4.2 Article

Influence of tree age and density on the above-ground natural durability of eucalypt species at Innisfail

Journal

AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY
Volume 76, Issue 3-4, Pages 113-120

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AUSTRALASIA
DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2013.817939

Keywords

durability; density; trees; age; decay fungi; field tests; heartwood; arid climate; Eucalyptus; Corymbia

Categories

Funding

  1. CSIRO
  2. Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP)
  3. R&D Corporations-Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)
  4. Land & Water Australia (LWA)
  5. Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation (FWPRDC)
  6. Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An above-ground flat-panel test was conducted at Innisfail to determine the influence of tree age on natural durability against decay of heartwood of eucalypt species grown in low-rainfall areas. After nine years' exposure, heartwood from trees aged 30-50 or 80+ years had similar natural durabilities in Eucalyptus sideroxylon, Corymbia spp., E. cladocalyx and E. occidentalis. However, except for E. cladocalyx, the heartwood from trees less than 25 years old was less durable than that from older trees for Corymbia spp., E. leucoxylon, E. occidentalis and E. sideroxylon. Density was a useful predictor of natural durability, especially in the lower range that differentiated wood in young trees. The importance of density within the more-mature tree age ranges of 30-50 years and 80+ years was unclear, perhaps showing that a threshold age for the production of mature heartwood had been reached. Comparisons, including with the yardstick species Pinus radiata, E. regnans, E. obliqua and E. camaldulensis, suggest that E. occidentalis could be assigned a class-2 above-ground natural durability rating in AS 5604, while the class-1 rating for E. astringens should be re-examined.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available