Paper · 1988 · Forestry An International Journal of Forest Research

Physiological Effects of Natural and Artificial Defoliation on the Growth of Young Crops of Lodgepole Pine

R. J. BRITTON

8
claims
19
verbatim quotes
26
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field experiments involving naturally occurring population levels of larval European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff. ) and artificial defoliation in both field and glasshouse experiments were used to investigate physiological effects of defoliation on lodgepole pine. Reductions in total projected leaf area, annual height and volume increments of 19, 33 and 32 per cent, respectively, were recorded on trees where larvae had consumed all mature foliage. Leader growth was up to 48 per cent less on defoliated trees after two years reflecting a delayed growth impact. Similar effects were found on trees which had been defoliated by hand in a manner resembling sawfly feeding. Artificial defoliation of transplants also showed that this type of damage can have serious consequences on below-ground growth, particularly of fine roots. Root:shoot ratios were found to be 0.64 in undamaged plants and 1. 05 in defoliated plants. A high concentration (1300 ppm) of the insecticide fenitrothion, used to maintain control treatments in the field, was found to have no significant effects on the major growth parameters being assessed.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Larval defoliation reduced total projected leaf area by 19 per cent in lodgepole pine trees whose mature foliage was consumed.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
larvae had consumed all mature foliagee0
Interactor
European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertiferNeodiprion sertifere1pest
Outcome
total projected leaf areae0
Direction
Reductionse0
Value
19e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Neodiprion sertifer
Neodiprion sertifer · InteractorPère Igor · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e0

“Reductions in total projected leaf area, annual height and volume increments of 19, 33 and 32 per cent, respectively, were recorded on trees where larvae had consumed all mature foliage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–461 · show in text ↑
e1

“larval European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff. )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 69–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Larval defoliation reduced annual height increment by 33 per cent in lodgepole pine trees whose mature foliage was consumed.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
larvae had consumed all mature foliagee0
Interactor
European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertiferNeodiprion sertifere1pest
Outcome
annual heighte0
Direction
Reductionse0
Value
33e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Neodiprion sertifer
Neodiprion sertifer · InteractorPère Igor · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e0

“Reductions in total projected leaf area, annual height and volume increments of 19, 33 and 32 per cent, respectively, were recorded on trees where larvae had consumed all mature foliage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–461 · show in text ↑
e1

“larval European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff. )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 69–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Larval defoliation reduced volume increment by 32 per cent in lodgepole pine trees whose mature foliage was consumed.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
larvae had consumed all mature foliagee0
Interactor
European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertiferNeodiprion sertifere1pest
Outcome
volume incrementse0
Direction
Reductionse0
Value
32 per cente0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Neodiprion sertifer
Neodiprion sertifer · InteractorPère Igor · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e0

“Reductions in total projected leaf area, annual height and volume increments of 19, 33 and 32 per cent, respectively, were recorded on trees where larvae had consumed all mature foliage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–461 · show in text ↑
e1

“larval European pine sawfly Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff. )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 69–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leader growth of defoliated lodgepole pine trees was up to 48 per cent less after two years, reflecting a delayed growth impact.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
defoliated treese2
Outcome
Leader growthe2
Direction
lesse2
Value
up to 48 per cente2
Qualifier
after two yearse2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e2

“Leader growth was up to 48 per cent less on defoliated trees after two years reflecting a delayed growth impact”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 463–574 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand defoliation resembling sawfly feeding produced effects similar to larval defoliation in lodgepole pine.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
defoliated by hande3
Interactor
sawflye3pest
Outcome
Similar effectse3

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e3

“Similar effects were found on trees which had been defoliated by hand in a manner resembling sawfly feeding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 576–683 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Artificial defoliation of transplants had serious consequences for below-ground growth of lodgepole pine, particularly fine roots.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Organ / stage
fine rootse4
Treatment
Artificial defoliation of transplantse4
Outcome
below-ground growthe4
Direction
decreaseinferrede4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e4

“Artificial defoliation of transplants also showed that this type of damage can have serious consequences on below-ground growth, particularly of fine roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 685–840 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root:shoot ratio was higher in defoliated lodgepole pine plants (1. 05) than in undamaged plants (0.64).

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
defoliated plantse5
Outcome
Root:shoot ratiose5
Direction
higherinferrede5
Value
1. 05e5
Qualifier
0.64 in undamaged plantse5
Comparator
undamaged plantse5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e5

“Root:shoot ratios were found to be 0.64 in undamaged plants and 1. 05 in defoliated plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 842–932 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenitrothion at 1300 ppm had no significant effect on the major growth parameters of lodgepole pine.

Taxon
Lodgepole PinePinus contortat0
Treatment
A high concentration (1300 ppm) of the insecticide fenitrothione6
Outcome
major growth parameterse6
Direction
no_changeinferrede6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pinus contorta
Pinus contorta · TaxonWalter Siegmund · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Lodgepole Pine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
e6

“A high concentration (1300 ppm) of the insecticide fenitrothion, used to maintain control treatments in the field, was found to have no significant effects on the major growth parameters being assessed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 934–1135 · show in text ↑

transplanting · growth · Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

pruning · growth · Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.