and an independent budget. However,the IFS have one member on each board and professional ties with the IFS are close.Setting up the RAPs as independent projects turned out to be very positive politically, as they havebeen able to get increased funding for afforestation far above what the IFS would have been able to do.Five of the six RAPs have their offices located alongside IFS offices, resulting in close professionaland social contacts. The RAPs employ a total of 22 professional staff and provide grants and otherassistance to over 500 landowners participating in the projects. About 70% of all tree-planting in Icelandis carried out under the auspices of the RAPs.The Icelandic Forestry AssociationThe Icelandic Forestry Association (IFA) is the third player in Icelandic forestry. It is an umbrella organisationof over 50 local forestry societies and with a total membership of over 7000, by far the largest environmentalNGO in Iceland. The IFA publishes ‘Icelandic Forestry’, Iceland’s main forestry publication, and provideseducation and extension services. They also manage the Land Reclamation Forests programme accordingto a contract with the Ministry of Agriculture. This government funded programme provides seedlings forplanting on degraded and eroded land; roughly one million seedlings have been planted each year since1990, mostly by the local forestry societies in co-operation with municipalities.Besides the Land Reclamation Forests programme, local forestry societies are mostly concerned withmanaging older forests and woodlands for outdoor recreation; some grow Christmas trees, some havesmall tree nurseries and one owns a large commercial nursery.Forestry goalsIn general, Icelandic afforestation is planned and cultivated forests are managed with multiple-useobjectives (Skulason et al. 2003). These objectives can best be described based on the four principle

INTRODUCTORY COUNTRY REPORTS 17functions of forests: 1) ecological (ecosystem processes, habitats, wildlife), 2) economic (wood production,non-wood products), 3) protective (soil and water conservation, shelter, carbon sequestration) and 4)social (recreation, cultural and spiritual).In forest planning and management, greater emphasis is often placed on one or two of thesefunctions, with less emphasis on others but without ignoring them entirely. Within the RAPs, themajority of afforestation plans to date emphasize timber production as a primary goal within areaswhere timber production is possible, the main timber species being Siberian larch of north-westernRussian origin (‘Russian larch’, Larix sibirica, syn. Larix sukaczewii Dylis), Sitka spruce and lodgepolepine. In peripheral areas, emphasis is on protective functions and in some cases ecological restoration,where the main species is native birch, or on establishing shelter-belts. A few plans have been drawnup emphasizing wildlife value, improved grazing for livestock and outdoor recreation.A combination of protective and social functions is the aim of Land Reclamation Forests. Since theyare mostly close to population centres, these forests will become the most used outdoor recreation areas inIceland. In fact, two forest areas originally cultivated on degraded or eroded land in the 1950s and 1960s,one near Reykjavik and the other near Akureyri, annually receive over 400 000 visits, well over the entirepopulation of Iceland (Reykjavik Forestry Society, Eyjafjördur Forestry Society unpublished data).The management goal for the majority of national forests (IFS lands) is simply protection of nativeforest and woodland ecosystems. Outdoor recreation, timber production, ecosystem restoration andresearch are also main goals in some IFS lands, whereas erosion control and reclamation are the mainaims on land managed by the Soil Conservation Service.There are no forests managed only for carbon sequestration nor is there any plan for afforestationspecifically for that purpose. However, carbon sequestration can be one of the management objectivesof multiple-use cultivated forests.Use of conifer species in Icelandic forestryThree conifer species comprise 50–60% of annual planting for afforestation in Iceland and another sevenregularly planted conifer species comprise about 5%. Table 1 summarizes the conifer species used inIcelandic forestry and their relative importance.Table 1. Conifers in Icelandic forestrySpecies Imp. † PreferredprovenancesSeedsourcesLarix sukaczewii Dylis 1 Raivola, NW Russia and Urals Finnish and Swedish seedorchards and indoor orchardsPicea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. 1 Coastal Alaska Stands of known origin in Iceland,Alaska and NorwayPinus contorta Dougl. 1 Skagway, SW Yukon and NWBritish ColumbiaStands of known origin in Iceland,Alaska and YukonPicea engelmanni (Parry) Engelm. 2 Southern Rocky Mountains Imported seed used 1Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. 3 Southern Rocky Mountains Imported seed used 2Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss. 3 Alaska Imported seed used 2Picea abies (L.) Karst. 3 Norway Imported seed used 2Pinus cembra L. 3 Unknown Seed stands in Iceland and imports 1Pinus sylvestris L. 3 Unknown Imported seed used 2Pinus uncinata Mill. ex Mirb. 4 Unknown Imported seed used 3Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch 4 Alaska Imported seed used 3Larix decidua Mill. 4 Alps, high elevation Imported seed used 2Larix lyallii Parl. 4 Unknown Small indoor seed orchard in Iceland 2Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco 4 Unknown, high elevation Not currently planted in forestry 2Juniperus communis L. 4 Native Not currently planted in forestry 3†Importance with respect to conservation of genetic resources:‡Future:1Very important for Icelandic forestry1Likely to remain important or increase in importance2Of intermediate importance2Future importance uncertain3Of low importance3Likely to remain unimportant or decrease in importance4Not important for Icelandic forestryFuture ‡111

18 CONIFERS NETWORKConifer genetics strategyIt could be said that we have elements of a conifer genetic resources and breeding strategy in Iceland.This includes an accelerated breeding program for larch based on indoor seed production and withthe goal of developing a well-adapted landrace of Russian larch for Iceland as well as larch hybridsfor use in more maritime areas. Seed orchards and seed stands of Sitka spruce have been set up andresults from recent provenance trials and frost hardiness testing will yield material for selection to setup new seed orchards. Recently, we have started to collect seed of lodgepole pine in Iceland, with verypromising results. We are also conducting provenance trials on several species that provide informationon selecting seed sources and which can also be a source of breeding material in the future.Recently, discussion about forest genetic resources has increased among foresters in Iceland and itis likely that we will have a coherent strategy within 2–3 years, not only for conifers but for all foresttrees. This strategy is likely to include provisions for conservation of important genetic material, seedproduction and procurement and research in forest genetics and tree improvement. Target species arelikely to be the same ones that are most important today, namely Russian larch (and hybrids), Sitkaspruce and lodgepole pine.Research needs/capacity buildingA great deal of research is needed when starting forestry with multiple-use goals using exotic species.This not only includes work in the field of genetics, such as testing and selection, but also silviculturalresearch including both the establishment phase and later phases. Pests and diseases require researchand the ecology of a new species is always of both academic and practical interest. Finally, socioeconomicaspects must be considered. This research is at various stages, depending on the species beinginvestigated, but in general we have emphasized genetics and establishment phase silviculture. Pestsand diseases have been fairly well-researched in recent years but ecological work with exotic species isjust starting. Research in the field of conservation of genetic resources is practically non-existent.The total number of people working in forest research in Iceland is less than 20 and most of themdo research alongside other duties. Even though the forestry industry in Iceland is small, the need forresearch is proportionately great, mainly because there is limited experience and practically no traditionto build on in what we are attempting to do. Therefore, we have sought knowledge and experienceabroad, especially from our Nordic neighbours.Nordic co-operation has been a mainstay in Icelandic forest research for some time and we havegained a great deal from it both in terms of knowledge and experience. Most Icelandic forest scientistsare also trained at universities in the Nordic countries. Co-operation on the European scale is morerecent but we have participated in the MCPFE (the ministerial conferences themselves, not the processthat goes on between them) as well as some European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific andTechnical Research (COST) groups. Even though such co-operation is without doubt beneficial toIcelandic forestry, it is also costly for a small organisation like the IFS. In many cases, we simply donot have the human resources to participate. This has been the case with the European Forest GeneticResources Programme (EUFORGEN) until now and is still the case with respect to participation inthe International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects onForests (IPC forests). Indeed, the emphasis within EUFORGEN and IPC forests until recently has beensuch that Iceland has not had much to gain from it or much to give.We are slowly but surely building up our capacity in forest research and we hope that in the nearfuture we can give as well as gain from both Nordic and European co-operation.ReferencesAnonymous. 2000. The UN-ECE/FAO Temperate and Boreal Forest Resource Assessment 2000— MainReport. United Nations, New York and Geneva.Blöndal S, Gunnarsson SB. 1999. Iceland’s forests: a one hundred year history [in Icelandic]. Reykjavik, Malog Mynd.Petursson JG. 1997. Forestry statistics [in Icelandic]. Icelandic Forestry 1997:161–163.Skulason B, Sigurgeirsson A, Halldorsson G. 2003. The profitability of timber production forestry [inIcelandic]. Freyr 99(6):24–29.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in forest trees

SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS 21Review on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) andpopulation genetic studies in conifer speciesFederico Sebastiani, 1 Santiago C. González-Martínez 2 and Giovanni G. Vendramin 31Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie, Genexpress, Università degli Studi di Firenze, via della Lastruccia 14,50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy2Departamento de Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, Centro de Investigación Forestal, INIA, Carretera de LaCoruña, km 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain3Istituto di Genetica Vegetale, CNR, via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), ItalyIntroductionForest biodiversity is one of the main components of terrestrial ecosystems. All together, tropical,temperate and boreal forests offer diverse habitats for plants, animals and micro-organisms, holdinga vast amount of the World’s terrestrial biodiversity. In view of growing concern about human impactand expected climatic changes, the maintenance of mechanisms generating diversity in forests hasbecome a central issue as it determines the stability of terrestrial ecosystems and the sustainability oftheir resource. It is generally accepted that maintaining or restoring biodiversity is a basic preconditionto give a long-term, evolutionary answer to these challenges.Diversity can be studied at different levels, but DNA sequence data represent the highest levelof genetic resolution (Järvinen et al. 2003). Genetic markers have been extensively used during thepast two to three decades to unravel patterns of distribution of genetic diversity and infer possiblemechanisms of plant evolution. The use of neutral molecular markers (e.g. simple sequence repeats,SSRs) has allowed historical patterns and the role of evolutionary forces—such as genetic drift—to bedepicted because these phenomena affect all markers in similar ways. However, they are not well suitedto providing information about variation in functional regions, where selection operates. Many clinesfor adaptive variation have been described in forest trees, e.g. bud set in Pinus sylvestris L. (García-Gilet al. 2003) and they are likely to be the products of variation in a limited set of genes and biosyntheticpathways that might not be detected by correlation with random neutral genetic markers. Thus, studiesof genetic diversity could benefit from targeting genes that exhibit relevant variation on adaptive traits,rather than targeting random markers (Brumfield et al. 2003; Morin et al. 2004; van Tienderen et al. 2002;see review for forest trees in Krutovsky and Neale 2001).Dissection of complex adaptive traits in plants, including forest trees, was traditionally undertakenthrough genetic linkage analysis (quantitative trait loci [QTL] mapping) based on DNA polymorphismsin highly structured populations with known pedigrees. The study of the pattern of variation ofadaptive traits benefited from classical tree breeding experiments, which provided information aboutfamilies particularly adapted to specific environmental conditions. The opportunity to bring togetherpopulation genetic and functional genomic studies by identifying candidate genes controlling targettraits or underlying QTLs has been made possible by: (1) the development of molecular markers infunctional regions (genes, promoters, etc.), such as SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), (2) thediscovery of candidate genes via transcript profiling, and (3) an extraordinary effort in EST (expressedsequence tags) sequencing (e.g. more than 250 000 ESTs are already available in pine). Subsequently,polymorphisms that are in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) with phenotypic traits (i.e. phenotype–genotype genetic associations) have been revealed by using natural populations; this has been termed‘association mapping’, e.g. see Plomion et al. (2003) and Neale and Savolainen (2004). Associationmapping was first developed in humans, where classical approaches are not feasible, and was recentlyextended to plants.Natural populations can be used to map traits by means of association analysis. Associationmapping takes advantage of LD created after many generations of recombination and random mating.In these conditions, only tightly linked loci will show statistical association, allowing finer mappingthan standard QTL approaches. To avoid false association, it is extremely important to have detailedinformation on basic population parameters, such as the extent of LD, the level of genetic variationand the degree of population structure; and also how these parameters vary across the genome of thetarget species. In principle, association studies can identify variation down to the single-nucleotidesubstitutions that are responsible for variation in phenotypes (QTNs, quantitative trait nucleotides)(Ingvarsson 2005).

22 CONIFERS NETWORKSingle nucleotide polymorphismsSingle nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are Mendelian, co-dominant markers that can be analysedby any statistical method that is based on genotype frequencies. They are the result of single pointmutations that produce base-pair alternative sequences (alleles) in genomic DNA. SNPs are abundantand widespread in the genomes of the species studied so far; for example, they represent 90% of thegenetic variation detected in the human genome. Moreover, they can potentially be associated withadaptive traits. They are more frequent in non-coding regions than in coding ones but the meanfrequency varies greatly among species (Table 1). Usually, SNPs have only two alleles, but SNPs withthree allelic variants appear at low frequency (∼1–2% in Pinus taeda L.).The use of SNPs as molecular markers became possible only recently thanks to sequencing projects ofmodel species (e.g. Arabidopsis and Populus) that produced redundant databases highlighting the prevalenceof nucleotide polymorphism in the genomes. Moreover, rapid progress in sequencing technology has madeit easier to collect many sequences by automating the processes and reducing the costs.There are two main steps that need to be followed to use SNP markers: SNP discovery and SNPgenotyping.Table 1. Frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in different plant species, includingseveral forest treesPlant species SNPs/kb † Reference(s)Beta vulgaris L. 8 Schneider et al. 2001Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. 13 De Paoli and Morgante 2004Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco 26 Krutovsky and Neale 2005Pinus taeda L. 16 Brown et al. 2004Pinus pinaster Ait. 6–10 Le Dantec et al. 2004; Pot et al. 2005Pinus radiata D. Don 3 Pot et al. 2005Pinus halepensis Mill. 10 Sebastiani et al. unpublished dataPopulus tremula L. 60 Ingvarsson 2004Populus nigra L. 10 Zaina and Morgante 2004Glycine max Merr. 3 Zhu et al. 2003Zea mays L. 16 Ching et al. 2002†single nucleotide polymorphisms per kilo base pairSNP discoverySNP discovery is the process of finding the polymorphic sites in the genome of the species andpopulations of interest. There is not a single way to discover SNPs, and different approaches may beadopted depending on the availability of DNA sequence information. These include the re-sequencingof polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicons (fragments) with or without pre-screening, electronicSNP (eSNP) discovery in shotgun genomic libraries and eSNP discovery in EST libraries (Rafalski2002a). The strategies adopted to develop SNP markers differ between model and non-model species(a model species is one that is extensively studied to understand particular biological phenomena, withthe expectation that discoveries made will provide insight into the workings of other organisms, i.e. thenon-model species).For model species, redundant overlapping databases exist, derived from sequencing, ESTs or largescaleSNP identification projects, making it possible to directly retrieve SNPs for the genes of interest.The increasing availability of software and databases is helping to facilitate SNP discovery enormouslythrough the implementation of automatic platforms (Le Dantec et al. 2004). Some of these are able toprovide transcript profiling information; for instance, the MAGIC Gene Discovery tool (Cordonnier-Pratt et al. 2004), available at http://fungen.org/genediscovery/.For non-model species, the most direct way to identify SNPs is to sequence a genome fragment frommultiple individuals. Candidate fragments for different genes can be obtained from model species orexpressional studies. In order to avoid ascertainment bias in allele frequencies, it is advisable to obtainhigh-quality sequence from a relatively large sample of individuals representing all the populationsin the study. To avoid sequencing errors and low-quality sequence due to the presence of repetitive

SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS 23regions, sequencing from both ends is also advisable. An inexpensive pre-screening, e.g. single strandconformation polymorphism (SSCP) of several samples can facilitate the choice of the most informativeloci and provide a preliminary estimate of the level of polymorphism. Unfortunately, these prescreeningmethods for SNP detection are often labour-intensive and not very sensitive. Pre-screeningmay be necessary for species like soybean, where the rate of SNP is low, but more rarely in forest treeswhich generally show high levels of standing nucleotide variation.The high level of conservation of gene sequences across species facilitates the design of primersto amplify orthologous gene regions in related species, starting from information available in modelspecies. PCR primers (a nucleic acid strand, or a related molecule that serves as a starting point for DNAreplication) are carefully designed to amplify the loci of interest, excluding any other member of thesame gene family. The PCR products are then sequenced in both directions and the resulting sequencesare aligned. Taking care to distinguish true polymorphisms from sequencing errors, polymorphismsare identified (Figure 1).For those non-model species where it is not possible to amplify orthologous genes, a randomsequence approach can be followed. This approach involves sequencing anonymous nuclear lociSNP positionGenePCR amplicon (400 – 850 bp)DirectsequencingFigure 1. DNA sequence analysis for SNP discovery. After amplification from different individuals, PCR fragments(i.e. amplicons) are purified and sequenced from both ends. Sequences are then aligned and SNPs (andinsertions/deletions) are identified. In this example, the SNP (G/T) is indicated in black.

24 CONIFERS NETWORKderived from a genomic or cDNA (cytoplasmic DNA) library or produced through amplified fragmentlength polymorphisms (AFLPs) and in designing PCR primers that can be used to screen multipleindividuals and find polymorphic SNP loci.SNP genotypingMultiple technologies are available for SNP genotyping. The choice of the method depends on thestudy to be performed and other criteria, such as cost, throughput level and equipment available.PCR-RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) and PCR-SSCP (single strand conformationpolymorphism) are the traditional techniques used to gather information at the sequence level. Themain advantage of these methods is that they only require standard laboratory equipment, and cantherefore be used in every laboratory; the main drawback is that they are not well suited to highthroughput genotyping.Another category of methods relies on the direct acquisition of sequence information. One wayis the traditional sequencing approach based on the standard method with dideoxy fluorescent labelnucleotides. This method is useful for SNP discovery but can be expensive for genotyping, with theexception of those cases where SNP frequency is high, and therefore sequencing allows the genotypingof multiple loci at the same time. An alternative, recent method to genotype multiple loci at the sametime is eco-tilling, a low-cost technique for rapid identification of haplotypes (Comai et al. 2004).Fluorescent-based sequencing has an increasing role in SNP analysis because of the developmentand availability of programs that automate the base calling, assembly and finishing of sequences; suchas: Phred, Phrap and Consed (see www.phrap.org/phredphrapconsed.html). Polyphred is anotherprogram that operates together with Phred, Phrap and Consed to identify SNPs as high-quality basemismatches in assembled sequences. Importantly, Polyphred can also detect SNPs as heterozygotes(two bases at a single position in the sequence) in diploid sequences amplified by PCR (Brumfield etal. 2003).Newer methods for allelic discrimination are based on primer extension. There are numerousvariations in the primer extension approach that are based on the ability of DNA polymerase toincorporate specific deoxyribonucleosides complementary to the sequence of the template DNA.However, all these methods can be grouped into two categories. The first one is a mini-sequencingtechnology, a single base extension (SBE) where the identity of the polymorphic base in the targetDNA is determined. In this case, only dideoxy nucleotides are used, causing the addition of only thecomplementary nucleotide. The second one, called allele specific primer extension (ASPE), is an allelespecificPCR approach where the DNA polymerase is used with deoxy nucleotides to amplify the targetDNA; the PCR product will be obtained only if the primers are perfectly complementary to the targetDNA sequence.Several ingenious methods have been devised which differ in the way they monitor the reaction.Most of these approaches combine novel nucleic acid analogues and new methods of monitoringdifferences in physical properties between starting reagents and primer extension products. Alleles canbe sorted and detected using various methods; including gel electrophoresis, macro and microarraysand fluorescence polarization. These genotyping methods are suited to automatic machines, such asautomatic sequencers, and can ensure medium to high throughput results. Finally, several commercialhigh-throughput genotyping platforms that can handle as many as 100 000 assays simultaneouslyhave been developed (Hirschhorn and Daly 2005). A more comprehensive survey of SNP genotypingmethods can be found in Kwok (2001).Functional vs neutral genetic markersThe main difference between a random marker and a functional marker is the distance of the mutationcausing the phenotypic effect in the trait of interest (van Tienderen et al. 2002). During the last 20 years,the majority of studies aiming to monitor the level and distribution of genetic diversity in naturalpopulations were based on the use of neutral markers. Indeed, molecular markers, such as allozymesor microsatellites, provided useful information on historical demography and population evolution.However, neutral markers do not generally reflect selective processes or are related to fitness which isan indicator of the level of adaptive variation within populations and therefore of the adaptive potentialof populations to changing environments (Morin et al. 2004).SNPs are particularly useful markers for finding genes under selection and studying the dynamicsof these genes in natural populations. SNPs are robust markers, easy to score and widespread in the

SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS 25genome. The availability of high-density markers, such as SNPs, opens the possibility of studying,by association genetics, the molecular basis of complex quantitative traits in natural populations ofplants, taking advantage of the fact that genetic markers in close proximity to mutant genes maybe in LD to them. Association studies can be carried out using a genome-wide approach (withoutassuming one region of the genome to be more likely to harbour the associated genetic factorthan another) or with a candidate gene approach (using biological knowledge to prioritize somefragments of the genome for the study). The magnitude and distribution of LD determine the choiceof association mapping methodology. When LD declines slowly with increasing distance from themutation or gene responsible of the phenotype even a low density of markers is sufficient to identifyassociated markers. When LD declines rapidly around the causative gene, a much greater density ofmarkers is required to identify an associated marker (Rafalski 2002b). Extension and distribution ofLD depend on many factors including population history (e.g. the presence of population bottlenecksor admixture) and the frequency of recombination. First studies on forest tree species revealed arapid decay in LD with distance. LD declines to negligible levels in 1x10 10 bp), the whole-genomescan approach is not feasible because of the too high number of SNPs required for adequate genomecoverage. On the other hand, very fine-scale mapping is possible if candidate gene approaches are usedand it might even be more advisable given the high variation found in tree genomes (Ingvarsson 2005;Neale and Savolainen 2004).A limiting step in forest trees is the choice of candidate genes. The choice of appropriate candidategenes can be facilitated by the availability of information about the biochemical and/or physiologicalpathways related to the trait of interest, i.e. by selecting genes involved in these pathways. Unfortunately,this information is rarely available for forest trees; therefore, sequences of genes identified in modelspecies, such as Arabidopsis thaliana, are used to design consensus or degenerated primers for theamplification of orthologous loci. The recent sequence of the complete poplar (Populus trichocarpaTorr. & Gray) genome (see http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Poptr1/Poptr1.home.html), which is four timeslarger than the Arabidopsis genome, opens exciting new possibilities to identify novel genes in foresttrees. Other methods to identify candidate genes exist, e.g. via transcript profiling through cDNA andoligonucleotide microarrays (for more details see Pflieger et al. 2001). However, it should be stressedthat substantial work is still needed to elucidate the functional role of genes and for the successfultransfer to non-model species.Both association mapping approaches (genome-scan and candidate genes) require abundant SNPs inthe studied species and populations. For this reason, preliminary analyses to assess nucleotide diversityin different species and association populations are required. First estimates indicate that nucleotidediversity varies considerably between plant species, from the highest (maize) to the lowest (the highlydomesticatedsoybean). Interestingly, some conifers, such as Cryptomeria japonica (L.f.) Don (Kado etal. 2003) and pines, e.g. Pinus sylvestris (Dvornik et al. 2002) and Pinus taeda (Brown et al. 2004) are notamongst the most variable species, contradicting expectations from the results obtained using neutralmarkers and their life history characteristics. First evidences showed that broadleaved genera, e.g.Populus (Ingvarsson 2005) and Quercus (Pot et al. 2005) might display higher nucleotide diversity thanpines or Cryptomeria. In fact, Populus displays about 2- to 10-fold higher nucleotide polymorphism thanPinus or Cryptomeria. However, other conifers, such as Pseudotsuga menziesii, showed levels of variation

26 CONIFERS NETWORKcomparable to broadleaved species (Krutovsky and Neale 2005). The high level of variation detectedin Populus and Quercus is in agreement with earlier studies based on allozyme analysis (Jelinski andCheliak 1992; Petit et al. 1995).Markers in specific functional regions of the genome need to be statistically analyzed in order to testfor the possibility that these regions might have experienced different selective pressures. In unstructuredpopulations, standard neutrality tests might be applied. When variation is structured in populations,an interesting and relatively easy approach is the comparison of genetic differentiation estimates, suchas Wright’s F-statistics among markers tagging a putative gene under selection and neutral markers, orexpected distributions computed using coalescence theory (see reviews in van Tienderen et al. (2002)and Luikart et al. (2003)). If population divergence (F st) is higher for the gene-targeted marker withrespect to divergence estimates obtained from random markers, this might indicate divergent selectionand local adaptation for the tagged gene (van Tienderen et al. 2002). Pot et al. (2005) found a higherdifferentiation among populations at the Pp1 (glycine-rich protein homologue) gene in Pinus pinasterAiton than in neutral markers. This result is consistent with diversifying selection acting at this locusin this species, which would have lead to the presence of different haplotypes; possibly adapted tolocal environmental conditions. On the other hand, the absence of differentiation observed for thegene CesA3 (cellulose synthase) compared with the significant level observed at neutral markers mayindicate balancing selection acting on this gene. Note that the presence of significant differentiationamong populations may produce spurious associations; therefore, care has to be taken when samplingfor association studies.Currently, SNPs are used primarily in association studies; but their ubiquity, tractable levels ofvariation and readiness in screening suggests that they will increasingly dominate as markers forelucidating the evolutionary history of populations. Unlike microsatellites, SNPs have relatively lowmutation rates. Multiple mutations at a single site are rare, thus facilitating high-throughput genotypingand minimizing recurrent substitutions at a single site (i.e. homoplasy) that would confound thepopulation history (Brumfield et al. 2003). Moreover, in conservation genetics, the availability ofmarkers able to detect functional variation could help to define functionally significant units (FSUs),based on differences in allelic frequencies for genes with important ecological functions (van Tienderenet al. 2002). FSUs might help managers in conservation biology to identify those conservation units thatcontain adaptive genetic variation that is worthwhile protecting.ConclusionsIn conclusion, SNPs are becoming the marker of choice in population genetics, ecology and evolutionstudies because of ease of modelling, genotyping efficiency and genome-wide coverage. Forest tree species,which comprise undomesticated and unstructured large populations where linkage disequilibrium isexpected to be limited represent ideal organisms to efficiently apply a candidate-gene based approach todetect association between markers and ecologically and economically important traits.ReferencesBrown GR, Gill GP, Kuntz R, Langley CH, Neale DB. 2004. Nucleotide diversity and linkage disequilibriumin loblolly pine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 42:15255–15260.Brumfield RT, Beerli P, Nickerson DA, Edwards SV. 2003. The utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms ininference of population history. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:249–256.Ching A, Caldwell KS, Young M, Dolan M, Smith OSH, Tingey S, et al. 2002. SNP frequency, haplotypestructure and linkage disequilibrium in elite maize inbred lines. BMC Genetics 3:19.Comai L, Young K, Till BJ, Reynolds SH, Greene EA, Codomo CA et al. 2004. Efficient discovery of DNApolymorphisms in natural populations by ecotilling. The Plant Journal 37:778–786.Cordonnier-Pratt MM, Liang C, Wang H, Kolychev DS, Sun F, Freeman R, Sullivan R, Pratt LH. 2004. MAGICDatabase and interfaces: an integrated package for gene discovery and expression. Comparative andFunctional Genomics 5:268–275.De Paoli E, Morgante M. 2004. Association study for timing of bud set in Picea abies. Atti del CongressoSocietà Italiana Genetica Agraria, Lecce, p.70.Dvornik V, Sirviö A, Mikkonen M, Savolainen O. 2002. Low nucleotide diversity at the palI locus in thewidely distributed Pinus sylvestris. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:179-188.García-Gil MR, Mikkonen M, Savolainen O. 2003. Nucleotide diversity at two phytochrome loci along alatitudinal cline in Pinus sylvestris. Molecular Ecology 12:1195–1206.

SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS 27Hirschhorn JN, Daly MJ. 2005. Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits.Nature Reviews Genetics 6:95–108.Ingvarsson PK. 2005. Nucleotide polymorphism and linkage disequilibrium within and among naturalpopulations of European Aspen (Populus tremula L., Salicaceae). Genetics 169:945–953.Järvinen P, Lemmetyinen J, Savolainen O, Sopanen T. 2003. DNA sequence variation in BpMADS2 gene intwo populations of Betula pendula. Molecular Ecology 12:369–384.Jelinski DE, Cheliak WM. 1992. Genetic diversity and spatial subdivision of Populus tremuloides (Salicaceae)in a heterogeneous landscape. American Journal of Botany 79:728–736.Kado T, Yoshimaru H, Tsumura Y, Tachida H. 2003. DNA variation in a conifer, Cryptomeria japonica(Cupressaceae sensu lato). Genetics 164:1547–1559.Krutovsky KV, Neale DB. 2001. Forest genomics for conserving adaptive genetic diversity. Forest GeneticResources Working Papers FGR/3. FAO, Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6884E/X6884E00.HTM. Date accessed: 03 October 2006.Krutovsky KV, Neale DB. 2005. Nucleotide diversity and linkage disequilibrium in cold hardiness and woodquality related candidate genes in Douglas-fir. Genetics 171:2029–2041.Kwok PY. 2001. Methods for genotyping single nucleotide polymorphism. Annual Review Genomics HumanGenetics 2:235–258.Le Dantec L, Chagné D, Pot D, Cantin O, Garnier-Géré P, Bedon F, et al. 2004. Automated SNP detectionin expressed sequence tags: statistical considerations and application to maritime pine sequences. PlantMolecular Biology 54:461–470.Lin JZ, Morrell PL, Clegg MT. 2002. The influence of linkage and inbreeding on patterns of nucleotidesequence diversity at duplicate alcohol deydrogenase loci in wild barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp.spontaneum). Genetics 162:2007–2015.Luikart G, England P, Tallmon D, Jordan S, Taberlet P. 2003. The power and promise of population genomics:From genotyping to genome typing. Nature Reviews Genetics 4:981–994.Morin PA, Luikart G, Wayne RK and the SNP workshop group. 2004. SNPs in ecology, evolution andconservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:208–2169.Neale D, Savolainen O. 2004. Association genetics of complex traits in conifers. Trends in Plant Science9:325–330.Nordborg M, Tavaré S. 2002. Linkage disequilibrium: what history has to tell us. Trends in Genetics 18:83–90.Petit RJ, Bahrman N, Baradat P. 1995. Comparison of genetic differentiation in maritime pine (Pinus pinasterAit.) estimated using isozyme, total protein and terpenic loci. Heredity 75:382–389.Pflieger S, Lefebvre V, Causse M. 2001. The candidate gene approach in plant genetics: a review. MolecularBreeding 7:275–291.Plomion C, Cooke J, Richardson T, MacKay J, Tuskan G. 2003. Report on the forest trees workshop at theplant and animal genome conference. Comparative and Functional Genomics 4:229–238.Pot D, McMillan L, Echt C, Le Provost G, Garnier-Géré P, Sheree C, et al. 2005. Nucleotide variation in genesinvolved in wood formation in two pine species. New Phytologist 167:101–112.Rafalski AJ. 2002a. Applications of single nucleotide polymorphisms in crop genetics. Current Opinion inPlant Biology 5:94–100.Rafalski AJ. 2002b. Novel genetic mapping tools in plants: SNPs and LD-based approaches. Plant Science162:329–333.Remington DL, Thornsberry JM, Matsuoka Y, Wilson LM, Whitt SR, Doebley J, et al. 2001. Structure of linkagedisequilibrium and phenotypic associations in the maize genome. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the USA 98:11479–11484.Schneider K, Weisshaar B, Borchardt DC, Salamini F. 2001. SNP frequency and allelic haplotype structure ofBeta vulgaris expressed genes. Molecular Breeding 8:63–74.van Tienderen PH, de Haan AA, van der Linden CG, Vosman B. 2002. Biodiversity assessment using markersfor ecologically important traits. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:577–582.Zaina G, Morgante M. 2004. Nucleotide diversity and linkage disequilibrium in Populus nigra. Atti delCongresso Società Italiana Genetica Agraria, Lecce, p.67.Zhu YL, Song QJ, Hyten DL, Van Tassel CP, Matukumalli LK, Grimm DR, et al. 2003. Single-nucleotidepolymorphisms in soybean. Genetics 163:1123–1134.

Genetic resources of exotic conifers

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 31The introduction, evaluation and use of non-native coniferspecies in BritainC.J.A. SamuelTree Improvement Branch, Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, EH25 9SY, UK;Email: sam. orestry.gsi.gov.ukIntroductionAs part of an island grouping separated from mainland Europe, the United Kingdom (UK) has onlythree conifer species: Pinus sylvestris L., Taxus baccata L. and Juniperus communis L. These speciesarrived between the end of the last period of glaciation and the disappearance of the land-bridgewith mainland Europe. Only Pinus sylvestris is of economic importance and it remains naturallydistributed in small populations in the Scottish Highlands. The development of techniques ofartificial regeneration of managed forests therefore brought an interest in non-native conifer speciesto exploit the wide range of site conditions present and exotic species now account for the major partof commercial coniferous forestry.The introduction of exotic conifers to BritainA summary of the introduction of exotic conifers is given in Table 1. In the table the origin, date ofintroduction, person who introduced the species, where known, and date when the species was firstused as a commercial plantation species is given. More details are given by Macdonald et al. (1957).Among the European species, Picea abies (L.) Karst., which was present before the last glaciation, wasprobably introduced as early as the 16th century and was grown commercially from that time. Larixdecidua P. Mill. was introduced in the late 17th century and a number of individual specimens datingfrom the early 18th century are still standing. It was used as a plantation species from around 1750.Pinus nigra Arnold was introduced in 1759 but interest in its cultivation was slower to develop. Theother European species were investigated but they have never been the subject of serious commercialexploitation, remaining important only for ornamental use.Serious exploration of the Pacific north-west of North America began in the late 18th and early 19thcenturies and established a major tradition of plant collection from around 1830. The better knowncollectors include Archibald Menzies, David Douglas, William Lobb, John Matthew, John Jeffrey andWilliam Murray. In Table 1 it can be seen that Douglas can be credited with the introduction of seven ofthe species listed, two of which, Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco,play a major part on commercial soft-wood production in the UK. Other collectors, notably John Veitch,Charles Maries, Ernest Wilson and George Forrest, brought further species from China and Japan in thelate 19th and early 20th centuries.Past and current importance of exotic conifersThere have been major changes and trends in the use of conifer species during the last 100 years inwhich commercial forestry became established and expanded in the UK. At the beginning of thisperiod, Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies were the major plantation species with lower concentration onPseudotsuga menziesii and Larix spp. P. sylvestris saw a gradual decline but retains an important positionon poorer, drier sites. In contrast, Picea sitchensis displaced Picea abies and rose to be the predominantplantation species during the 40 years following World War II. Other species, such as Pinus contortaDougl. ex Loud., were found to have potential on more demanding sites beyond those suitable for Piceasitchensis and became the subject of considerable interest in the period 1960–1980. However, problemswith poor growth form and instability in wind and snow, together with policy changes with respect toland use, caused this interest to fall rapidly in later years. Since the early 1990s, planting of conifers ingeneral has given way to a major interest in the use of native broadleaved species with less commercialobjectives.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 35Breeding programmes of exotic conifers in BritainSteve J. LeeForest Research, Forestry Commission, Roslin, EH25 9SY, Scotland, UK; Email: steve.forestry.gsi.gov.ukIntroductionBritain has had a large afforestation programme for almost 100 years but contains only one nativeconifer species, Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Consequently, there has been a high degree of interest inexotic conifers from the Pacific Northwest, Europe, and the Far East.First generation breeding programmes have now been completed for Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis(Bong) Carr.), hybrid larch (Larix x eurolepsis Henry) and Corsican pine (Pinus nigra subsp. laricio (Poir.)Maire). A breeding programme for Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) was started inthe 1960s, then abandoned and then started again with injection of money from the European Union(EU) in the early 1990s. A large lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Franco (Mirb)) programme involvingthe creation of inter-provenance hybrids between selected individuals from various provenances wasabandoned in the mid-1980s due to perceived lack of demand for improved lodgepole pine plantingstock. Today, it is anticipated that breeding effort into a second generation and perhaps beyond will becentred on Sitka spruce which remains commercially the most important conifer in Britain.Methods and discussionThe objective in all cases is to breed timber suitable for use in the construction industry, therebyreplacing, yet meeting the same strength standards, as slower grown imported material.Rare phenotypes, known as plus trees, which are well above average performance for growth rate andstem form have been selected by breeders since the early 1960s. Initially, this selection was at a very highintensity of approximately 1 tree in 5000 (Fletcher and Faulkner 1972) but was relaxed following earlyprogeny test results in the mid-1970s (Samuel and Johnstone 1979) which suggested such a high level wasunnecessary. Over 3000 Sitka spruce plus trees were selected, while closer to 1000 plus trees were selectedfor most of the other species. However, the method of selecting parent trees to be pollinated with specificpollen from a contrasting provenance led to the selection of nearly 4000 lodgepole pine plus trees.Sitka spruceAll selected phenotypes had to be thoroughly progeny tested to determine their breeding value.Reselection of parents was carried out based on the field performance of progeny for growth rate, stemform and branching, and wood density.Tested clonal seed orchards involving the best parents were established at various locations but maturationwas slow and flowering was infrequent. In a bid to increase the rate at which improved material reached theforest, a system of artificial pollination of female flowers from up to 20 different tested clones with a mixtureof pollen from 20 other tested clones was developed. The resulting seed were harvested and mixed togetherto form ‘family mixtures’. Seed from family mixtures are raised as stock plants from which up to 1000 cuttingsper plant can be harvested before age-related phase-change leads to poor rooting success.The vegetative propagation programme proved successful and popular with the industry. Around10 million rooted cuttings are now produced annually (6 million in the state sector and 4 million in theprivate sector). Predicted gains are presented in Table 1.A Sitka spruce breeding population now exists consisting of 240 reselected, tested parent trees. Aseries of full-sibling crosses were created in a random manner in the mid-1980s and these have nowbeen assessed for the usual suite of traits. Some reselection of full-sib families has now taken place suchthat seed from full-sib families are being released to the market place (Lee 2001).Hybrid larchThe objective with larch has been to create a hybrid between the European (Larix decidua Miller)and Japanese larch (L. kaempferi (Lambert) Carr.). The system employed was to select good quality

36 CONIFERS NETWORKTable 1. Predicted gains from propagation programmes for Sitka spruce and hybrid larch in Britain †Seed source Species Diameter Stem form Wood densitySeed orchards Sitka spruce 15–20% 2–10% -9%Hybrid larch 8% – –Family mixtures Sitka spruce 15–22% 5–15% 0%Hybrid larch 12–20% 10–20% –– = no data available†For updated statistics, see:http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-6JUL3Zhttp://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-6JVBZ5phenotypes of each species and control crosses in a clone-bank with a polymix of the contrastingspecies. Parents were reselected based on their ability to produce good hybrid trees when crossed withthe other species in general. Progress has been slow.Production of hybrid seed in clonal seed orchards has proved problematic due to little overlap offlowering time between the two species. A more promising line of approach seems to be controlledpollination and vegetative propagation but this has proved more expensive than the Sitka spruceprogramme due to poorer rooting success and fewer cuttings per donor plant (Lee 2003). Predictedgains are presented in Table 1.Lodgepole pineThis proved an expensive species to work with due to the strategy of creating inter-provenance hybrids.No perfect provenance combinations were found. In the meantime the numbers of lodgepole pineplanted dropped dramatically in favour of pure Sitka spruce plantations or mixtures of Sitka spruceand Alaskan provenance of lodgepole pine to act as a self-thinning nurse species. Further work ceasedfollowing a review in the late 1980s.Corsican pine and Douglas-firBoth these species are considered secondary, although each can be locally very important in part ofeastern England and north-east Scotland and the area of England close to the border with Wales andmilder parts of Scotland. A breeding population of Corsican pine has now been composed and a fewtested clonal seed orchards exist (Lee 2004). Progeny testing of Douglas-fir continues. No Douglas-firseed orchards are productive in UK. The short-term plan is to source suitable seed from other Douglasfirimprovement programmes around the world, including the USA and France.Future plansMoney is being invested in the development of clonal forestry—in the first instance for Sitka spruce,although there is the possibility that other species may follow. Clonal forestry would offer greater gainsdue to improved uniformity, especially if clones could be selected combining good wood propertieswith fine stem form and good growth rate.Somatic embryogenesis is being developed as a tool to mass-produce selected clones. The vision isthat field testing of clones would take place and tissue from the clones under test would be stored inliquid nitrogen.A programme of marker-aided selection is also being developed for Sitka spruce. The objective hereis to develop markers for the economic traits under selection. Removal of undesirable genotypes in thelaboratory will improve overall selection intensity prior to clonal testing in the field.ConclusionsGreat Britain has had a progressive programme of breeding exotic conifers for over 40 years. Theobjective has been to improve the suitability of species for use in the construction industry. The main

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 37commercial species remains Sitka spruce. The breeding programme for this species is the most advancedand includes plans for marker-aided selection and clonal forestry employing somatic embryogenesis.The work of breeding all conifer species in Britain is described more fully in Samuel et al. (2000).ReferencesFletcher AM, Faulkner R. 1972. A plan for the improvement of Sitka spruce by selection and breeding.Forestry Commission Research and Development Paper 85, HMSO, LondonLee SJ. 2001. Selection of parents for the Sitka spruce breeding population in Britain and the strategy for thenext breeding cycle. Forestry 72(2):129–143.Lee SJ. 2003. Breeding hybrid Larch in Britain. Forestry Commission Information Note 52, EdinburghScotland.Lee SJ. 2004. Selection of parents for the Corsican pine breeding population in Britain. Forestry 77(3):205–212.Samuel CJA, Johnstone RCB. 1979. A study of population variation and inheritance in Sitka spruce. I. Resultsof glasshouse, nursery and early forest progeny tests. Silvae Genetica 28(1):26–32.Samuel CJA, John A, Lee SJ [online]. 2000. Fifty years of tree breeding in Britain. Forest Research, Scotland,UK. Available at: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/treeimprovement. Date accessed: 25 October 2006.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 39Developing a policy for long-term archiving of coniferbreeding materialRob SykesForest Research, Forestry Commission, Roslin, EH25 9SY, Scotland, United Kingdom;Email: rob. orestry.gsi.gov.ukIntroductionIn order to allow future access to selected conifer breeding material—which may be required for futurebreeding programmes, pollination programmes and supply of scion material—it is vital that genotypesare archived in an organised and sustainable manner. Developing a policy for long-term archiving ofthis breeding material is therefore an essential part of this process. This paper gives a brief summary ofhow a policy has been developed within Forest Research in Great Britain.Early policyConifer tree breeding in Britain started in 1948, and in the early 1950s attention was focussed ongrafting techniques and the clonal archiving of conifer species. This work resulted in all selections beingroutinely archived as grafted ramets within clone banks up until the late 1970s. More than 30 clonebanks have been established, varying considerably in size and duration, covering around 15 coniferspecies. Not all clones of a single species are necessarily archived at any one clone bank site; someare mixed between two to four locations. Some species had only one site established while others hadclones repeated over several locations.•••••The early clonal archiving system was established with the following practical aims:All clones to be planted in sequential number order on siteSix grafted ramets to be established per clonePlant spacing at eight metres between rows and two metres within rowsAn alignment of rows on an east–west axisLocation of clone banks in three geographic areas conducive to flowering (south England, centralScotland and north-east Scotland).During the 1980s many clone bank specimens grew to inaccessible heights, making pollination workdifficult or impossible. A system of top pruning was developed in order to maintain the height of clonesat around two to three metres, allowing pollination work to continue from the ground or low ladders.This led to clone banks requiring a heavy maintenance programme of top pruning, grass cutting andlabelling.Review of policyDue to the heavy maintenance programme that clone bank sites required, a review of our archiving policywas held in the late 1990s (Cahalan and Tobutt 1998). The recommendations of this review were:• Only the six major conifer species in British forestry should be considered for archiving:• Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr),• Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.),• Corsican pine (Pinus nigra subsp. laricio (Poir.) Maire),• European, Japanese and Dunkeld hybrid larch (Larix decidua Mill., L. kaempferi (Lamb.) Carr. andL. x eurolepis Henry),• Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco),• Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas).••Archiving material should be planted at two geographically separate sites for each species.For each species, both breeding population clones (i.e. clones used within the current breedingprogramme) and conservation/archive clones (clones that were felt to be of some possible future usefor either species conservation or as yet undefined breeding programmes) would be established.

40 CONIFERS NETWORK• Clone banks would be established with fewer ramets per clone—two to four ramets per site forbreeding clones and two ramets per site for conservation/archive clones.• A low management regime would be applied to clone banks; the objective would be to managea reserve for scion material, not for seed production. Therefore, top pruning would no longer beapplied as a standard management regime.• Re-grafting of clones and re-establishment of clone banks would be carried out on a 25–30 year basis.Table 1 shows the numbers of clones currently held in clone banks compared with the proposednumbers under the new system following the archive policy review for the six main conifer speciesused in British forestry.Table 1. Current number of clone bank sites and clones for the six main conifer species inBritish forestry compared with future site and clone numbers following archive policy review †No. sitesNo. clonesSpecies Current Future Current FutureSitka spruce, Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. 5 2 1455 1000Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris L. 4 2 967 500Lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta Douglas 1 2 499 200Corsican pine, Pinus nigra subsp. laricio (Poir.) Maire 4 2 243 250Larch, Larix Mill. spp. 11 2 709 400Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco 3 2 248 150†Current total area of clone banks = 23.2 ha; future total area of clone banks = 11.8 haFuture seed productionPollination work in the future will not be based within our clone bank sites; instead it will be basedon potted grafts, up to eight years old, within high facility polyhouses (providing frost protection andautomated irrigation etc.) using an intensive flower induction regime. Using this system new clonesthat are required as part of any pollination programme must be planned for, as inevitably there will bea delay period as the new clone has to be established as a potted graft before any pollination work canbe carried out.ReferenceCahalan C, Tobutt K. 1998. Report to the Forestry Commission on plans for conifer clone bank management.Internal report. Forest Research, Roslin, Scotland, UK.Further readingSamuel CJA, John A, Lee SJ [online]. 2000. Fifty years of tree breeding in Britain. Forest Research, Scotland,UK. Available at: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/treeimprovement. Date accessed: 25 October 2006.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 41Introduced forest tree species: some genetic andecological consequencesBruno FadyINRA, URFM, Domaine St. Paul, Site Agroparc, F-84914 Avignon, France; Email:avignon.inra.frIntroductionIntroduction of exotic resources is (and even more significantly, was) a wide-spread practice in almostevery European country with a forestry tradition. It is especially so for the host country of this meeting,Great Britain, where introduced conifers play a predominant role in forestry (e.g. Samuel et al. thisvolume). The examples I will use in this paper, however, will be mostly drawn from French ecosystemsand forests. They should be considered as models or case studies of a general European situation. I willvery often use data from studies performed on Cedrus atlantica Carr. at INRA Avignon, France.An introduced resource can be defined as a resource voluntarily or involuntarily brought by humansinto an area where it was not present before. The introduction of forest trees is often the result of avoluntary germplasm (seed, cutting, graft) transfer. A forest resource can be considered introduced atseveral taxonomic levels—the most common levels considered are species and subspecies. The speciesPseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco was introduced to Europe from North America, the subspeciesPinus nigra subsp. laricio var. corsicana Hyl. was introduced to continental Europe from Corsica. Thenotion can be extended to further taxonomic levels. Plant material that comes from very differentregions of provenance, new improved varieties or any plant material that presents identifiable geneticdifferences with the native populations of the same species, would qualify as introduced resources.The concept of introduction should also be approached with space and time perspectives. Withina single country or region, resources can be both introduced and native. In France for example, Larixdecidua Mill. is native in many mountain ecosystems, although its lowland forests are made of progenyintroduced from the Sudeten and Poland. Pinus pinaster Aiton is introduced in the inland part of theLandes region (19th century plantations), and native to parts of its coastal dunes. As for time, the furtherwe are from the actual introduction, the more we tend to consider a resource as native. At the scale ofthe last 15 000 years, almost no forest tree is native to its current distribution area in Europe. At humanscale, it seems that a few human generations are sufficient to accept an exotic species as part of the naturallandscape, and consider it as native. The acceptance threshold might be when we have no more directcontact with, or no immediate memory of, the people who were responsible for the introduction. Thereis evidence that Cupressus sempervirens L. and Pinus pinea L. were introduced by the Romans in southwesternMediterranean Europe (Thirgood 1981), where they are definitely considered as native today.Cedrus atlantica was introduced into southern France during the second half of the 19th century. It is nowoften considered as a natural part of the landscape by city people who enjoy walks under its now closedcanopyforests, although at the same time it is considered as invasive by local natural land managers.Thus, most conifer resources should be considered as introduced exotics in Europe. Seeds of forestsspecies, such as Larix decidua, Picea abies Karst., Pinus nigra Arn., P. sylvestris L. and P. uncinata Ramondex DC are known to have been moved over thousands of kilometres in huge quantities across the wholeof Europe at the end of the 19th century and during the 20th century (see Bartoli and Demesure-Musch(2003) for France). In the following discussion, I will mostly consider introduced forest trees at speciesand subspecies levels. I will focus on the most recent and massive introductions that occurred duringthe 19th and 20th centuries.Importance of introduced conifers in Europe and FranceIn Europe, only 27% of forests are considered undisturbed by humans and more than 30% of forests areregenerated by planting or seeding. Conifer forests represent 42% of all forests, and mixed forests 40%(MCPFE 2003). The potential for introducing conifers is thus quite high.In France, introduced conifer species cover more than a third of all conifer forest surface (estimatedto be 5 million ha, including pure stands, mixed conifer dominated stands and conifer dominatedwoodlands) and account for half the annual wood production (Table 1). Introduced conifers are thuseconomically valuable as they are significantly more productive than native conifers.

42 CONIFERS NETWORKTable 1. Introduced conifer species in France: surface area covered and wood productionTaxonSpeciesstatusSurface areacovered (ha)Total production(m³ per year)Abies grandis Lindl. Exotic 26 000 522 800Abies nordmanniana (Steven) Spach Exotic 10 000 53 600Cedrus atlantica Carr. Exotic 20 000 34 800Larix japonica Carr. Exotic 13 000 176 000Picea sitkensis (Bong.) Carr. Exotic 50 000 726 000Pinus nigra subsp. nigricans Host. † Exotic 192 000 1 200 000Pinus nigra subsp. laricio Maire †Exotic 151 000 1 200 000(continental France)Pinus pinaster Aiton ‡ Native ~ 1 000 000 12 500 000Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco Exotic 340 000 4 250 000Totals (introduced conifers) 1 802 000 20 663 200Totals (all conifers) 5 000 000 42 000 000Source: Inventaire Forestier National (http://www.ifn.fr)†P. nigra subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco is the only native black pine in continental France‡Total (introduced and local provenance) Pinus pinaster forest surface area is 1 360 000 ha in FranceConsequences of introductions for native forest ecosystemsExotic forest resources have often been introduced for ecosystem rehabilitation when authorities incharge of forest management considered an area degraded, i.e. depleted of forests (for example afterfire or over-grazing). This was particularly the case in the 19th century in many countries whereintroductions were part of massive reforestation programs for watershed management and erosioncontrol after severe floods caused serious damage. The Mountain Rehabilitation Programme (Frenchacronym RTM) which started during the second half of the 19th century in France is a good example(Bartoli and Demesure-Musch 2003). Exotic tree species were used because they were often proven tobe better colonizers then autochthonous species in localized arboretum-like experiments. In France,Pinus nigra subsp. nigricans var. austriaca Loud. demonstrated better survival and growth than severalother tree species in eroded Alpine regions and after several waves of plantations, now covers extensiveareas (Table 1). These reforestation programmes continued well into the first half of the 20th century(Bartoli and Demesure-Musch 2003). Later reforestation programmes were based on more sophisticatedscientific background, such as national and international networks of common garden species andprovenance comparisons. More recently, exotic forest tree species have been used to reclaim forest areasdestroyed by intense industrial air pollution in Central Europe (Küssner and Mosandl 2002).Other cases of introduction might be linked to religious, agronomical value or a combination ofseveral interests. For example, Cupressus sempervirens can be found near churches in the Mediterraneanbasin or as wind-breaks in southern France. Pinus pinea was introduced in the Mediterranean basin forits edible seeds, its value for landscaping, timber and resin production (Prada et al. 1997) and used as alandmark for Protestants in France during periods of religious persecution.Two main types of impacts can be expected to occur because of the introduction of forest treespecies: ecological and genetic.Ecological consequences of exotic conifer introductionsEffects on soil and ecosystem functioningBecause introduced conifers are generally strong competitors for all environmental resources, theirplantation can lead to colonization and invasion (sensu Richardson et al. 2000) of native ecosystems.Exotic conifers that become invasive can seriously affect water flow in rivers, as demonstrated by exoticpines in South Africa (Richardson and Higgins 1998).Conifers are also notorious for decreasing litter and soil pH; for example, see Scholes and Nowicki(1998). This can alter carbon, nutrient and water cycles and soil biodiversity. Effects on biogeochemicalcycles can be especially strong for those species that are planted or colonize acidic or neutral soils,

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 43e.g. Pinus nigra (Guende 1978). On calcareous soils, however, introduced conifers have demonstrateda positive influence for ecosystem functioning. In mountains of the Provence region of France, forexample, recolonization by autochthonous species is facilitated by introduced pines (Guende 1978).These artificial ecosystems are now recolonized by native species and very strong natural recruitmentdynamics can be observed (Figure 1).Figure 1. Introduced species can facilitate recolonization by native species. Recolonization by Fagus sylvaticaunder a 19th century ecological restoration Pinus uncinata forest, Mont Ventoux, France. Photo: INRA Avignon.Effects on landscape and biodiversityExotic conifer colonization and invasion can lead to the fragmentation, decrease in size anddestruction of native ecosystems. In South Africa, invasive exotic pines have displaced nativespecies and invaded conservation areas (Richardson and Higgins 1998). Although examples of highimpact conifer invasions in Europe are as yet lacking, local cases may be found. For example, Cedrusatlantica is now rapidly invading native Quercus pubescens Willd. coppices in southern France whereit was planted in relatively low numbers in the late 19th century. In Mediterranean countries, one ofthe main outcomes of forest colonization (and invasion) is the shift from open lands to closed canopycommunities (e.g. Pinus halepensis Mill. or Abies alba Mill. (Figure 2) ‘invading’ abandoned cultivatedor pasture lands in the northern Mediterranean). In addition to homogenizing natural landscapestowards continuous forest cover (which has a definite negative psychological dimension), thisprocess reduces the very rich biodiversity open communities contain (Blondel and Aronson 1999).Conversely, introducing forest tree species in well-confined agricultural-like plantations can helpreduce the economic pressure on native forest ecosystems and conserve biodiversity. In NewZealand for example, 99% of harvested wood comes from exotic plantation forests (of which 91%is Pinus radiata D. Don) that represent 21% of all forest cover (data from New Zealand’s officialstatistics agency).

44 CONIFERS NETWORKFigure 2. Abies alba colonizing pasture lands using juniper bushes as facilitators in the Lure mountains, southernFrance.Introduction of exotic tree species can lead to pest invasions, as introduced pests can sometimes shifttheir habits. Seed insects are notorious for spreading from their introduced host to native populationsof a phylogenetically related potential host species. For example, Megastigmus rafni Hoffmeyer—a seedinsect found on several fir species in North America—was identified in France in 1990 on the nativeAbies alba (Roques and Skrzypczynska 2003).Finally, introductions can become health problems to humans. Millions of the Mediterranean cypress,Cupressus sempervirens were planted as wind breaks during the 19th century and for landscaping duringthe 20th century in Provence, France (Fady 2000). Cypress is a very efficient producer of very smallhighly allergenic pollen grains. After more than one century of contact, approximately 10% of humanpopulations in that region suffer from severe pollen allergy (Charpin 2000).Genetic consequences of exotic conifer introductionsTwo main mechanisms can impact the genetic structure of native populations confronted withintroduced resources: 1) fragmentation of native ecosystems and 2) gene flow and hybridization.Fragmentation of native ecosystemsForest resources introduced in high numbers and over large areas can lead to fragmentation in nativeecosystems. Fragmentation increases geographical subdivision and imposes barriers to gene flowamong populations. If native populations are still abundant and cover extensive areas, fragmentationwill lead to independent local adaptations and geographical structuring with possible beneficialconsequences in the long run. However, fragmentation may promote local extinctions either because ofstrong genetic drift followed by consanguineous mating or because of an increase in ecological pressurelinked to the edge effect. These problems may arise when native resources are already significantlydepleted. An example of this fragmentation process is well-illustrated in France by the spatial structureof native populations of Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco. Unlike in Spain, this black pineoccurs in the Cévennes and Pyrenees in small populations localized on poor dry soils (Quézel andMédail 2003), possibly the remnants of much larger forests cut down for timber and to make way foragriculture and grazing lands. These forests are surrounded and fragmented by very large Pinus nigrasubsp. nigricans and P. nigra subsp. laricio plantation forests.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 45Gene flow and hybridizationIntroduced resources may also exchange genes with native ecosystems. Within a species, all subspeciesintermix and varieties created from a breeding programme will be capable of fecundating wild-typepopulations. Further, reproductive isolation is often not achieved within wind-pollinated conifer genera.What we call species are often species complexes, within which extensive gene flow can occur underexperimental conditions or when geographic barriers are removed. For example, Euro-MediterraneanAbies Mill. species intermix (Kormutak 1985) and so do Mediterranean Cedrus Duham. species (Fady etal. 2003). Genes might thus be easily passed from introduced resources to native populations of the samespecies and genus. If introduced resources are very numerous and/or possess genes that can quicklyinvade a gene pool, impacts are potentially strong and deleterious for local native resources (Lefèvre2004). Genes with strong fitness will be passed along generations and create a new resource in replacementof the native one. The new resource could be better adapted than the replaced one if the genes passedalong concern general adaptation such as better plasticity, increased tolerance to pests, frosts, drought,etc. However, if only genes linked to a very specialized and/or local adaptation are passed along and ifthe genetic background of the introduced resource is not polymorphic (e.g. clones), the advantage couldbe short-lived and the replacement of the old resource deleterious for the ecosystem—a considerationwe should keep in mind in the era of genetically modified trees. Again, Pinus nigra subsp. salzmanniipopulations in France are a good example of this phenomenon. Not only do the very large P. nigra subsp.nigra and P. nigra subsp. laricio plantation forests reduce gene flow between its populations, but they canalso be significant gene ‘polluters’ for this native resource, as all black pine subspecies have been shownto readily hybridize experimentally (Vidakovic 1974). P. nigra subsp. salzmannii is thus doubly threatened:by fragmentation and by exotic gene flow. This taxon is one of the few conifers recognized as constitutinga high priority habitat under the EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).In conclusion, it is evident that introduction of forest resources can have a very significant impact onnative resources and must be carefully monitored. The greater the number of the introduced resourcethere is, the stronger the potential effect on native ecosystems will be.Changes expected in introduced resourcesAfter successfully passing through the different barriers of adaptation to their new environment,new introduced genetic resources can develop into stands of various sizes and shapes (e.g. Cupressussempervirens wind-breaks, Cedrus atlantica patchy naturalized populations and Pseudotsuga menziesiilarge planted populations). They can also occupy many kinds of ecosystems (low to high elevations,open to closed landscapes and water-deficient to humid bioclimates). They often derive from limitedsample sizes (e.g. Cedrus atlantica in France) but can also originate from large and/or multipleintroductions (e.g. Pseudotsuga menziesii in Europe). All these different situations will have differentconsequences for the genetic and ecological structure of the introduced resource.Changes expected in introduced resources from a genetic point of viewIntroduced resources are characterized by two main genetic features: 1) they are isolated from theiroriginal population and can no longer exchange genes with it and 2) they are in contact with newpopulations with which they can possibly exchange genes. This leads to one major genetic event for theintroduced resource: rapid evolution.Ecological conditions are often different in the new environment from that of the original environment.Population structure of the introduced population may also be quite different from that of the forest(s)where it originates. The introduced population can either come from a very limited number of originalseed trees or from seeds collected on trees belonging to several different populations. Mechanisms suchas genetic drift, genotypic recombination, selection and variation in the mating system, can be expectedto play a strong role in the genetic make-up of the new introduced resource. The impact of mutationsrequires longer time scales and much larger sample sizes to be really effective; therefore, they are notgenerally considered as a major factor affecting the genetic make-up of these populations. However,it should be noted that mutations may have a significant effect in extreme environments such as thosesuffering from industrial pollution.At this point, I will further describe the Mediterranean Cedrus species complex, which I have alreadyused as model to illustrate several points on the impact of introduction on native resources. This speciescomplex regroups three taxonomical units which colonize mountains at elevations between 800 and

46 CONIFERS NETWORK2000 m: Cedrus libani A. Rich. in the Middle East, C. brevifolia Henry in Cyprus and C. atlantica in NorthAfrica (Figure 3a). Although geographically distant, all Mediterranean Cedrus species are phylogeneticallyrelated (Figure 3b) and can exchange genes in plantation forests (Fady et al. 2003). C. atlantica from Algeriawas used for reforestation in southern France ca. 1860 where it is now covering over 20 000 ha (Table 1).Mediterranean Cedrus speciesC. atlanticaC. brevifoliaC. libaniFigure 3a. The phylogenetically related and geographically separated Mediterranean Cedrus species: a model tostudy genetic and ecological consequences on introduced species. Cedrus atlantica is shown in solid grey (andis not native to France), C. brevifolia is shown in black and C. libani in shaded grey.************* ************************************************** ********** * ** ************ ** ************** * ** * ************** * * ** * * ************** * * * ** *********** * * ********* * * * ** ***** * * ** ** *********** * * * ** **** * * ** ************* * * * ** *** * * ******************** * * **** ************ * * *************** * * * ****** * ***** ************** * * ** * ************ * ** *************************** ** *********** **************************************************** • Cedrus atlantica• Cedrus libani from Turkeyo Cedrus libani from Lebanon≠ Cedrus brevifoliaFigure 3b: Isozyme analysis of phylogenetic relationships among Mediterranean Cedrus taxa (Fady,unpublished data). Branch length in the dendrogram increases with genetic distance.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 47Genetic driftWhen introduced resources are small isolated populations, or populations with very few reproducingadults, genetic drift can be expected, leading to a modification of the genetic make-up of the population.One outcome to expect in case of demographic bottlenecks is the random loss of alleles and reproductionamong few trees, leading to the rise of a consanguineous, excessively homozygous first generationpopulation. In wind-pollinated tree species, studies indicate that such extreme bottlenecks only occurwhen populations are founded by one or very few seed trees, e.g. Sagnard (2001) for Abies alba and Ledigand Conkle (1983) for Pinus torreyana Parry ex Carr. (but see Ledig et al. (1999) for a counter examplewith P. maximartinezii Rzed.). Genetic drift is thus to be expected when arboreta or ex situ collections arethe starting point of a new forest stand, either through natural regeneration or plantation. It might alsobe expected when forest management removes significant numbers of first generation adult trees in anintroduced stand. Irregular flowering may increase the effect of drift by promoting reproduction among alimited subset of adult trees (Krouchi et al. 2003). Drift can be one of the reasons why introduced resourcesdiverge genetically very quickly from their parent populations. This was postulated for some of the Frenchcedar forests which have a reduced diversity compared to their parent populations in Algeria (Figure 4).diversity (He)0.40.30.2C. brev. C. libani C. atlanticaAlgeria FranceMoroccoPopulation admixtureincreased genetic diversity(Lubéron forest)0.1Bottleneck and driftdecreased genetic diversityFigure 4. Effect of population admixture versus drift on the genetic diversity of Cedrus atlantica populationsintroduced in France. Data source: Fallour (1998).Gene pool recombination (admixture)When introductions are made from larger gene pools, and using large sample sizes, genetic drift is lesslikely to happen. In these populations, disappearance of the neighbourhood structures of the originalpopulations might be expected. Unrelated trees will mate in the introduced stand, which will reduce thegenetic load linked to consanguinity. Introductions can also be made from several seed sources and/orover several introduction waves; in these circumstances some level of heterosis or admixture effect canbe expected. The Lubéron Cedrus atlantica forest in France provides an example of this phenomenon(Figure 4). Its increased diversity compared to its Algerian parent populations was explained as a resultof admixture (Lefèvre et al. 2004).The spatial structure of reproducing trees is of importance as it will affect their mating system (howa progeny is created) and, consequently, spatial genetic structure of the new generation. This effect willbe stronger when few reproducing adult trees are contributing to the next generation.Figure 5 illustrates this effect using a simulated tree population (Sagnard 2001). When the seed treesare randomly or regularly arranged, the seedlings they produce will show a significant spatial familystructure, i.e. related seedlings will tend to be closer to each other than expected by chance alone. Sucha structure will not be observed if seed trees are clumped together, as the stand will behave as one genepool and disperse its seeds randomly in all available favourable microsites.Such spatial genetic structures can be created when the introduction is made from a small gene pool,when strong selection or forest management has left very few trees, or when only a subset of the adulttrees participate in the mating. This latter reason may explain why neighbourhood structures are foundin native stands. Consequences are increased consanguineous mating and the development of a newgeneration of trees that might be less fit than their parents.

48 CONIFERS NETWORKClumped trees behave as a unique gene pool andno spatial structure is detected in the progeny1009080Seed tree structure ona 100m X 100 m area:regular70600,125040300,1201000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000,08Spatial structure (Moran index)0,060,040,020-0,0215304560759010510090807060504030201000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001009080randomclumped70-0,04605040-0,063020Distance in m00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Figure 5. Effect of seed tree structure on the seedlings they produce: a simulation using a single bi-allelic locus. Apositive Moran index indicates that genetically identical seedlings tend to be spatially grouped at certain distancesfrom seed trees.10Conversely, disruption of consanguineous mating can explain why the progeny of introducedresources perform better than that of their original parent populations. Following plantation in the1860s, very few introduced Cedrus atlantica trees survived. A reduction of consanguinity (mating amongunrelated first generation survivors) was found to be one of the likely hypotheses to explain why theprogeny of introduced stands perform significantly better than that of native North African populationsin common garden experiments in France (Figure 6).260240220Total height in cmFranceAlgeriaMorocco200180Diameter in mm16040 60 80 100 120Figure 6. Possible effect ofdisruption of consanguineousmating on the genetic diversityof introduced populations:French Cedrus atlanticapopulations grow better intheir new environment thantheir natural counterparts(Lefèvre, unpublished data).

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 49SelectionWhen new environmental conditions differ from the original ones, the introduced resource willundergo a selection process to adapt to these new conditions. If the new environment is too differentfrom the original one, the introduced trees will not survive. In France for example, 30 000 ha ofnorth-western Iberian P. pinaster provenances introduced decades earlier in the Landes regionwere destroyed by the 1984–1985 winter frosts (Riou-Nivert 2002). Arboreta and common gardenexperiments are designed precisely to avoid introducing ill-adapted genotypes, as they test suchadaptive traits as frost, water and pest resistance over decades and several environmental conditionsbefore a resource is introduced. Although expensive to install and maintain, they provide precioussafeguards over inappropriate introductions and constitute networks of high biodiversity value thatshould be under high priority conservation.When adaptation is possible, divergence from the original population will be achieved faster withincreasing selection pressure. A rapid adaptation and differentiation process, sometimes over a singlegeneration, has often been observed for introduced resources. For example, first generation progeny of Piceaabies introduced into Norway from Germany had a bud set date identical to the native local Norwegianresources, but significantly different from their original German parent populations (Skrøppa and Kohmann1997). Selection is also a likely hypothesis for the better growth performance of the progeny of introducedCedrus atlantica over that of the original populations from Algeria in southern France (Figure 6).HybridizationJust as introduced resources can hybridize with autochthonous and locally adapted species, nativespecies can hybridize and modify introduced resources. Reproductive barriers are often weakbetween taxonomic units within genera because of insufficient elapsed time since geographical orecological separation and because the mating system seems not to be the primary target of geneticchanges that occur through evolution (Avise 1994). When introduced resources constitute smallpopulations, the impact of hybridization can be strong. For example, hybridization has been shownto be very common when C. libani and C. atlantica are grown together—in some cases, up to 80%of the progeny was made of hybrid seeds (Fady et al. 2003). Acting in a similar, although moreradical way, as admixture, hybridization can significantly contribute to the rapid emergence of anew resource. For example, the hybrid progeny of C. atlantica demonstrated increased resistance toaphids in experimental conditions, a trait transmitted from C. libani (Fabre and Chalon 2005), and isof significant interest in southern France.Changes expected in introduced resources from an ecological point of viewOnce planted and successfully adapted to its new environment, the introduced resource can create, orbecome part of, a new ecological community. Its size and spatial structure will determine whether ornot it will be able to successfully reproduce and whether or not it will be colonized by members of thesurrounding communities. This in turn will determine its biodiversity value in the long run.Because they are usually introduced without their native co-adapted community of insect predatorsand parasites, exotic forest stands are particularly susceptible to insects, both the local ones that canmodify their feeding habits and their original ones when accidentally introduced. Strong insect damagemight occur several decades after introduction because resistance to insect predation will not be a primarydeterminant to adaptation at the time of introduction. It may take time for the local insect community toadapt to this newly available food supply, or for the original insect community to be introduced and adaptto its new environment. For example, in France, the introduced seed insect Megastigmus spermotrophusWachtl has only recently started to significantly decrease seed set in Douglas-fir although it may havebeen introduced as early as a century ago (Rappaport and Roques 1991). A counter example is providedby M. schimitscheki Novitzky which was only discovered in 1994 and is already significantly reducingseed set in cedar forests in southern France (Fabre et al. 2004). As an example of insect adaptation to newresources, the pine processionary caterpillar, Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff., has adapted to numerousintroduced conifers in France, and principally to the abundantly available Pinus nigra (Démolin 1969).Native ecosystems, where phylogenetically related insect species exist along with their insectpredator and parasite community, can buffer insect outbreaks in introduced forests (Roques 1983).For example, the native Megastigmus suspectus Borr. community found in Abies alba forests in Francecould provide such beneficial ecological buffer for the introduced Abies and Cedrus stands growingin their vicinity. When native ecosystems cannot be used for controlling insect outbreaks, collectingnatural parasites and predators from the natural distribution area can be efficient. For example, the

50 CONIFERS NETWORKhymenoptera Pauesia cedrobii Starý and Leclant, collected in North Africa, significantly reduced theimpact of the aphid Cedrobium laportei Remaudière on the French Cedrus atlantica forests (Fabre andRabasse 1987). This aphid had been introduced accidentally from North Africa.Introduced conifers remain ecologically vulnerable for a significant length of time after theirfirst introduction, as the construction of a fully functional forest ecosystem takes at least several treegenerations.Conservation and sustainable management of introduced conifersIntroduced resources evolve very quickly. Over just one generation, they can constitute a gene poolthat is quite different from their original seed stand(s) and after a few generations, they can constitutean ecologically sustainable resource. Sustainability could be considered to be effective once thesecond generation after foundation is in place and reproducing. Depending on the species, we canestimate the time frame for a sustainable conifer landrace to occur to be approximately 100–150 yearsafter initial introduction.Once ecologically and genetically sustainable, the introduced resource should be recognized(nationally and internationally) as a new gene pool—a landrace. An introduced resource will havedifferent conservation values for the species, depending on whether it is threatened or not.When the species is recognized as threatened in its native distribution area, the introduced resourcecan be used as potential seed source for ecosystem restoration. This will only be possible if interspecificgene flow does not occur, if the effective number of reproducing trees is high enough to avoid geneticdrift and if ecological conditions (both biotic and abiotic) are not too different from those of the naturalarea. Thus, arboretum-type, garden-like or admixture-origin plantations should be avoided for seedcollections, although large single-provenance ex situ conservation forests might be best suited.If the species is not threatened in its original area, the ecosystems containing the introduced resource(which has now become a landrace) can be considered as an addendum to the distribution range ofthe species. An in situ approach to resource management will be best suited, in close collaborationwith countries throughout the species’ range. Forests chosen as part of the in situ conservationnetwork should be naturally regenerated, or artificially regenerated using only local seed trees. Theirreproducing population size should be large enough—optimally several thousands (Lande 1995).Populations originating from large seed collections and occupying large areas, possibly over severalenvironmental conditions, could qualify for this in situ management. But forests originating from verylimited gene pools or admixtures, or where interspecific gene flow occurs, could also qualify. In thiscase, population origin matters less than whether or not they constitute an original and sustainablegenetic and ecological resource.ConclusionsIn conclusion, introducing exotic forest trees should be undertaken carefully. They should be testedover several environments and decades for adaptability in specifically designed common gardenexperiments. Gene flow to and from them should also be carefully monitored. Once introduced, forestmanagement that aims to limit genetic family structures (i.e. consanguinity) and to accelerate theconstitution of dynamic and functional ecosystems, should be adopted. Once introduction is successful,I suggest that introduced resources should definitively be included in gene conservation networks.Further, their genetic and ecological monitoring should provide helpful insights to understand theprocesses that govern evolution and speciation.ReferencesAvise JC. 1994. Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.Bartoli M, Demesure-Musch B. 2003. Plus d’un siècle d’intervention humaine dans les flux des gènes des Pinsà crochets et Sapins français. Revue Forestière Française 55(6):543–556.Blondel J, Aronson J. 1999. Biology and wildlife in the Mediterranean region. Oxford University Press,London.Charpin D. 2000. Epidemiology of cypress allergy. Allergie et Immunologie 31(3):83–85.Démolin G. 1969. Comportement des adultes de Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. Dispersion spatiale,importance écologique. Annals of Forest Science 26(1):81–102.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 51Fabre JP, Rabasse JM. 1987. Introduction dans le sud-est de la France d’un parasite: Pauesia cedrobii (Hym.:Aphidiidae) du puceron: Cedrobium laportei (Hom.: Lachnidae) du cèdre de l’atlas: Cedrus atlantica.Entomophaga 32(2):127–141.Fabre JP, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Chalon A, Boivin S, Roques A. 2004. Competition between exotic and nativeinsects for seed resources in trees of a Mediterranean forest ecosystem. Biological Invasions 6:11–22.Fabre JP, Chalon A. 2005. Multiplication possibilities of an ecotype of the aphid Cedrobium laportei (HomopteraLachnidae) on various provenances of the genus Cedrus. In: Lieutier F, Ghaioule D, editors. EntomologicalResearch in Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems, INRA éditions, Paris. pp. 123–138.Fady B. 2000. Place du cyprès dans la région Méditerranéen. Allergie et Immunologie 31(3):144–149.Fady B, Lefèvre F, Reynaud M, Vendramin GG, Bou Dagher-Kharrat M, Anzidei M et al. 2003. Gene flowamong different taxonomic units: evidence from nuclear and cytoplasmic markers in Cedrus plantationforests. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107(6):1132–1138.Fallour D. 1998. Evolution et structuration spatiale de la diversité du cèdre de l’Atlas sur le Petit Lubéron:approches écologique, dendroécologique et génétique. Thèse de doctorat en sciences, Université Aix-Marseille III.Guende G. 1978. Sensibilité des milieux et impacts des activités humaines sur le massif du Ventoux. La Terreet la Vie, suppl 1, 39–65.Kormutak A. 1985. Study on species hybridization within the genus Abies. Veda, Bratislava, Slovakia, 127 p.Krouchi F, Derridj A, Lefèvre F. 2003. Year and tree effect on reproductive organisation of Cedrus atlantica ina natural forest. Forest Ecology and Management 197:181–189.Küssner R, Mosandl R. 2002. Conceptions for converting the forests in the Ore Mts. into ecologicallymanaged ecosystems.: Lomsky B, Materna J, Pfanz H, editors. SO2-pollution and forest decline in theOre Mountains. Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, Jıloviste-Strnady, Czech Republic.pp. 326–342.Lande R. 1995. Mutation and conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4):782–791.Ledig FT, Conkle MT. 1983. Gene diversity and genetic structure in a narrow endemic, Torrey pine (Pinustorreyana Parry ex Carr.). Evolution 37(1):79–85.Ledig FT, Conkle MT, Bermejo-Velasquez B, Eguiluz-Piedra T, Hodgskiss PD, Johnson DR et al. 1999.Evidence for an extreme bottleneck in a rare Mexican pinyon: genetic diversity, disequilibrium and themating system in Pinus maximartinezii. Evolution 53(1):91–99.Lefèvre F. 2004. Human impacts on forest genetic resources in the temperate zone: an updated review. ForestEcology and Management 197:257–271.Lefèvre F, Fady B, Fallour-Rubio D, Ghosn D, Bariteau M. 2004. Impact of founder population, drift andselection on the genetic diversity of a recently translocated tree population. Heredity 93:542–555.Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (Liaison Unit Vienna). 2003. Stateof Europe’s Forests 2003. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. FerdinandBerger and Söhne Ges.m.b.H., Horn, Austria.Prada MA, Gordo J, De Miguel J, Mutke S, Catalán-Bachiller G, Iglesia S et al. 1997. Las regiones deprocedencia de Pinus pinea L. en España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Organismo Autónomo ParquesNacionales, Madrid.Riou-Nivert P. 2002. Le pin maritime, seigneur d’Aquitaine. Forêt Entreprise 148:47–51.Quézel P, Médail F. 2003. Ecologie et biogéographie des forêts du bassin méditerranéen. Elsevier, Paris,France.Rappaport N, Roques A. 1991. Resource use and clonal differences in attack rate by the Douglas-firseed chalcid, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) in France. The CanadianEntomologist 123:1219–1228.Richardson DM, Higgins SI. 1998. Pines as invaders in the southern hemisphere. In: Richardson DM, editor.Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, UK. pp. 450–473.Richardson DM, Pysek P, Rejmanek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ. 2000. Naturalization and invasionof alien plants; concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distribution 6:93–107.Roques A. 1983. Les insectes ravageurs des cônes et graines de conifères en France. INRA Editions,Versailles.Roques A, Skrzypczynska M. 2003. Seed-infesting chalcids of the genus Megastigmus Dalman (Hymenoptera:Torymidae) native and introduced to the West Palearctic region: taxonomy, host specificity anddistribution. Journal of Natural History 37(2):127–238.Sagnard F. 2001. Dynamique de recolonisation des pinèdes pionnières par la hêtraie-sapinière: Etude de lastructure des peuplements forestiers et de l’évolution génétique des populations de sapin pectiné (Abiesalba Mill.) sur le Mont Ventoux. Thèse de doctorat en sciences, Université Aix-Marseille III.

52 CONIFERS NETWORKScholes MC, Nowicki TE. 1998. Effects of pines on soil properties and processes. In: Richardson DM, editor.Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, UK. pp. 341–353.Skrøppa T, Kohmann K. 1997. Adaptation to local conditions after one generation in Norway spruce. ForestGenetics 4:171–177.Thirgood JV. 1981. Man and the Mediterranean forest. A history of resource depletion. Academic Press,London.Vidakovic M. 1974. Genetics of European black pine. Annales Forestales (Zagreb) 6(3):57–86.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 53Attempts in identifying the origin of Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) stands in GermanyArmin O. König, 1 Werner Maurer, 2 Heinz Peter Schmitt, 3 Wolfgang Arenhövel, 4Hans-Martin Rau 5 and B. Richard Stephan 11Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft, Institut für Forstgenetik und Forstpflanzenzüchtung,Sieker Landstrasse 2, D–22927 Grosshansdorf, Germany2SGD Süd, Forschungsanstalt für Waldökologie und Forstwirtschaft (FAWF) Rheinland-Pfalz, Schloss, D–67705Trippstadt, Germany3Landesanstalt für Ökologie, Bodenordnung und Forsten Nordrhein-Westfalen, Obereimer 2a, D–59821Arnsberg, Germany4Thüringer Landesanstalt für Wald, Jagd und Fischerei, Jägerstrasse 1, D–99867 Gotha, Germany5Hessen-Forst, Forsteinrichtung, Information, Versuchswesen, Prof.-Oelkers-Strasse 6, D–34346 Hann.Münden, GermanyIntroductionDouglas-fir is the most important introduced species in Germany. According to the forest inventory from1986 to 1990, which included only the old Federal States, the area amounts to 119 520 ha (=1.6 %). However,the area varies considerably between the Federal States. Rhineland-Palatinate is the state richest in Douglasfir;there, the species covers about 38 139 ha (=5.1%) of the forest area (Anonymous A.N., loc. cit. p. 48).Douglas-fir has been planted in Germany for more than 120 years. Very successful plantations wereestablished between 1881 and 1890. The exact origin has not been documented but it can be assumed that thecollection area was the coastal region of Washington and/or northern Oregon. The nurseryman John Boothwas notably very active in seed procurement. It is reported that the Prussian forest administration received700 kg of Douglas-fir seed (Schwappach 1901). However, plantations established after 1891 frequentlyshowed problems, and it was assumed that, at least partly, a different seed stock has been imported thanin the decades before. In order to throw light into these problems the first provenance experiments wereestablished in 1910 and 1912. Further provenance experiments followed in the ensuing decades (for a generalview of German experiments see Schober, 1973). However, results from provenance experiments shall bementioned here only as far as necessary to understand the reasons why several Federal States in Germanyare at present interested in identifying the origin of their Douglas-fir stands. The provenance experimentsshowed that in most cases provenances from the coast range and western slopes of the Cascade Mountainshave proved to be the best with regard to adaptation and quality, whereas those from the interior part of thedistribution range frequently show high mortality and damage, indicating mal-adaptation.For stands established between the two World Wars, seed stock of provenances both from the coastaland the interior race has been imported. These stands are now about 70 or 80 years old and could serveas seed collection stands. The imports continued after World War II, whereby a large amount came frominterior sources, such as the Shushwap Lake region (British Columbia). According to a statistic of theBavarian forest administration, about one third of Douglas-fir seed imported between 1965 and 1971originated from interior provenances.Damage symptoms became visible in the 1960s which frequently could not be associated withthe impacts of damaging agents. In particular, the severe loss of needles was conspicuous. However,detailed observations revealed for example attack of the needles by the ascomycetous fungus Rhabdoclinepseudotsugae H. Sydow (see Figure 1). Stephan (1973) described considerable differences betweenprovenances in the susceptibility to this needle cast fungus in field experiments with ten to twelve yearold trees. Whereas in 1972 not only the coastal, but also the northern interior provenances showed noinfection, the situation changed in 1973–1974. In these years the degree of infection generally increasedin the interior provenances; however, some of the northern ones still showed no or low infection.Attacks by Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii (Rohde) Petrak, the second dangerous needle cast fungus ofDouglas-fir, had not yet been detected in provenance field experiments between 1960 and 1980. Damagesbecame more apparent from the 1980s onwards when stands had reached the second age class, i.e. theywere between 20 and 40 years old. Symptoms in attacked stands are needle discolouration and yellowing,thin crowns as a result of needle cast, distorted growth characters, bark necrosis and resin flow.

54 CONIFERS NETWORKFigure 1. Douglas-fir needles infected by Rhabdocline pseudotsugae. The light grey spots are naturally yellow toorange and in the final stage show a rust-like colour (Photo: B.R. Stephan)As one possible reason to explain the damages the ‘manganese toxicity theory’ had been formulated(Schöne 1997), which concludes that a surplus of manganese in the soil contributes to an excess ofmanganese content in the needles, resulting in a deficiency in phosphorus and magnesium uptake.Indeed, trees showing high damage symptoms had higher manganese levels in the needles. However,this theory could not be verified in all cases. Fertilization experiments did not result in more damagedtrees and sound stands or trees were also found on soils with a high manganese content. Thus, ensuingstudies focused more on a genetic background, namely on the question of seed origin.Stephan (1998) assessed the number of fungal fruit bodies of Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii on needlesof 22-year-old trees in four consecutive years (1987 to 1990) on 31 provenances of the InternationalUnion of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) collection. The heaviest attack showed provenancesfrom the interior part of British Columbia. Southern interior provenances were generally less attacked,and coastal provenances showed an intermediate degree of infection. Interestingly, the annual loss ofneedles did not correspond with the annual number of fruit bodies on the retained needles.Silvicultural backgroundSeveral reasons have led to Germany’s present interest in checking its stands and determining theirprobable region of origin:• For about the past three decades, natural regeneration techniques have increasingly been applied insilviculture. As a consequence, less seed is needed, imports have decreased and the use of EuropeanDouglas-fir stands as seed source has gained importance.• The majority of the original stands (old natural growth) in the Pacific Northwest, especially below 500m a.s.l. has been cut. Therefore, the possibilities to collect in suitable stands are considerably reduced.• The American tree seed certification scheme did and does not sufficiently fulfil Europeanrequirements and standards (Anonymous 1966, Fletcher et al. 1991). A national register comprisingselected seed stands does not exist. For about 25 years, trade was carried out according to theOECD Scheme (OECD 1974) and only seed of the category ‘source identified’ was imported.However, Germany has experienced that sometimes interior provenances might have beendeclared falsely as coastal ones.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 55• Several older Douglas-fir stands in Germany might have been integrated into the national registerof approved seed stands before damage became evident. However, in the meantime sanitary statusmay have changed making a check necessary.• Finally, several older stands of proper origin have proved to be outstanding in provenanceexperiments (landrace development).Forest administrations do not want further unsuitable material to be propagated. Additionally, manystands planted after World War II have now achieved an age of 40 or more years and can therefore beapproved and registered as seed stands. Consequently, several Federal States of Germany, e.g. Rhineland-Palatinate, Northrhine-Westphalia, Thuringia and Hesse are investigating numerous Douglas-fir standsboth with regard to their silvicultural suitability as well as to their affiliation either to the variety Pseudotsugamenziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii (coastal race) or the variety P. menziesii var. glauca (Beiss.) Franco(interior race). This is done by using biochemical–genetic methods and by assessing phenotypic characters.Isozyme studiesFirst results on range-wide patterns of allozyme variation in Douglas-fir have been published by Liand Adams (1989). They found different variation patterns for the coastal and the interior variety,and as well as for the northern and the southern part of the interior variety. In Austria and Germany,results from investigations on the variation of isozyme gene markers were published by Klumpp(1995) and Hoffmann and Geburek (1995). Due to the increasingly visible damage, comparative studiesbetween damaged and healthy stands were also carried out in Germany (Leinemann 1996, 1998). Theinvestigations are still going on in the Federal States of Rhineland-Palatinate (Leinemann and Maurer1999), Northrine-Westphalia and Thuringia (Maurer et al. 2003; Schmitt et al. 2003).In order to verify the differences between the coastal and the interior Douglas-fir races, eight provenancesof each from the IUFRO collection were used as reference populations and analysed using isozymetechniques. The result was that at the gene locus 6-PGDH-A, the allele A3 occurs with high frequency inthe coastal variety and low frequency in the interior variety (90% vs. 30%), whereas the reverse (4% vs.60%) is valid for allele A6 (Figure 2) (Leinemann 1997). Variation ranges are not overlapping; therefore,the method is well suited to discriminate between the two varieties. Other isozyme loci, like ACO, alsoshowed different allele frequencies but will not be further considered here.10.8coastinteriorFrequency0.60.40.20A3 A6 rare allelsAllels at gene locus 6-PGDH-AFigure 2. Mean frequencies of the alleles A3, A6 and rare alleles for the enzyme gene locus 6-PGDH-A for thecoastal and interior race derived from 16 IUFRO provenances which served as reference populations (afterLeinemann and Maurer 1999).

56 CONIFERS NETWORKTwo examples may illustrate the situation. The genetic profile of a stand with heavy damagesymptoms (Dreis in Rhineland-Palatinate) shows high conformity to that of the reference profile of theinterior variety (Figure 3). Consequently it can easily be associated with the interior race. However, inthe past seed might have been mixed or some cultures with failed patches might have been completedby replanting with different provenances. Thus, a mixture of races might have resulted, as is assumedfor the stand Mayen in Rhineland-Palatinate because it shows an intermediate profile. In this case theproportions belonging to the coastal and interior race, respectively, may be calculated by a formuladeveloped by Bernstein (for details see Leinemann and Maurer, 1999). In the case of a mixed stand ofgood quality, Northrhine-Westphalia has decided to approve it as seed stand if at least 80 % of the treesbelong to the coastal variety.1A 3 A 6 Rare alleles0.8Frequency0.60.40.20Coast Mayen Dreis InteriorFigure 3. Genetic profiles of the coastal (left-hand columns) and interior race (right-hand columns) and twoGerman Douglas-fir stands with regard to the 6-PGDH-A gene locus. The genetic structure of the ill stand Dreisconforms to that of the interior reference population. The genetic structure of the stand Mayen indicates a mixtureof both races (after Leinemann and Maurer 1999).Morphological characters for judging silvicultural suitabilityThe Federal State of Hesse based the valuation of silvicultural suitability of stands (for furtherpropagation) on morphological traits. Rau (2002) described eight criteria which indicate mal-adaptationof a provenance:• Needle discolouration• Heavy needle cast (only one to two age groups on the branches)• Heavy branchiness (extraordinary, many and notably thick branches in relation to stem diameterand growing space)• Bad stem form (extraordinarily high proportion of trees with remarkable bends)• Bark remarkably fissured and coarse, often grey and connected, with swellings and coarse branches• Resin flow on the stem up into the crown which is not caused by artificial pruning• Early and heavy fructification• High losses after the establishment phase, even on sites well suited for Douglas-fir.Figures 4–8 show examples of desired and undesired characters of Douglas-fir trees. Note that theseexamples cannot be considered in all cases to be representative for the provenance mentioned.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 57Figure 4. Douglas-fir stem with fine bark (IUFRO no.1001, Stoner, BC) (Photo: E. Burchard).Figure 5. Stem with undesired characters: bends,bumps and coarse, fissured bark (IUFRO no. 1031,Gold River, BC) (Photo: E. Burchard).Figure 6. Douglas-fir originating from the OlympicPeninsula with fine branching in the forest district ofGahrenberg (Photo: Hessen-Forst, Forsteinrichtung,Information, Versuchswesen).Figure 7. Heavy branching (IUFRO no. 1047, Concrete,WA) (Photo: E. Burchard).

58 CONIFERS NETWORKFigure 8. Douglas-fir trees with good (left,IUFRO no. 1005, Williams Lake, BC) and bad(right, IUFRO no. 1018, Salmon Arm, BC) stemforms (Photo: E. Burchard).ResultsIn Germany, the minimum legal requirements for a Douglas-fir stand to be approved as seed stand are,among others, an area of at least 0.25 ha, comprising at least 40 trees and an age of 40 years. Despitethese requirements, most of the stands checked were larger than the minimum area. If smaller standswere included (as in Thuringia), and if they were identified as being of coastal origin, the intention wasto select trees for seed orchards in these reduced populations. Hesse carried out its field inspections instands larger than one hectare and included plantations younger than 40 years. Results of the study aresummarized in Table 1.Table 1. Studied Douglas-fir stands: summary dataFederal StateCriteria(area, age)No. seedstands †No. otherstands ‡Area(ha) §Interiororigin Rhineland-Palatinate >0.25 ha, >40 years 38 17 ~ 500 9%Northrhine-Westphalia >0.25 ha, >40 years, 91 39 ~ 220 27%>50 trees/haThuringia – 23 12 20 16%Hesse >1 ha, >20 years – Total no. 555 ~1200 115 stands†Number of seed stands checked‡Number of other populations included§Total area of checked standsPercentage/number identified as populations of interior origin– = no data availableConclusionsDue to their excellent performance, numerous old European Douglas-fir stands can be considered as a veryvaluable genetic resource and should therefore be used for seed collections or for natural regeneration,

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 59as long as their population size is in accordance with legal regulations. However, many stands have alsobeen established using unsuitable provenances, mainly from the interior distribution range of the species.Damages which have not been registered at young ages may become serious at more advanced ages.Forest administrations attempt to avoid natural regeneration of these unsuited stands as well as their useas seed collection stands. In addition to the visual assessment of stands with regard to their performanceand health, isozyme analyses have proved to be a valuable tool to discriminate between coastal andinterior races. For pure stands, affiliation to one of the races is no problem. In the case of racial mixturesthe proportions of trees belonging either to the coastal or interior race, can be estimated. An affiliation ofindividual trees to a race is not possible. Nevertheless, it must also be mentioned that in years favourablefor the development of needle cast fungi, infections have also been observed in stands belonging to thecoastal race. However, as a rule these stands recover in the ensuing years.In recent years, several hundred stands have been checked with regard to their silviculturalsuitability and their race affiliation. In this way, Germany is increasingly using genetic resources ofDouglas-fir of approved value.ReferencesAnonymous. 1966. Tree seed zone map (Washington, Oregon). Western Forest Tree Seed Council, Portland,Oregon, USA.Anonymous A.N. Bundeswaldinventur 1986–1990. Inventurbericht und Übersichtstabellen für dasBundesgebiet nach dem Gebietsstand bis zum 3.10.1990 einschließlich Berlin (West). Band 1. DerBundesminister für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Bonn.Fletcher AM, Bastien JC, Nanson A. 1991. Douglas-fir seed sources—field inspection: Washington, Oregonand Northern California. Combined report of surveys carried out between 1988 and 1991. Commissionof the European Communities, Brussels. 17 p. + VII appendices.Hoffmann C, Geburek T. 1995. Allozyme variation of indigeneous Douglas-fir populations and theirdescendants in Germany. Silvae Genetica 44:222–225.Klumpp R. 1995. Area-specific variations of isozyme gene markers in Douglas-fir. In: Baradat P, AdamsWT, Müller-Stark G, editors. Population genetics and genetic conservation of forest trees. SPB AcademicPublishing bv, Amsterdam. pp. 193–198.Leinemann L. 1996. Genetic differentiation of damaged and healthy Douglas-fir stands in Rheinland-Pfalzwith respect to their origin. Silvae Genetica 45:205–206.Leinemann L. 1997. Genetische Strukturen gesunder und geschädigter Douglasienbestände in Rheinland-Pfalz. In: Maurer W, Tabel U, editors. Stand der Ursachenforschung zu Douglasienschäden—derzeitigeEmpfehlungen für die Praxis. Mitt. Forstl. Versuchsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz, No. 41/97, Trippstadt. pp.145–160.Leinemann L. 1998. Genetische Untersuchungen an Rassen der Douglasie (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.]Franco) am Beispiel gesunder und geschädigter Bestände. Göttingen Research Notes in Forest Genetics23. 140 +XI pp.Leinemann L, Maurer W. 1999. Bedeutung von Isoenzymgenmarkern für den Anbau der Douglasie.Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift/Der Wald 54:242–243.Li P, Adams WT. 1989. Range-wide patterns of allozyme variation in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19:149–161.Maurer WD, Schmitt HP, Arenhövel W, Bergmann F, Hosius B, Leinemann L. 2003. Unterscheidung derKüsten- und Inlands-Douglasie anhand genetischer Merkmale. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift/Der Wald58:1290–1293.OECD. 1974. OECD Scheme for the control of forest reproductive material moving in international trade.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. 21 p.Rau H-M. 2002. Merkmale problematischer Douglasien-Herkünfte. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift/Der Wald57:1276–1277.Schmitt HP, Maurer WD, Arenhövel W, Bergmann F, Hosius B, Leinemann L. 2003. Genetische Inventuren anDouglasienbeständen. Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift/Der Wald 58:1287–1289.Schober R. 1973. Ergebnisse von Douglasien-Provenienzversuchen in Deutschland. In: Proceedings of IUFROW.P. meeting S2.02-05, Douglas-fir provenances, Sept. 3–5 1973, Göttingen. pp. 1–12.Schöne D. 1997. Nährstoffmängel, Wuchsanomalien und Manganüberschuss bei Douglasie im Mosel-Eifelraum. In: Maurer W, Tabel U, editors. Stand der Ursachenforschung zu Douglasienschäden—derzeitige Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Mitt. Forstl. Versuchsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz, Nr. 41/97,Trippstadt. pp. 76–106.

60 CONIFERS NETWORKSchwappach A. 1901. Die Ergebnisse der in den Jahren 1881–1890 in den preussischen Staatsforstenausgeführten Anbauversuche mit fremdländischen Holzarten. Zeitschrift für Forst- und Jagdwesen33:137–169; 195–225; 261–292.Stephan BR. 1973. Susceptibility and resistance of Douglas-fir provenances to Rhabdocline needle cast. Firstresults of provenance trials in north-west Germany. In: Proceedings of IUFRO W.P. meeting S2.02-05,Douglas-fir provenances, Sept. 3–5 1973, Göttingen. pp. 51–58.Stephan BR. 1998. Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii on Douglas-fir provenances. In: Laflamme G, Bérubé JA,Hamelin RC, editors. Foliage, shoot and stem diseases of trees. Proceedings IUFRO WP7.02.02 Meeting,Quebec City, May 25–31 1997. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Information ReportLAU-X-122. pp. 54–63.

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 61Douglas-fir provenance tests in SerbiaVasilije Isajev 1 and Vera Lavadinovi 21Faculty of Forestry, 11030 Belgrade, Kneza Viseslava 1, Serbia2Institute of Forestry, 11030 Belgrade, Kneza Viselsva 3, SerbiaIntroductionThe two main objectivities of a breeding program are to: 1) improve economic traits, and 2) ensure thatthe resulting breeding populations are well adapted and have sufficient genetic variation for gain tocontinue in subsequent generations (SAF 1992).One of the models for testing genetic diversity, variability and adaptability of introduced species isthe provenance test (Rehfeld 1978, 1983). This paper presents the variability of some properties whichhave been analyzed in Douglas-fir provenance tests in Serbia.Material and methodIn central and east Serbia at the sites Juhor and Tanda, a provenance test was established in 1986 with20 different Douglas-fir provenances which originated from New Mexico to Washington states in theUS (Table 1).The experimental plot in Juhor is located in a beech stand (association Fagetum submontanum Jov.) atan altitude of 670 m on the mountain Juhor. The second experimental plot in Tanda is in a natural standof Hungarian oak and Turkey oak (association Quercetum farneto-ceris Rud.) at an altitude of 370 m(Figure 1). Based on field and laboratory analyses of soil properties, the Tanda plot has eutric brownsoil (eutric cambisol), and the one in Juhor has acid brown soil (district cambisol).Table 1. Geographical co-ordinates of the tested Douglas-fir provenances in Serbia.Number of testedprovenancesOrigin code of provenance Latitude( o )Longitude( o )Altitude (m)1 Oregon 205-15 43.7 123.0 7502 Oregon 205-14 43.8 122.5 12003 Oregon 202-27 45.0 122.4 4504 Oregon 205-38 45.0 121.0 6005 Washington 204-07 49.0 119.0 12006 Oregon 205-13 43.8 122.5 10507 Oregon 205-18 44.2 122.2 6008 Oregon 202-22 42.5 122.5 12009 Washington 202-17 47.6 121.7 60010 Oregon 201-10 44.5 119.0 135011 Washington 204-06 49.0 120.0 75012 Oregon 202-19 45.3 123.8 30013 Oregon 205-11 45.3 123.0 15014 New Mexico 202-40 45.0 105.7 268215 New Mexico 202-10 36.0 106.0 266716 Oregon 202-31 44.3 118.8 150017 Oregon 205-29 42.6 122.8 90018 Oregon 205-08 42.7 122.5 105019 Oregon 204-04 45.0 121.5 90020 Washington 205-02 47.7 123.0 300

62 CONIFERS NETWORK18°E20°E22°E24°E46°NJuhorTanda44°N42°NFigure 1. Location of the two Douglas-fir provenance tests in Serbia.Table 2. Height and diameter of the Douglas-fir provenances tested in Serbia (at the age of 12years) (Lavadinovic V and Koprivica M. 1999).Number oftested provenacesOrigin codeof provenanceHeight (cm)Diameter (cm)Juhor Tanda Juhor Tanda1 Oregon 205-15 516 390 11.5 8.92 Oregon 205-14 517 401 11.3 8.83 Oregon 202-27 558 481 12.0 10.44 Oregon 205-38 499 477 10.8 10.85 Washington 204-07 282 253 6.5 6.06 Oregon 205-13 506 420 10.9 9.27 Oregon 205-18 524 463 11.8 10.78 Oregon 202-22 472 391 11.0 9.69 Washington 202-17 516 431 11.3 9.510 Oregon 201-10 353 298 8.2 7.011 Washington 204-06 348 282 8.2 7.412 Oregon 202-19 537 484 11.6 10.213 Oregon 205-11 510 475 11.6 10.714 New Mexico 202-40 394 394 9.0 9.215 New Mexico 202-10 370 346 8.1 7.916 Oregon 202-31 286 239 6.7 6.117 Oregon 205-29 486 398 11.2 8.818 Oregon 205-08 463 346 10.4 8.419 Oregon 204-04 469 367 10.3 8.720 Washington 205-02 529 547 10.6 11.3

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 63During the research period (1997-1999) the experimental plots were measured every year(Table 2).The climate of the locality Juhor (central Serbia) is predominantly moderate–continental withcold winters and rather warm summers. The climate of the locality Tanda in north-east Serbia can becharacterized as sub-humid to humid.By analyzing the values of mean height and diameter, significant differences among the provenancesand between the sites were found.The dependence of height on altitude and latitude and of height increment on longitude and altitudein the provenance trials were also analysed (Figures 2 and 3).ResultsThe results from the Juhor test show that latitude has a low effect on height increment of trees ofdifferent provenances and that the effects of longitude and altitude are very important.Dependence of height increment of the provenances (Y) on longitude (X 2) was found to beparabolic (Figure 2). With the increase of longitude, height increment also increases up to a certainlevel.Dependence of height increment of the provenances (Y) on altitude (X 3) is shown in Figure 3. Withan increase of altitude, height increment of trees reduces.Parameters of regression are as follows:Y = − 36967.0 + 604.15 X 2− 2.463 X 22Se = 5.6 cm, r 2 = 0.8309(F > F0.01; 64.88>5.61)120110Height increment (cm)100908070605040Max = 123º30118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125Longitude (º)Figure 2. Dependence of annual height increment of different Douglas-fir provenances on longitude.

64 CONIFERS NETWORKParameters of parabolic correlation are:Y = 85.02 + 0.0102 X 3− 0.00002 X 32Se = 10.4 cm, r 2 = 0.4520(F>F0.01; 10.04>5.61)120110Height increment (cm)100908070605040Max = 255 m300 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Altitude (m)Figure 3. Dependence of annual height increment of different Douglas-fir provenances on altitude.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that there were significant differences in growth among Douglas-fir provenancesat these two locations in Serbia (annual height increment of the provenances varied from 46 cm(Washington 19) to 90 cm (Washington 31)). The effect of longitude on height increment of provenancesis statistically highly significant, i.e. with the increase of longitude to 123˚, height increment alsoincreases, and then decreases. The effect of altitude on height increment of provenances is statisticallyhighly significant, i.e. above the altitude of 255 m, height increment gradually decreases.The observed differences in tree growth are ascribed to the genetic factors. (Lavadinovic andKoprivica 1996, 1999).The plants at the sample plot Juhor, at the same age, had a considerably higher value of diamemeterat the breast height, height, and annual height increments than the plants of the same provenances atthe sample plot Tanda. This means that Douglas-fir has better adaptability to the beech sites (Juhor)than the oak site (Tanda).Based on the analyzed characteristics, the most successful provenances are:• At the locality JUHOR:• Oregon: 205-14• Oregon: 202-19• Washington: 205-02

GENETIC RESOURCES OF EXOTIC CONIFERS 65• At the locality TANDA:• Oregon: 205-14• Oregon: 202-19• Washington: 205-31There were highly significant differences between Douglas-fir provenances; thus, careful attentionshould be paid to the choice of provenances to be used for forestry.ReferencesLavadinovic V, Koprivica M. 1996. Dependence of young Douglas-fir stands of different provenances onbeech sites in Serbia. Modelling regeneration success and early growth of forests stands. Proceedingsfrom the IUFRO Conference, held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Editors: J.P. Skocsgaard & V.K. Johansen.Publisher : Ministy of Environment and Energy. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute. ISBN :87-89822-59-5. Pp. 390–400.Lavadinovic V, Koprivica M. 1999. Development of young Douglas-fir stands of different provenances onoak site in Serbia. Empirical and Process-Based Models for Forest tree and Stand Growth Simulation.,Editors: Ana Amaro & Margarita Tome. Publisher : Edicoes Salamandra, LDA Lisboa, Portugal.ISBN:972-689-154-X. Deposito legal: 139925/99. Pp 231–242Rehfeld GE. 1978. Genetic differentiation of Douglas-fir populations from Northern Rocky Mountains.Ecology 59:1265–1270.Rehfeld GE. 1983. Genetic variability within Douglas-fir populations: implications for tree improvement.Silvae Genetica 32:9–14.Society of American Forestas. 1992. Biological diversity in forest ecosystems: a position of the Society ofAmerican Foresters. Journal of Forestry 90(2):42–43.

66 CONIFERS NETWORK

PROGRAMME 67Fourth EUFORGEN Conifers Network meetingPitlochry, Scotland, UK, 18–20 October 2003Theme: conservation and use of genetic resources of exotic coniferspecies in EuropeFriday 17 OctoberSaturday 18 OctoberArrival of participants08:30 Opening of the meetingWelcome address (S. Samuel)Welcome by Chair (C. Mátyás)Adoption of the agenda and nomination of rapporteurs08:45 EUFORGEN update (J. Koskela)09:00 Country introductory report: Iceland09:30 Country updates and discussion on the progress made in sub-regional groupsCentral and Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russian Federation,Slovakia)Mediterranean region (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Italy, Macedonia, Malta,Serbia and Montenegro, Spain, Turkey)Northern Europe (Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden)Western Europe (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, United Kingdom)10:30 Break11:00 Presentations by the sub-regional groups12:00 Documentation, information and public awareness:EUFORGEN website (J. Koskela)Bibliography (J. Koskela)Poster presented at the DYGEN Conference (C. Mátyás)Image database (B. Fady)Other public awareness initiatives12:30 Lunch13:45 Depart for Blair Castle (residence of the Dukes of Atholl for over 700 years) andDiana’s Grove (major mature collection of exotic conifers)16:45 Break17:00 Meetings, projects and other initiatives:19:30 DinnerOutcomes of the DYGEN Conference (C. Mátyás)EC Regulation on Genetic Resources (J. Koskela)EVOLTREE proposal (G. Vendramin)Some results from analysing SNPs in conifers (G. Vendramin)Other initiatives

68 CONIFERS NETWORKSunday 19 October08:30 Progress made in the Network activities and discussion:Technical Guidelines (J. Koskela)Best practice for genetically sustainable forest management (C. Mátyás)Common Action Plan (C. Mátyás)List of priority species (C. Mátyás)MCPFE outcomes and EUFORGEN Phase III (J. Koskela)10:30 Break11:00 Seminar on conserving and using exotic conifers: experiences from the UK andimplications for EuropeThe introduction, variation and use of non-native conifer species in Britain (S. Samuel)Breeding programmes in exotic conifers in Britain (S. Lee)12:30 Lunch14:00 Seminar (continued):Developing a policy for long-term archiving of breeding material (R. Sykes)Handling exotic species from the genetic conservation point of view: Cedrus atlanticain France (B. Fady)15:30 Break16:00- 18:00 Botanical gardens and gene conservation (M. Gardner)Seminar wrap-up and recommendations20:00 DinnerMonday 20 October08:30-15:30 Field trip16:00- 18:00 Wrap-up session:Any other businessDate and place of next meetingAdoption of the summary of the meeting20:00 DinnerTuesday 21 OctoberDeparture of participants

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 69List of participantsMichael MenglFederal Office and Research Centre for ForestsInstitute of Forest GeneticsHauptstrasse 71140 ViennaAustriaTel: (43-1) 87838 2224Fax: (43-1) 87838 2250Email: michael. bfw.gv.atOlivier DesteucqCentre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts etdu BoisAvenue Maréchal Juin, 235030 GemblouxBelgiumTel: (32-81) 626452Fax: (32-81) 615727Email: o. mrw.wallonie.beAlexander AlexandrovForest Research InstituteKliment Ohridski Blvd 1321756 SofiaBulgariaTel: (359-2) 9620442Fax: (359-2) 9620447Email: bulnet.bgMarilena IdzojticUniversity of ZagrebFaculty of ForestrySvetosimunska 251000 ZagrebCroatiaTel: (385-1) 2352541Fax: (385-1) 2352505Email: marilena.post.hinet.hrKarel VancuraForestry Development DepartmentMinistry of AgricultureTešnov 17117 05 PragueCzech RepublicTel: (420-2) 2181 2357Fax: (420-2) 2181 2988Email: mze.czXenophon HadjikyriacouForestry Department1414 NicosiaCyprusTel: (357) 22805504Fax: (357) 22781419Email: yahoo.comTeijo NikkanenPunkaharju Research StationFinlandiantie 1858450 PunkaharjuFinlandTel: (358-10) 2114226Fax: (385-10) 2114201Email: teijo. metla.fiBruno FadyUnite des Recherches ForestièresMéditerranéennes – INRAAvenue A. Vivaldi84000 AvignonFranceTel: (33-4) 90135910Fax: (33-4) 90135959Email: avignon.inra.frArmin KönigInstitute for Forest Genetics and Forest Tree BreedingSieker Landstrasse 222927 GrosshansdorfGermanyTel: (49-4102) 696147Fax: (49-4102) 696200Email: holz.uni-hamburg.deCsaba MátyásUniversity of West HungaryFaculty of ForestryPO Box 1329401 SopronHungaryTel: (36-9) 518395Fax: (36-99) 329840Email: emk.nyme.huJohn FennessyCOFORD (National Council for Forest Researchand Development)Agriculture BuildingBelfieldDublin 4IrelandTel: (353-1) 7167700Fax: (353-1) 7161180Email: john. coford.ieGiovanni G. VendraminIstituto di Genetica Vegetale – CNRVia Madonna del Piano50019 Sesto FiorentinoItalyTel: (39) 055 5225725Fax: (33) 055 5225729Email: giovanni.gv.cnr.it

70 CONIFERS NETWORKDarius DanuseviciusDepartment of Forest Genetics and ReforestationLithuanian Forest Research InstituteGirionys 14312 Kaunas regionLithuaniaTel: (370-7) 547426Fax: (370-7) 547446Email: darius.takas.ltVlatko AndonovskiFaculty of ForestryP.O. Box 2351000 Skopje R.Macedonia FYRTel: (389-70) 332113Fax: (389-2) 3079748Email: unet.com.mkEman CallejaMinistry of Agriculture and FisheriesDepartment of AgricultureNotabile RoadAttardMaltaTel: (356) 21415488Fax: (356) 21493176Email: eman. magnet.mtTore SkrøppaNorwegian Forest Research InstituteHøgskoleveien 121432 ÅsNorwayTel: (47) 64 949067Fax: (47) 64942980Email: tore. skogforsk.noJan MatrasForest Research InstituteDept. of Genetics & Physiology of Woody Plantsul. Bitwy Warszawszkiej 1920 roku, 300 973 WarsawPolandTel: (48-22) 7150478Fax: (48-22) 7150313Email: bles.waw.plMikhail PridnyaNIIGORLESECOL74 Kurortnyi prospect354002 Sochi-2Russian FederationTel: (7-8622) 621842Fax: (7-8622) 621842Email: sochi.ruVasilije IsajevŠumarski Fakultet – BeogradKneza Višeslava 111030 BelgradeSerbia and MontenegroTel: (381-11) 553 122Fax: (381-11) 545 485Email: hotmail.comRudolf BruchánikState Forest of Slovak RepublicNámestie SNP 8975 66 Branská BystricaSlovakiaTel: (421-48) 4125903Fax: (421-48) 4125904Email:lesy.skGregor BozicSlovenian Forestry InstituteVecna pot 21000 LjubljanaSloveniaTel: (386-1) 2007821Fax: (386-61) 273589Email: gregor. gozdis.siSonia Martín AlbertosServicio de Material GenéticoDirección General de Conservación de la NaturalezaGran Vía de San Francisco, 428005 MadridSpainTel: (34-91) 5964639Fax: (34-91) 5964905Email: mma.esJonas BergquistNational Board of ForestrySkogstyrelsen55183 JönköpingSwedenTel: (46-36) 155720Fax: (46-36) 166170Email: jonas. svo.seMarcus UlberEidgen. Forschungsanstalt WSLZürcherstrasse 1118903 BirmensdorfSwitzerlandTel: (41-1) 7392493Fax: (41-1) 7392215Email: marcus. wsl.ch

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 71Hacer SemerciForest Tree Seeds & Tree BreedingResearch DirectorateP.O. Box 1106560 Gazi-AnkaraTurkeyTel: (90-312) 2126519Fax: (90-312) 2123960Email:yahoo.com ANDhotmail.comC.J.A. SamuelForest ResearchNorthern Research StationEH25 9SY Roslin, MidlothianUnited KingdomTel: (44-131) 4456927Fax: (44-131) 4455124Email: c.j.a. orestry.gsi.gov.ukObserversJon LoftssonIceland Forestry ServiceBox 98, IS 700 EgilsstaðirIcelandTel: (354-471) 2100Fax: (354-471) 2172Email: skogur.isAdalstein SigurgeirssonIceland Forestry ServiceBox 98, IS 700 EgilsstaðirIcelandTel: (354-471) 2100Fax: (354-471) 2172Email:skogur.isThrostur EysteinssonIceland Forestry ServiceBox 98, IS 700 EgilsstaðirIcelandTel: (354-471) 2100Fax: (354-471) 2172Email: skogur.isCathleen BaldwinForest ResearchNorthern Research StationEH25 9SY Roslin, MidlothianUnited KingdomTel: (44-131) 4456927Fax: (44-131) 4455124Email: cathleen. forestry.gsi.gov.ukEsther KerForest ResearchNorthern Research StationEH25 9SY Roslin, MidlothianUnited KingdomTel: (44-131) 4456912Fax: (44-131) 4455124Email: esther. forestry.gsi.gov.ukSteve LeeForest ResearchNorthern Research StationEH25 9SY Roslin, MidlothianUnited KingdomTel: (44-131) 4456926Fax: (44-131) 4455124Email: steve. orestry.gsi.gov.ukRob SykesForest ResearchNorthern Research StationEH25 9SY Roslin, MidlothianUnited KingdomTel: (44-131) 4456927Fax: (44-131) 4455124Email: rob. orestry.gsi.gov.ukEUFORGEN SecretariatJarkko KoskelaEUFORGEN CoordinatorRegional Office for EuropeBioversity InternationalVia dei Tre Denari 472/a00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino)ItalyTel: (39) 06 6118223Fax: (39) 06 61979661Email: j. cgiar.orgUnable to attendLennart AckzellNational Board of ForestrySkogstyrelsenVallgatan 855183 JönköpingSwedenTel: (46-36) 155706Fax: (46-36) 166170Email: lennart. svo.se

ISBN: 978-92-9043-768-0Cover photo: A Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) stand, J. Koskela/Bioversity International

Conifers Network: Report of the fourth meeting (18-20 ... - Euforgen

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?