1 / 35

Clonal Deployment Revisited Results from a simulation model to minimise risk

Clonal Deployment Revisited Results from a simulation model to minimise risk for both a known and unknown future pest. Alvin Yanchuk 1 , John Bishir 2 John Russell 1 and Ken Polsson 1 1. BC Forest Service 2. NC State Univ. Introduction. Libby (1982), Roberds et al (1990)

viveca
Download Presentation

Clonal Deployment Revisited Results from a simulation model to minimise risk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clonal Deployment RevisitedResults from a simulation model to minimise risk for both a known and unknown future pest Alvin Yanchuk1, John Bishir2 John Russell1 and Ken Polsson1 1. BC Forest Service 2. NC State Univ

  2. Introduction • Libby (1982), Roberds et al (1990) • single gene models, plantation failure • more than 30 clones does not provide any advantages • sometimes 1 is best

  3. Introduction • Issues to consider: • growth and yield • deployment patterns • current known and future unknown threats • disease &pest resistance - evolutionary concerns

  4. Objectives • maximize volume at rotation • number of clones deployed • planting patterns • current and future pest threat • environmental attributes

  5. Methods • Tree and Stand Simulator (TASS - B.C. For.Ser.) • individual stems, competition-driven • Spruce weevil and clonal deployment model • plants trees using different deployment scenarios • tree resistance mechanisms • spruce weevil movement, dynamics, damage • impact on growth and yield (interaction with TASS)

  6. Deployment numbers & patterns • Numbers of clones • 2, 6, 18 and 30 • Deployment strategies • Random Mix (RM) • Single Clonal Blocks (SCB) • Mosaic of Clonal Blocks (MCB)

  7. Random Mixes

  8. Random Mixes

  9. Single Clone Blocks

  10. Mosaic of Clonal Blocks - 2 clones

  11. Mosaic of Clonal Blocks - 6 clones

  12. Weevil Parameters • weevil introductions into plantations • each tree starts with 2 weevils • 6 weevils / tree on 6 corner trees • no weevils

  13. Environmental Parameters • two average annual temperatures (7 C and 11 C) • two site indices (24 and 30) • two sizes (1 and 5 hectares)

  14. Clones • Fixed • known pest • resistance mechanisms • Random • unknown future threat

  15. Clonal Parameters • ATR - attractiveness (volatile) • 10=extremely attractive • RES - rate of resin flow rate • 10 = maximum flow • TOX - toxicity of resin • 10=100% toxic

  16. Clonal Parameters • GRW - tree ‘vigour’ • -grown in absence of weevil • h2=1.0 for ATR, RES, TOX • h2=0.5 for GRW • GRW correlated with RES (rg=0.5)

  17. Parameters of resistance for fixed clones • three clonal scenarios: • 1) 2 clones:1 & 2 • 2) 6clones: 1 to 6 • 3) all 18 clones • attempted to have: • good growth • various resistance combinations

  18. Random Clones (Unknown Future Threat) • clones drawn randomly from normal distribution • RES,TOX,ATR:  =0.5,  =1.5 • GRW:  =1.0,  =0.1 • up to 30 runs per scenario

  19. 18 fixed clones (WD=1, TMP= 11, SI=30, Ha=1)

  20. Top 50% clones=85% volume Ne reduction 20%

  21. Conclusions • range of ‘acceptable’ numbers of clones, between 6-18 • random mix was always the best • most elite genotype will do most of the work • effective population sizes change only by ~20% • current BC policy of Ne = 20 tested clones

  22. Conclusions • Changes in other model parameters minimal effects: • temperature differences • 1 vs 5 ha • insect “introduction” patterns • site index

  23. Conclusions • Additional questions that remain: • deployment across the landscape

  24. Conclusions • Additional questions that remain: • deployment across the landscape • allelic model for resistances (MGR) • clonal ideotypes /among and with clone competition -full-sib family deployment

More Related