Evaluation and Use of Improved Choctawhatchee Sand Pine for Christmas Trees
Click here to view a PDF version of this document.
Home Search What's New Products Survey Help
Evaluation and Use of Improved Choctawhatchee Sand Pine for Christmas Trees

   

Evaluation and Use of Improved Choctawhatchee Sand Pine for Christmas Trees 1

D.L. Rockwood and R.S. Webb2

This publication offers documentation as to why the Choctawhatchee sand pine--a Florida native shows promise as a fast-growing, reasonably priced Christmas tree with greater freshness than cut trees shipped from out of state.

Background

The use of conifers as Christmas trees is a Florida tradition. Florida, however, is unique in the absence of a traditionally preferred conifer. This phenomenon is attributed to the wide-ranging geographical backgrounds of many adult residents now living in the state.

Florida residents originally cut conifers in the wild for use as Christmas trees. As the population became more urban, the demand was met more by retail lots offering cut trees shipped from northern and Midwestern sources. The availability of locally-grown conifers, managed specifically for use as Christmas trees, developed during the late 1930s and 1940s, and the number of Florida producers has slowly expanded. Membership in the Florida Christmas Tree Association grew from 12 charter members in 1980 to 112 members in 1984. The number of members is estimated to be about half the number of actual producers of locally-grown Christmas trees in the state.

Species which have been grown in Florida for use as Christmas trees include eastern redcedar ( Juniperus virginiana ), southern redcedar (J. silicicola ), Arizona cypress ( Cupressus arizonica ), Atlantic whitecedar ( Chamaecyparis thyoides ), Ocala sand pine ( Pinus clausa var. clausa ), Choctawhatchee sand pine ( P. clausa var. immuginata ), spruce pine ( P. glabra ), shortleaf pine ( P. echinata ), slash pine ( P. elliottii var. elliottii ), Virginia pine ( P. virginiana ) and loblolly pine ( P. taeda ).

Of these, Eastern redcedar, Choctawhatchee sand pine, Virginia pine, and spruce pine currently are the most popular. These four Florida-grown species have two market advantages, especially when produced in a "cut-and-choose" management system:

Any of these four species may be grown in Florida over 3- or 4-year rotations as contrasted with 7- to 10-year rotations for trees grown in the North or Midwest. In particular, Choctawhatchee sand pine is preferred (Rockwood 1977) because of five features:

  1. attractive compact foliage of sheared trees;

  2. rapid growth rate;

  3. adaptability to droughty, infertile sandy sites prevalent in Florida (Rockwood and Kok 1978);

  4. high level of natural resistance to pine tip moth (Rhyacionia spp.), mushroom root rot ( Clitocybe tabescens ), and other pests; and

  5. positive and rapid growth response to commercial fertilizers.

As the demand for Choctawhatchee sand pine seedling stock increases for use in the Florida Christmas tree industry, so must quality increase-- if local producers are to increase their present 3% share of the market.

Selection of breeding stock for Christmas tree form --e.g.:

stem straightness

branch angle. foliar development, and

retention of needle color following cutting--

are critical aspects in improving the supply of high-quality, Florida-grown sand pine.
Of 158 Choctawhatchee sand pines selected in natural stands in Florida, most have been established in a sufficient number of genetic tests to evaluate growth and other characteristics related to commercial pulpwood production (Flinchum et al ., 1985). Twenty-five tests were established from 1975 through 1985 within the Cooperative Forest Genetics Research Program (CFGRP) at the University of Florida.

Materials and Methods

Four Christmas tree tests including 33 open-pollinated progenies were installed beginning in 1981. Of the four tests, those near Newberry (0-77C) and Alachua (0-77D) developed well enough to provide estimates of variability for desired Christmas tree form and color. Test 0-77C received virtually no maintenance since planting in 1981, while Test 0-77D had maximal culture, including thorough site preparation, weed control, and periodic pruning. Ten progenies were common to the two tests.

In January 1985, height, survival, and Christmas tree score on a 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) scale were determined for Tests 0-77C and 0-77D. Progeny means were obtained for each trait and compared.

Results and Discussion

Under maximal culture (Test 0-77D), nearly all progenies survived well and grew satisfactorily ( Table 1 ).

With minimal culture (Test 0-77C), several progenies had unacceptable survival, but surviving trees generally grew well on the fairly rich site.

Variability for Christmas tree score was considerable on both sites and overall. On the 1 to 5 scale, 3 was considered to be an acceptable tree. Eight of 15 progenies averaged acceptable or better under minimal culture, while a similar proportion (15 of 28) of progenies equaled this standard with maximal care. Six of the 10 progenies common to both tests (109-71, 111-71, 112-71, 116-71, 117-71, 118-71) consistently averaged acceptable or better. These six progenies plus acceptable progenies occurring in only one test (121-71, 130-71, 133-71, 162-71, 165-71, 60-81, 65-81, 69-81, 70-81, 73-81) provide an opportunity to expand the number of clones from five (104-71, 105-71, 107-71, 109-71, 124-71) that had been previously selected based on ramet appearance in a seed orchard.

The 16 top-rated progenies for Christmas tree score differed for height growth. Some such as 133-71 and 162-71 exceeded individual test mean height and surpassed checklots in other progeny tests. Others like 69-81 were shorter than the individual test average and were worse than the unimproved checklot in other tests.

Overall, however, these best progenies equaled or slightly exceeded mean heights in Tests 0-77C and 0-77D and bettered the height obtained by unimproved checks in other tests by about two percent.

While height growth per se is not of primary importance in Christmas tree production, Choctawhatchee sand pine selected for desirable form can be expected to reach merchantable size at least as soon as unimproved trees.

However, progeny height growth potential can be assessed by using CFGRP progeny evaluations from many other tests (Hodge et al. 1994). Just as the 33 progenies varied in Christmas tree score, they vary in growth rate from slow (requiring four years to reach Christmas tree size) to relatively fast (needing perhaps only three years to be harvestable).

Choctawhatchee sand pine that is genetically superior for Christmas tree production may be available from several sources. To request seedlings of the best progenies, contact:

Tree Improvement Manager
Florida Division of Forestry
Milton, FL 32570
Phone (850) 957-6160

Ochard Manager
International Paper Co.
Marianna, FL 32446
Phone (850) 594-6001

By using improved seedlings, Florida growers can produce more high-quality Choctawhatchee sand pine Christmas trees.

References

Flinchum, D.M., R.E. Goddard, H.R. Kok, P.A. Layton, C.H. McRae, G.L. Powell, and D.L. Rockwood. 1985. Coop. For. Genet. Res. Prog. 27th Progress Rpt. Univ. Fla. Sch. For. Res. Conserv. Res. Rpt. No. 36. 20p.

Hodge, G.R., M.J. Dieters, T.L. White, and G.L. Powell. 1994. Genetics of Choctawhatchee sand pine. Coop. For. Genet. Res. Prog., Sch. For. Res. Conserv., Univ. Fla., Gainesville, FL. 26p.

Rockwood, D.L. 1977. Sand pine - a potential Christmas tree. Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv. For. Rpt. 77-79. 3p.

Rockwood. D.L., and H.R. Kok. 1978. Which sand pine to plant in Florida? Fifth year test results. S.J. App. For. 2:49-50.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Cooperative Forest Genetics Research Program at the University of Florida. CFGRP staff, especially, H.R. Kok, provided invaluable assistance in the conduct of this study. The cooperation of J.J. Brasher, H. Friensehner, D.M. Post, and F. Stephens through provision of test sites is greatly appreciated.

Tables

Table 1. Height, Christmas tree score and survival of 33 Choctawhatchee sand pine progenies grown under minimal (Test 0-77C) and maximal (Test 0-77D) culture.


 0-77C/4th-Year
0-77D/2nd-Year
Overall

Score
Progeny
Ht(m) ft


 Score
Survival(%)


 Ht(m) ft


 Score
Survival(%)
102-71
(3.3) 10.2
2.0
94



2.0
104-71
(2.4) 7.9
2.2
43
(1.2) 3.9
2.5
100
2.4
106-71



(1.2) 3.9
1.4
67
1.4
107-71



(1.2) 3.9
2.8
96
2.8
108-71
(2.4) 7.9
2.1
62
(1.4) 4.6
3.0
100
2.7
109-71*
(2.9) 9.5
3.1
56
(1.4) 4.6
3.8
100
3.5
110-71
(2.9) 9.5
2.6
61
(1.2) 3.9
2.2
93
2.4
111-71*
(2.6) 8.6
3.1
64
(1.2) 3.9
3.3
100
3.2
112-71*
(2.7) 8.9
3.0
35
(1.3) 4.3
3.4
100
3.1
116-71*
(2.5) 8.2
3.0
50
(1.3) 4.3
3.4
100
3.3
117-71*
(2.7) 8.9
3.1
77
(1.3) 4.3
3.0
100
3.0
118-71*
(2.8) 9.2
3.3
80


 (1.5) 4.9
3.4
100
3.3
121-71*
(2.9) 9.5
3.4
84



3.4
124-71
(2.7) 8.9
2.7
43
(1.3) 4.3
2.8
100
2.8
130-71*



(1.3) 4.3
3.0
100
3.0
131-71



(1.3) 4.3
2.8
100
2.8
133-71*
(3.1) 10.2
4.5
67



4.5
140-71



(1.3) 4.3
2.7
97
2.7
141-71



(1.2) 3.9
2.7
97
2.7
153-71



(1.3) 4.3
2.8
95
2.8
162-71*



(1.5) 4.9
4.1
100
4.1
165-71*



(1.4) 4.6
3.6
100
3.6
181-71
(3.0) 9.8
2.7
90



2.7
60-81*



(1.3) 4.3
3.3
100
3.3
65-81*



(1.5) 4.9
3.6
100
3.6
67-81



(1.2) 3.9
2.4
100
2.4
69-81*



(1.2) 3.9
3.0
95
3.0
70-81*



(1.5) 4.9
3.2
96
3.2
71-81



(1.3) 4.3
2.8
100
2.8
73-81*



(1.3) 4.3
3.1
100
3.1
76-81



(1.1) 3.6
2.5
92
2.5
79-81



(1.3) 4.3
2.8
91
2.8
Godd
(3.3) 10.2
2.4
48


2.4
Mean
(2.8) 9.2
2.9
64
(1.3) 4.3
3.0
97
2.9
1 meter = 3.28 feet
*Progeny with acceptable Christmas tree score in one test or overall.

Footnotes

1. This document is FOR 53, one of a series of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Published: January, 1997. Reviewed and Minor Revision: January 2003. Please visit the EDIS Web site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu

2. D.L. Rockwood and R.S. Webb, professor and former associate professor, respectively, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.


Copyright Information

This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.