Effect of defoliation
by the pine processionary moth (PPM) on radial,
height
and
volume growth of Crimean pine (Pinus nigra) trees in Turkey
Â
Serdar Carus*
Department
of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of Suleyman Demirel, 32260 Cunur, Isparta, Turkey
(Received: December 12, 2008; Revised
received: April
15, 2009; Accepted: April 25, 2009)
Â
Abstract: In this study, we assessed the effects
of chronic defoliation on radial, height and volume growth of Crimean pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) trees of the pine processionary
moth [Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni
Tams (Lepidoptera:Thaumetopoeidae)]
in western Turkey.
Crimean pine tree ring chronologies were analyzed for evidence of the pine processionary moth (PPM). Tree ring widths from
non-defoliated Crimean pine sample trees, which were not defoliated by PPM from
1998 to 2004, were used to estimate potential growth in the defoliated Crimean
pine sample trees during the same time interval. In 2004, increment cores
collected from 50 defoliated sample trees and 25 non-defoliated sample trees
dominant or co-dominant trees. Annual radial growth indices from 1985-2004
calculated for each defoliated Crimean pine and non-defoliated Crimean pine
group. We identified regional outbreaks of PPM by synchronous and sustained
growth periods of Crimean pine trees. Growth functions of defoliated Crimean
pine trees (3) and non-defoliated Crimean pine trees (2) were graphically
compared as the cumulative sum of radial, height and volume increment. Two
outbreak were identified in 1992 (1992 and 1993) and 1998 (1998-2004) in the
study area. PPM caused a significance decrease (average 33%, p<0.05) in the
annual radial increment in 1998-2004.
Key
words: Crimean pine, Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni, Growth
loss, Tree ring analysis, Dendrochronology
PDF of full length paper
is available online
Â
Copyright © 2010 Triveni Enterprises. All rights reserved. No part of the Journal can be reproduced in any
form without prior permission. Responsibility regarding the authenticity
of the data, and the acceptability of the conclusions enforced or derived, rest
completely with the author(s).
Â
Â