This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Currently, there is no consensus on how growing conditions affect the heartwood formation in Scots pine. Comparing the results obtained by different authors is difficult due to methodology differences and poor descriptions of the objects used. We selected two sample plots in (1) a blueberry pine forest on nutrient-rich and moist soil and (2) a lichen pine forest on nutrient-poor and dry soil and performed their detailed characterization. The sample plots were located 22 km apart in the middle taiga subzone (Karelia Republic, northwest Russia). In each sample plot, we selected five dominant trees (model trees), from which we took cores at different trunk heights (0.3, 1.5, 4.5, 7.5 and 10.5 m). The cores were treated with 2,6-dichlorophenolindophenol to identify the heartwood zone. Additionally, samples were taken to study the structural features of the transition zone between sapwood and heartwood. In both forest types, the number of heartwood rings depended on the cambium age, and the patterns of parenchyma cell death did not differ in the transition zone. These facts point to a predominantly internal regulation of the heartwood formation in Scots pine. The heartwood radius and its proportion on the cross-sections were significantly higher in the blueberry pine forest than in the lichen pine forest, despite the relative values of the annual ring width. Further research is needed to develop successful Scots pine heartwood width models under a wide range of conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.