INFLUENCE OF PLANT SPACING ON THE BARK PROPERTIES OF A <i>Eucalyptus</i> CLONE

Rocha, Maria Fernanda Vieira; Pereira, Bárbara Luísa Corradi; Oliveira, Aylson Costa; Pego, Matheus Felipe Freire; Veiga, Taís Regina Lima Abreu; Carneiro, Angélica de Cássia Oliveira

doi:10.1590/1806-90882018000500001

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Rev. Árvore 42 (5) • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-90882018000500001 copy

INFLUENCE OF PLANT SPACING ON THE BARK PROPERTIES OF A Eucalyptus CLONE

INFLUÊNCIA DO ESPAÇAMENTO DE PLANTIO NAS PROPRIEDADES DA CASCA DE UM CLONE DE Eucalyptus

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

For several wood uses, such as pulp, paper and charcoal, the presence of the bark is undesirable, compromising production. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of different plant spacings on the properties of the bark of a clone of Eucalyptus grandis x E. camaldulensis at seven years of age at five different plant spacings. The wood discs were removed from the trees at 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the commercial height; then we performed thickness, basic density, gross calorific value and mineral content analysis of bark. There were no significant differences among treatments for the bark gross calorific value and thickness. For the bark basic density, the highest values were found in trees planted in wider plant spacings and considering the mineral content, there was a significant difference only for P, Mn and Zn.

Keywords:
Quality; Minerals; Forest planting

Table 1 Characteristics of the experimental population.

Treatment	Spacing	Area	Tree	Tree	Plot	area
		per plant	Block	Edge	plot	Tree
	(m)	(m²)				(m²)
1	3.0 x 0.5	1.5	168	120	48	72
2	3.0 x 1.0	3	168	120	48	144
3	3.0 x 1.5	4.5	168	120	48	216
4	3.0 x 2.0	6	168	120	48	288
5	3.0 x 3.0	9	168	120	48	432

Table 2 Mean values of basic density, thickness and gross calorific value (GCV) of Eucalyptus bark, depending on the plant spacing.

Plant spacing	Basic density	Thickness	GCV
(m)	(g/cm³)	(mm)	(kcal/kg)
1 (3 x 0.5)	0.317b	3.024a	4037a
2 (3 x 1)	0.319ab	3.424a	3980a
3 (3 x 1.5)	0.319ab	3.077a	4032a
4 (3 x 2.0)	0.330ab	2.883a	4093a
5 (3 x 3)	0.332a	3.675a	4086a
Mean	0.323	3.217	4046

Table 3 Average values of the macronutrient minerals present in the bark, depending on the plant spacing.

Treatment	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	S
Dag/kg (%)
1	0.273a	0.030abc	0.212a	0.409a	0.104a	0.024a
2	0.319a	0.041a	0.202a	0.443a	0.134a	0.024a
3	0.294a	0.032ab	0.222a	0.445a	0.133a	0.023a
4	0.278a	0.025bc	0.182a	0.460a	0.126a	0.023a
5	0.294a	0.020c	0.162a	0.552a	0.143a	0.021a
Mean	0.292	0.030	0.196	0.462	0.128	0.023

Table 4 Average values of the micronutrient minerals present in the bark, depending on the plant spacing

Treatment	Zn	Fe	Mn	Cu	B
			mg/kg
1	17.733a	32.733a	121.400b	3.200a	11.267a
2	17.700a	38.067a	180.433ab	3.700a	10.467a
3	15.800ab	19.000a	259.000ab	2.967a	10.133a
4	16.533ab	20.800a	301.867a	3.333a	8.033a
5	13.667b	24.800a	317.867a	2.800a	12.267a
Mean	16.287	27.080	236.113	3.200	10.433

Sociedade de Investigações Florestais Universidade Federal de Viçosa, CEP: 36570-900 - Viçosa - Minas Gerais - Brazil, Tel: (55 31) 3612-3959 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rarvore@sif.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author.