An Investigation of

Aleppo Pine for Low Rainfall Farm Forestry by Peter C Crammond RST Technology Pty Ltd RIRDC/LWRRDC/FWPRDC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program Supported by the Natural Heritage Trust and the Murray Darling Basin Commission January 1999 RIRDC Publication No 99/016 RIRDC Project No. RST-1A

ii

© 1999 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 0 642 57889 3 ISSN 1440-6845 An Investigation of Aleppo Pine for Low Rainfall Farm Forestry Publication no 99/016 Project no. RST-1A The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Communications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details Peter C Crammond RST Technology Pty Ltd PO Box 224 Jamestown SA 5491 Phone/Fax: 08 8664 1741

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: rirdc@netinfo.com.au Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in January 1999 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by the AFFA Copy Centre

iii

Foreword Plantation forestry commenced in Australia in 1876 at Bundaleer in the Mid-North of South Australia, only forty years after settlement of the colony of South Australia (SA). Under the guidance of the first Conservator of Forests, J. Ednie Brown, mixed Eucalypt and Pine plantations had soon been successfully established in the sheltered gullies and on the skeletal hillside soils of the Bundaleer Ranges. Pinus radiata was the outstanding species in terms of growth and it was adopted as the forest plantation species of choice elsewhere in SA, southern Australia and beyond. Even earlier, in 1864, there is record of Aleppo pine, Pinus halepensis, being grown in the Adelaide metropolitan area. Aleppo pine windbreaks are a common feature in the SA farmland landscape. Both P. halepensis and the closely allied P. brutia (the Aleppo pine group) have been planted irregularly on fairly small scale in SA and WA since. Although reasonable growth rates appear to have been obtained in plantations, usually silvicultural practices have not been optimal and performance monitoring and record keeping haphazard or non-existent. As a result of this and the tendency of P. halepensis to poor stem form, these species have acquired reputations as a source of low grade timber. In this work, the author has assessed the feasibility of extending Aleppo pine planting into lower rainfall farmlands for both ancillary agricultural benefits and timber production purposes. The adequacy of mechanical properties of the timber species has also been bench marked against P. radiata. This work provides information about low rainfall forestry, with particular emphasis on use of the Aleppo group. This report, the latest addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 250 research publications, forms part of the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, which is jointly funded by RIRDC, the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, and the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. Additional funding also comes from the Natural Heritage Trust and the Murray Darling Basin Commission. The JVAP aims to integrate sustainable and productive agroforestry within Australian farming systems. Peter Core Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Acknowledgements Much assistance has been freely given by Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) and Forestry SA staff. In particular I thank Bob Boardman for access to trial records and other relevant material and general guidance, to David Kaethner for locating trial plantings, provision of test samples, guidance on various forestry matters, particularly establishment techniques and costs, to Peter Bulman and his staff for their help and guidance on most aspects of the project, but especially for the provision of the REVAL programme which allowed financial analyses to be so readily conducted, and report critique, to PIRSA Forestry SA and Don Blesing for test trees, to Tim Flannery, Don Blesing and Alan French for sample tree felling and test specimen preparation and finally to Joanne Crammond for the thorough and well presented literature search of Forestry Abstracts covering the last 35 years.

v

Contents FOREWORD III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV

PREFACE VII

ABOUT THE AUTHOR VIII

ABBREVIATIONS IX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 OBJECTIVES 2

3 METHODOLOGY 2

4 DETAILED RESULTS AND EVALUATION 5

4.1 Literature search 5 Species 5 Provenances 5 Soil/water 5 Establishment 5 Thinning 5 Environmental 5 Timber properties 5

4.2 Establishment practices 6

4.3 Stem form and growth rate 6

4.4 Timber properties 11

4.5 Economic evaluation 14 Agricultural shelter gains 19 Tree height 19 Establishment cost 19 Growth rate 19 Timing of harvesting 19 Wood returns 20 Salinity 20 Cost of displacing agriculture 20 Discount rate 23 Other perspectives 23

5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 25

vi

5.1 Objective 1. Aleppo pine group low rainfall forestry profitability 25

5.2 Objective 2. Suitability and advantages of Aleppo pine group timber 25

5.3 Objective 3. Promulgation of findings 26

6 IMPLICATIONS 27

7 RECOMMENDATIONS 28

8 REFERENCES 29

8.1 Cited references 29

8.2 Bibiography - General References - Aleppo Pine (uncited) 31

8.3 Bibliography - Australian References (uncited) 34

9 APPENDICES 66

Appendix 1 Jerilderie - McCaughey Memorial Institute 67

Appendix 2 Bundaleer plantation Aleppo pines provenance trial growth data 70

vii

Preface This project arose from the combination of a chance discussion concerning recovery of tannin from bark of purpose-grown black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) with noted agroforestry expert and advocate, Peter Bulman, and the author’s lifetime interest in growing trees. The discussion concluded that viability of growing black wattle seemed more likely if there could be a market for the wood giving the tannin-containing bark ‘free’ transport to the processing location. Another factor against growing black wattle was the significant levels of tannin in pine bark were already available as a by product of the radiata pine industry in the South-east. The discussion led onto considering the potential of extending the State’s timber industry into the areas too dry for radiata pine. Even with slow growth rates, it seemed that more wood be supplied from a relatively small percentage of the agricultural areas in the 400–600 mm rainfall zone planted with species such as Aleppo pine (P. halepensis) than produced by the radiata pine industry. Questions relating to feasibility and viability led to this project.

viii

About the Author Peter Crammond is Managing Director of RST Technology Pty Ltd, an R&D company developing new timber based products, bark extracts for formulating wood adhesives and tanning agents, with low rainfall forestry as an ancillary programme. He has worked for 35 years in the timber products industry, in various roles in QA, technology, engineering and R&D, mostly in senior roles. He has had considerable success in introducing new products and processes, often incorporating novel design equipment.

ix

Abbreviations EMC equilibrium moisture content MOE modulus of elasticity (units GPa) MOR modulus of rupture (units MPa) PISA Primary Industries South Australia IUFRO International Union of Forestry Research Organisations MAI mean annual increment (of growth - units m3/ha/yr) NPV net present value IRR internal rate of return Xbar mean value (of group data) σ, SD standard deviation (of group data) T1,2,3 1st, 2nd, 3rd thinnings (of timber harvest) CF clearfell (of timber harvest)

x

Executive Summary Projected increased world demand for structural timber offers a possible opportunity for landholders in lower rainfall country to diversify their activities to include farm forestry. The feasibility of doing so in semi-arid Mediterranean climate areas of southern Australia (receiving an annual rainfall of 300–600 mm) is the subject of this report. The questions addressed are:

a. Are there potential tree species with suitable growth rate, size and form? b. Is the timber likely to meet market needs? c. What are the financial prospects?

The Aleppo pine group members, Pinus halepensis and P. brutia, show promise. Aleppo pine (mainly P. halepensis) in windbreaks grow to impressive dimensions sometimes even shedding lower branches in old age. The closely related red pine P. brutia displays better stem characteristics, especially stem straightness and less multiple leaders. Forestry trials and on-farm plantings of the Aleppo pine group were surveyed throughout settled SA and at Jerilderie, NSW, to gauge timber production potential and relate this to climate and silviculture. Performance ranged from stunted trees and low survival to large specimens with growth rates comparable to moderate site quality P. radiata. Despite the difficulties of estimating the growth rates of windbreaks and isolated trees, clear trends emerged. Aleppo pine requires a minimum annual rainfall of 400 mm, and preferably 450 mm or more for reasonable growth rates. It grows better when there is seasonal ground water access, run-on water or irrigation and prefers deep well structured soils or soils prepared by deep ripping and mounding. Woodlots need to be at least ten rows wide to reduce the proportion of heavily-branched perimeter trees unlikely to provide millable timber. Suitable zones in South Australia include parts of the Mid North, Upper South East and Lower Eyre Peninsula, and similar climate areas of WA and Victoria. Pinus brutia has better stem form and lighter branching than P. halepensis and warrants further farm trial plantings as its use outside Forestry Reserves has been very limited. Growth rate, stem size and quality need further evaluation before large-scale adoption of P. brutia farm forests can be advised with confidence for low rainfall areas. State Forest provenance trials planted in the 1970s did not identify any P. brutia provenances better than that supplied to SA Woods & Forests Department over 50 years ago by the Cyprus Forest Department, but further searching is warranted. The physical and mechanical properties of P. brutia, P. halepensis and P. radiata were tested to assess timber adequacy for structural applications including preservative treated posts. Wide variability was encountered largely due to presence or absence of knots (as it was with P. radiata) so proof grading would be preferable to visual. Provisional design values have been determined for P. brutia and P. halepensis sawnwood for bending strength and stiffness. Most fell into F5 and F7 categories, similar to P. radiata. Trimmed but un-machined treated posts are strong and tough, but ‘untidy’. Further property testing and test procedure clarification are needed to be able to fully evaluate the market potential of Aleppo posts. REVAL, a spreadsheet developed by PIRSA to compare direct and indirect benefits of farm planting designs, was used to analyse numerous silvicultural and financial scenarios. The analyses take into account the value of displaced agriculture and discount cash flows. In summary, the findings are:

• preferred plantation shapes are long wide woodlots (timberbelts) which give the best combination of shelter benefits and production of useful timber

xi

• mean annual increments (MAIs) of woodlots need to be more than about 15 m3/ha/yr for the likelihood of worthwhile returns even when additional farm benefits are taken into account. Such growth rates can only be expected in the most favourable conditions.

• early returns from sale of first thinnings markedly improve the economic prospects. Silvicultural practices should concentrate on improving yields of post and poles from first thinnings as low rainfall woodlots are unlikely to be near traditional pulpwood markets.

• if plantations reduce areas affected by salinity, project viability is significantly enhanced.

• an increasing discount rate (a measure of the value put on money earned in the future) significantly erodes the profitability of such a long-term enterprise

• woodlots as an on-farm superannuation mechanism are unlikely to match the benefits from regular superannuation funds

Accepting that wood returns on their own are insufficient to warrant investing in low rainfall farm forestry, extensive plantings can only be justified with other strong motivations for planting, such as shelter benefits or salinity abatement. Establishment of strategic P. brutia timberbelts by ‘pioneer’ landholders, however, can enable subsequent generations to operate profitable timber enterprises, as continuous harvesting and replanting overcomes the problem of discounting the value of a final clear fell returns from a one-off planting in the distant future. Should the efforts of pioneers be sufficient to sustain local sawmilling then neighbours following their example also benefit from lowered transport costs. If landholders are suitably trained and can access the appropriate equipment to do the felling and carting operations themselves, there is as much money to be made from the few weeks of final clearfelling and carting work alone as there is in planting and tending the plot for the 45 years! The best land for growing timber woodlots is often that generating the highest income from current farm uses. It can be more attractive to an investor seeking to minimise current tax obligations to purchase and plant such highly productive land than a farmer with debts to service. The superior form but unknown site limitations for Pinus brutia warrant the establishment of strategically placed trial plots.

1

1 Introduction Timber harvesting world wide from pristine and "managed" forests greatly exceeds that from plantation forests. Much of these cleared forest lands are being diverted to other uses so dependency on plantation forest timber will inevitably increase. Presently, on a volume basis, about half of timber removal from "natural" forests is for structural applications, the remainder mostly for decorative purposes. Plantation forestry supplies mostly construction timber. Pinus radiata is the dominant species in temperate climate plantation forestry. The potential for the expansion of P. radiata plantings in Australia and other Southern Hemisphere countries is limited by availability of suitable high rainfall land due to environmental restrictions and other existing uses with higher economic and social values. There was in excess of 960,000 ha of plantation forest estate in Australia in 1995. Although this is increasing at 25,000 ha per year, the 85% proportion of the estate devoted to softwood is static due largely to land deemed suitable for P. radiata being valued too highly to be diverted to this use. To address this problem, others are seeking to extend P. radiata forests into lower rainfall zones, reducing minimum acceptable average annual rainfall from 650 mm to 500 mm. A trial planting in the Upper South East of SA is planned.(1) However, some other species of pine, especially Aleppo pine, P. halepensis, and related species red pine, P. brutia, grow more robustly in dry climates than P. radiata. Maritime pine, P. pinaster, and the indigenous pine, Callitris glaucophylla, might also be expected to be suitable for these conditions. Forestry is a somewhat unique endeavour in that positive cashflows do not occur for typically 10 to 20 years and net positive returns may not occur until clear felling, usually 35 to 50 years after planting for plantation forestry(2). Thus for plantation forestry to be profitable in marginal conditions, establishment and annual costs must be offset by other benefits, as the asymptotic escalation of the cost of borrowed funds and lost opportunity cost in the later years can preclude ever achieving a profit. Windbreak and woodlot plantings can ameliorate this deferred break-even effect by providing benefits during the plantation life cycle, such as through improved crop yields and animal husbandry and erosion and salinity control. These benefits are quite complex to quantify and, until very recently, methodologies have been unavailable. Trees planted specifically for windbreaks often have poor stem form reducing their value for sawmilling. It has been usual to use eucalypt and other native tree species for landcare purposes. Although there are environmental reasons for this preference, usually exotic pines offer far better prospects as commercial sawlog, although experience in milling Aleppo pine has been limited so far in Australia. Large tracts of land in southern Australia presently devoted to low rainfall cropping and grazing are potentially suitable for low rainfall forestry. Further, in most recent years, many farms in this zone have been unprofitable. Scoping studies preparatory to this project had indicated that Aleppo low rainfall forestry may be justifiable in its own right as a supplementary farm enterprise offering clear advantages to landholders and others in this zone — income diversification, supplementation and equalisation, enhanced local employment opportunities, environmental protection and landscape improvement. Most of the limited plantings of Aleppo pine in forestry trials in Australia have been P. brutia as it has better stem form for milling than P. halepensis (more commonly seen in the agricultural areas). However, sufficient examples of large-size good-form P. halepensis trees justified a thorough survey in drier country than where P. brutia has been planted so far. Investigation of aspects of establishment and management was needed to enable the technical and financial potential of Aleppo pine to be properly evaluated. Concurrent work by PIRSA on sustainable farming practices incorporating perennial vegetation provided data on the value of shelter benefits from forest, woodlot and windbreak plantings.(3) It is obviously impossible to quickly create forests let alone a manufacturing industry based on the timber resource. This does not matter. All existing plantation forests were progressively planted over decades. The

2

survival of small-scale forestry and farm plantations and small-scale processing operations in the northern highlands of SA and elsewhere show that areas of a few thousand hectares can be self supporting. Operations can start on this small scale and then remain static to serve a small local market or grow in scale as opportunities present. In the northern highlands of SA, only about 5% of 3000 ha of forest is planted to Pinus brutia and much less to P. halepensis. Expansion of high rainfall forest areas in the Flinders and Bundaleer Ranges is restricted by land availability. However 5% afforestation of the adjacent agricultural district would provide a 10-fold increase in area of this forest estate. Far greater areas with similar climate exist in the cropping and grazing lands on Eyre Peninsula and in the Upper South East of SA and further afield in WA. In the SA northern highlands alone, under equilibrium conditions, at an average growth rate of 10 m3/ha/yr, potential annual timber production from 30,000 ha would be 300,000 m3 worth over $9,000,000 (averaging $30/m3 net return to the grower). Successful low rainfall farm forestry has undoubted environmental benefits. These benefits can be expected to occur more quickly than direct returns from timber sales but are more difficult to estimate in dollar terms. Estimates have been made of the financial benefits of "alley farming" by others(2A), usually where the planted arboreal strips have fodder value. The medium term environmental benefits are mostly indirect through salinity control, crop/pasture growth increase, stock shelter, wind and water erosion control. The actual monetary value of the indirect benefits depends on individual farm situations, changing annually with windbreak growth, with variations in seasonal conditions and altered farm activities. PIRSA’s REVAL spreadsheet for assessment of cost-benefits of perennial vegetation on farms allows this to be estimated.(3) A technical impediment to user acceptance of Aleppo pine is that no design criteria exist for the timber so an extensive mechanical testing programme has been conducted to broadly determine timber properties. Demonstration of the adequacy of these criteria is equally as important as that of growth rate and stem form in justifying a farm forestry planting program. Aleppo pine is under trial as a substitute for Baltic pine in the pine furniture market. The knots that make it visually attractive for this application create their own problems of instability in drying including detachment. However, with the very limited supply of Aleppo logs in the past, best drying practice (distortion restraint) was seldom applied. Good milling results have been reported by a local sawmiller for self-pruned P. brutia forest provided sound drying techniques are employed, but further confirmation of this is needed. As there is an obvious substantial cash flow downside with low rainfall forestry compared to annual cropping or grazing, the medium term benefits must offset the negative cash flows to farmers' satisfaction or the concept will not be accepted. Some modest Federal Government up-front assistance for farm reafforestation could make a significant difference to profitability of low rainfall forestry and farmer perception of its worth. Present and proposed taxation practices can have a marked effect on cost projections in individual cases. The effect of these and many other factors such as size and shape of windbreaks, time to harvest, labour costing, one or more directional shelter benefits, increased property value, sale value of trees, annual planting and harvesting of pines versus a one-off forest crop, and consideration as a superannuation instrument, have all been investigated in this project.

2 Objectives 2.1 To evaluate the potential of the Aleppo pine group low rainfall forestry to be a profitable

supplementary farm activity in low rainfall zones by using selected plant stock and optimising planting and maintenance regimes.

2.2 To evaluate the suitability of the Aleppo pine group for high-strength treated rounds and sawn timber for structural and furniture use.

2.3 To promulgate the findings to landholders and investors, if warranted.

3 Methodology

3

Forestry Abstracts were searched back to the 1960s and relevant material copied and compiled in a card index. A search through PIRSA files and publications and ForestrySA records was also conducted in an attempt to identify superior trees for inspection and seed collection. Reference material is listed in the Bibliography. The 1972 ForestrySA-IUFRO provenance trial plantings were re-assessed specifically for the same purpose. Apart from these surveys, a major task was the location, mensuration and performance characterisation of existing trees/plantations in the climatic zone of interest, both in State forests and on-farm plantings. Work was concentrated in South Australia for practical reasons. Special equipment for measurement of tree height and an increment borer for sampling growth patterns and possibly compression wood profile, wood density and moisture content were used, but it was found that simpler methods such as using sighting sticks(4) for tree height and discussion with property owners regarding tree age were far more expeditious and probably just as accurate. Sighting sticks allowed numerous measurements to be made quickly, even in awkward conditions. Frequent poor trunk form thwarted the potentially more accurate use of full height telescopic measuring sticks and instruments such as relascopes. Improvement in accuracy of plantation wood volume determinations was achieved by increasing the sampling intensity afforded by the use of the quicker, simpler method. Accurate tree age determination using an increment borer is dependent upon the bored hole penetrating all annual rings to the pith. As stem growth is usually not concentric, repeat borings are sometimes needed. Planting records made conducting this physically demanding sampling procedure unnecessary for age determination as did the actual felling of several stems. Some 2000 individual stem measurements were made in approximately 85 separate widely dispersed locations. Most locations were in low rainfall farm environments but several were in higher rainfall areas (>600 mm). Useful wood volume in each tree was calculated using a modified conic volume formula allowing for the often less than ideal trunk shape of P. halepensis. Assumptions were that useful stem diameter should exceed 75 mm under bark, that 5% wood volume was not in this category when total (canopy) height is used in the volume formula and that a 10% reduction is allowed to take account of the breast height diameter measurements being over bark. Vub = 0.23db

2h where Vub = stem wood volume under bark (metres) db = breast height diameter over bark (metres) and h = tree height to top of canopy (metres) The relationships between stem size, timber quality and growth rate with growing regimes were established by analysis of the measurements and derived data. Collated information was also analysed in order to identify best plant stock and best planting regimes for various conditions. This information was then applied in the PIRSA REVAL cost benefit spreadsheet to prepare the economic sensitivity analysis detailed in Table 9. Over 1450 timber test specimens obtained from felling representative forest and farm trees were milled, air-dried to EMC and tested for physical and mechanical properties to establish structural grade. Visual grading characteristics were also noted. This involved felling 12 trees cut into a total of 35 cross-sectional samples plus gathering much other random pre-cut material from sawmills. Machinability properties were also studied to some extent in preparing the test specimens and salt-treated rounds of P. halepensis were used in applications to assess their mechanical properties and likely durability. In order to obtain a large number of test pieces from each sample so that possible property patterns in stem cross-sections could be investigated (if present), test piece size was selected to be 450 mm x 50 mm x 25 mm, significantly smaller than that used in routine quality control (QC) testing in the softwood sawmilling industry. Some pre-cut sawmill source P. radiata was even smaller in cross section. These samples were tested in a purpose-built bending test machine which provided advantages in reduced handling, rapidity of performing the tests and cost. The machine consisted of a simple press frame containing a trolley jack supporting a carrier plate to which 25 mm diameter rod test piece supports were welded 400 mm apart. Bending load was applied through a centrally placed 25 mm diameter rod welded to a top moveable platen supported from the top of the press frame by four bolts free to move vertically. A load cell was nested on the top face of this moveable platen. Once load was applied to the test piece by raising the bottom assembly supported on the trolley jack, further movement of the assembly, equal to the bending strain, was

4

tracked using a position gauge. Ten to twelve recordings of stress were taken at equal intervals of strain. This data was used to calculate bending stiffness (MOE) and, at the final break load, bending strength (MOR). Some care was needed to initially position the jack for completely central location at contact but generally the machine was most convenient for the purpose giving readings that were quite accurate compared to the wide variability in results between test pieces. The physical and mechanical properties of P. halepensis and P. brutia were analysed in cross-section to compare inner and outer wood strength with P. radiata. Variation of strength with stem position was analysed. Particular attention was paid to the presence of knots and their effect on strength. Growth rate and wood property data was applied in financial analyses in the PIRSA REVAL spreadsheet to investigate the likely profitability of low rainfall farm forestry enterprises using Aleppo pine. Numerous variables covering plantation design, establishment conditions, growing conditions, cost benefits relating to substituted and affected farm activities, wood returns and financial factors were investigated. The sensitivity of project profitability to changes in these variables was readily demonstrated by use of the ReVal programme thus enabling the preferred conditions and means for maximising farm plantation income to be identified. Findings from socio-economic analyses in the PIRSA project “Incorporation of Perennial Vegetation into Sustainable Agriculture” (in progress) on likely plot sizes were taken into account.

5

4 Detailed Results and Evaluation

4.1 Literature search A brief summary follows:

Archaeological investigations have proved Aleppo Pine was used in ancient Mediterranean boat construction over 2000 years ago(5)(5A). Growth deemed acceptable in Europe, Asia Minor and Africa is much lower than in Australia(6). For example P. brutia in Turkey growing 23.4 metres in height in 100 years is regarded as indicating a good growing site. In Australia, a tree could be expected to reach this height after 25 years in good growing conditions.

Species • P. halepensis is generally favoured over P. brutia on drier sites but even P. brutia considered a drought

resistant tree(7)(8)(9)(10) • P. radiata outperforms P. halepensis in sites favourable to P. radiata(11)(12)(13)(14) • P. halepensis and P. pinaster regenerate after fire(15) • P. brutia/P. halepensis cross increases vigour. Species hybridise when in close proximity.(16)(17)(18) • P. brutia is the superior tree for production forestry(19) • P. brutia has better stem form than P. halepensis.(47)

Provenances • Best low rainfall provenances are from low altitude sources — Greece for P. halepensis, Turkey for P.

brutia(20)(21) (Note that this is not consistent with Australian provenance trial findings)

Soil/water • Annual rainfall distribution through the four seasons and access of tree roots to soil moisture (assisted by

“deep ripping”) prolongs the growing season(22)(23) • Soil depth, moisture retention and rainfall are the main growth determinants; soil characteristics are more

important than rainfall. Marl soils are best. Organic matter is beneficial to growth.(23)(24)(25)(26) • P. brutia grows satisfactorily in lime soils but low pH soil is better.(22)(24) • P. halepensis plantations prevent 97% rain loss as run off; wheat only 74%.(27)

Establishment • Germination can be increased by heating P. halepensis seeds to 60-70°C for a period.(28)(29) (Is this

applicable to cold winter provenances, especially P. brutia, and might stratifying be a better procedure?) • Deep ripping of soil to improve soil structure improves growth performance.(26)(30)(30A)(31)(32) • Applying nitrogen and superphosphate enhances growth.(33) • Planting deep and tamping in seedlings improve survival.(34)

Thinning • Planting at close spacing, at least 1500 stems per hectare (to suppress branches), then thinning often,

initially soon after canopy closure, promotes good tree form and merchantable yields. Removing 15% of stems is suggested for first thinning.(35)(36)(37) (15% is very light for radiata pine.)

Environmental • P. halepensis helps control gully erosion once needle coverage of soil occurs. (Domestic animals must be

kept out.)(38)

Timber properties • Physical, mechanical and working properties are “adequate”.(39) • P. brutia specific gravity reduces from 0.6 to 0.5 with tree height and also from cambium to pith.(40) • P. brutia peels satisfactorily for veneer.(41)(42)(43) Numerous Australian references to agroforestry and climatic information are not cited in the text but those considered during the project are also listed in the Bibliography in a separate section.

6

4.2 Establishment practices Successful establishment, using best forest practice, is essential for a profitable low rainfall farm forest enterprise. This may require using tubestock instead of open rooted seedlings. This has been preferred by PIRSA Forestry in the limited plantings of these species in their Mid-North forests in order to achieve good survival rates.(44) In trials conducted by the author, it was found that open-rooted transplants were prone to fail under stress unless watered. The same applied to tubestock if there was excessive root disturbance during transplanting. Nevertheless, many of the P. halepensis windbreaks in the Mid-North of SA dating back to pre-World War 2 were grown from open-rooted seedlings protected by wet jute bagging when sold at local stock markets.(45) Although direct seeding is becoming an accepted technology, the author had little success in direct seeding trials with the Aleppo pine group. Poor germination was compounded by poor survival. These trials involved planting into bare earth with minimal soil preparation - only sufficient to retain the seeds in position. Moisture stress was obviously a factor. Lack of symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in open pasture may also militate against successful large scale direct seeding. This difficulty is at odds with the germination and survival of very small seedlings of P. halepensis, P. brutia and P. canariensis under a thin bed of pine needles in forest conditions despite hard stony soil, prolonged dry weather and minimal root development. Direct seeding can involve using inverted ventilated plastic cups to protect germinating seeds.(46) Such methods are worthy of further trials.

4.3 Stem form and growth rate

It had been presumed by the author that: • growth rates must be comparable to, but not necessarily match, existing Pinus radiata performance • timber properties must be sufficient for likely market applications which probably require

properties matching P. radiata, or better • there must be economic justification for on-farm plantations. Casual observation of forest plots is sufficient to make obvious that P. halepensis is prone to multiple trunks and leaders, bent stems and other deficiencies of form which are aggravated by difficult growing conditions; and that P. brutia branch persistence may be greater than on P. radiata. In low rainfall forestry where productive timber growth measured as a mean annual increment (MAI), is considerably less than from prime locations, reduction in proportion of quality stems can be ill-afforded. Representative samples of Pinus radiata, P. halepensis, P. brutia and P. canariensis growing in close proximity in the Bundaleer Forest under similar growing conditions were surveyed for trunk form attributes (Table 1). The location is as favourable as is likely to occur within the bounds of definition of low rainfall farm forestay. During provenance trial measurements (see below), no particularly well-formed sources of P. halepensis were noted. Particularly good growing conditions such as high rainfall, supplementary run-on or groundwater, deep fertile friable soil or a combination of these factors together with closed spaced planting reduce incidence of stem deformations in this species. (if closely spaced).

Table 1: Stem form comparisons (% occurrence) Stems Deformations Species Number Straight Bent Double Multiple Double Multiple Trunk Trunk Leader Leader P. radiata 70 84 1 1 1 11 0 P. halepensis 187 31 4 14 0 28 24 P. brutia 63 87 3 0 0 6 4 P. canariensis 56 80 0 0 2 18 0

In assessing growth rate, the Jerilderie 1968 provenance trial plantings previously reported by Spencer(47) and Palmburg(47A) were re-inspected, together with the 1972 IUFRO trial plantings still extant in South Australia at Bundaleer and Wanilla forests. The third SA trial planting in Caroline forest in the South East was destroyed by fire a few years after planting. Additionally, many farm and forest trees were measured across a wide range of climatic conditions (but usually in the Mediterranean climate zones).

7

The Jerilderie measurements were only conducted in a corner section where the replicated provenance plantings were clearly identified by name pegs (Section A). Observation indicated that this section accurately represented the complete planting. Felling of some trees many years ago as well as mortality may have a confounding effect on comparison between provenances. Results of these measurements are tabulated in Appendix 1 with the best performing provenances grouped in Table 2.

Table 2: Jerilderie McCaughey Memorial Institute Plantation, Growth data summary best performing provenances

Code Seed Source Species MAI Number Country Altitude (m) (m3/ha/yr)

18 Tunisia 350 P. halepensis 3.4 4 Italy 15 P. halepensis 3.9

17 Tunisia 300 P. halepensis 3.6 3 Italy 150-305 P. halepensis 3.4 6 Spain 305 P. halepensis 3.6

22 Iran 1280 P. brutia 3.9 20 Greece 400 P. brutia 4.1 21 Greece 600 P. brutia 3.0

The Wanilla trials were marred by severe mortality at planting due to poor condition of the seedlings after delayed delivery. The trial plots were re-assessed by R. Boardman in 1989.(48) Where soil was ripped, wood volume per ha was double that for trees planted into pits. P. halepensis growth was double that of P. brutia in pit plantings. Best growth performance provenances of P. halepensis, P. brutia and its subspecies extracted from Boardman’s data are listed in Table 3. Survival was so low in all plots that these results probably have limited statistical validity. Therefore no quantified performance measurement is presented here. As reported for Jerilderie by Spencer(47), the best performing trees in later measurements at Wanilla did not coincide with those growing most strongly earlier.

Table 3: Wanilla Plantation, Aleppo Pine Group Provenance Trial Growth Data Summary Best Performing Provenances

PIRSA Forestry Code

Provenance SI Code

Species Source

9 8320 P. eldarica Khorasan, Iran 13 8428 P. brutia Yayladag, Antakya, Turkey 20 8507 P. brutia Island of Rhodes 51 1620 P. brutia Cyprus (Forest Department)

32 64146 P. halepensis Oued El Bir, Tunisia 35 64144 P. halepensis Mine du Djebel, Serc., Tunisia 39 8082 P. halepensis Mount Carmel, Israel 40 7869 P. halepensis Aib Tamelilb, Morocco 41 8123 P. halepensis Mount Hebron, Jordan 42 8338 P. halepensis Ain Beida, Algeria 44 8342 P. halepensis Djelfa, Algeria

The 1972 Bundaleer trial plantings were measured by the author in 1996. A summary of best performing provenance growth data is given in Table 4 and complete data are presented in Appendix 2.

Table 4: Bundaleer Plantation, Aleppo Pines Provenance Trial Growth Data Summary

8

Block

Plot

Row

Provenance

Code

Number Planted

Number Survived

Total Height

Dominant Stems

Typical Useful Stem

Height

Merchantable Plot Timber

Volume

Mean Annual

Increment

(25) positions)

(m) (m) (m3) (m3/ha/yr)

1 1 1 40 12 9 20 13 1.6 6.2 2 1 3 13 20 9 13 9 1.0 3.9 2 2 1 48 25 13 18 12 2.1 5.6 2 6 1 18 18 12 20 16 2.4 6.9 3 3 3 43 20 9 22 16 2.9 11.0 3 4 3 40 20 7 19 12 1.7 8.1 4 1 4 18 20 11 17 13 1.7 5.4 4 2 3 51 20 11 19 13 2.0 6.1 4 3 1 13 25 12 19 14 2.5 7.0 4 3 3 3 15 7 20 15 1.6 7.7 4 5 2 48 20 11 19 12 1.5 4.6 4 6 1 14 20 9 20 13 1.7 6.4 8 3 8 51 25 19 24 19 4.6 8.3 8 2 6 40 15 11 19 10 1.6 5.0 8 3 4 48 25 21 17 12 2.2 3.6 8 3 3 43 12 11 16 11 1.4 4.5 7 3 8 3 12 11 16 10 1.2 3.8 7 2 7 51 20 18 18 12 1.9 3.6 7 3 7 18 20 14 17 11 1.6 4.0 7 2 4 13 25 12 13 11 1.6 4.4 7 3 4 14 25 12 16 10 1.7 4.7 7 2 3 18 25 11 14 10 0.9 2.8 7 1 2 14 25 14 18 13 2.6 6.5 7 2 1 3 15 6 19 14 1.5 8.4 6 3 3 40 15 8 18 12 1.5 6.2 6 1 1 40 15 12 18 11 2.2 6.2 5 3 8 51 25 20 19 12 3.4 5.8 5 2 7 18 20 10 20 14 1.8 6.3 5 2 3 14 25 14 20 14 3.7 9.1 5 1 2 3 20 5 19 14 1.5 10.4 5 1 1 18 25 6 19 14 1.7 9.9

By rating survival, stem form and growth parameters, the best performance groups were selected from over 100 plot measurements, mostly in South Australia. These results clearly indicate what growing conditions are favourable for Pinus halepensis/P. brutia ( Table 5). Table 5: Conditions for best growth and form (key conditions emboldened) No. Description

1 Annual rainfall exceeding 400 mm, preferably 450 mm, and generally the higher the better.

2 Access to ground water and/or additional run-on water and/or irrigation

3 Annual evaporation < 2050 mm and the lower the better.

4 Deep well-structured fertile soils (sand, sandy loam or else heavy soil prepared by deep ripping +/- mounding as per forestry best practice).

5 Plantations in woodlot form, not windbreaks.

8 Flat terrain (increased likelihood of good quality deep soil +/- ground water access).

9 Initially close-spaced planting (>1500 stems per hectare and probably with multiple-step thinning following progressive establishment/re-establishment of canopy cover).

Naturalisation is a valuable indicator of favourable growing conditions. Preferred zones (in SA) are Mid-North, Upper South East and Lower Eyre Peninsula westward along coast. Although even higher rainfall areas are also suitable, Aleppo pine cannot match returns from radiata pine or other agricultural pursuits. In Figure 1, the zone of Mediterranean climate as defined by: mean winter rainfall ≥ 1.3

9

mean summer rainfall is superimposed on a map of southern Australia showing the 400 mm and 600 mm rainfall isohyets. Generally the zones bounded by these rainfall and seasonal limits can be expected contain the most favourable sites for Aleppo pine low rainfall farm forestry.

Figure 1: Mediterranean climate zone

Figure 2 shows the percentage of final tree volume of open-grown Aleppo pine related to age. It is derived from calculations of annual wood volume using inspection of growth rings of an actual felled tree in cut sections along its trunk length and estimations of progressive heights based on the particular tree itself and other felled younger trees in similar conditions in the vicinity to obtain data for substitution in the volume formula. This graph clearly shows that vigour of individuals can be maintained if a plantation is wide-spaced, for example by progressively thinning. –This is an important factor in deciding the optimum time to clear fell.

010

2030

4050

6070

80

90100

0 10 20 30 40

Age (years)

% o

f fin

al g

row

th

Figure 2: % of final tree volume of open-grown Aleppo pine related to age

Figure 3 shows similar growth rates for individual, randomly selected, felled P. halepensis and P. brutia at Bundaleer growing in “parklike” conditions, ie, without any restraint on growth. Steady growth shows no sign of tapering off after twenty-seven years.

10

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28

Age (years)

Stem

Vol

ume

(m3) brutia

halepensis

Figure 3: Stem volume related to age for individual P. brutia & halepensis trees

Planting density has a marked effect on stem form. Desirable form for milling is straight, single leader stems without heavy branching. Figure 4 verifies that close-spaced initial planting is conducive to good stem form. Quality attributes are plotted as parameters. Nearly all Pinus halepensis in provenance trials retained some stem form deficiencies even where close block planting had ensured even competition between stems.

Parameters - Stem Quality

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80

Estimated Ground Area per Tree (m2)

% o

f Cat

egor

y in

Gro

und

Are

a o

r Les

s

very goodgood

fairpoor

Figure 4: Stem form quality related to growing space

Figure 5 is a regression plot of the qualitative assessment of stem form versus rainfall for 145 observations. Most data is derived from P. halepensis, as P. brutia is not well represented outside forest planting/trials. It appears that at least 400 mm rainfall is needed for even “fair” stem form in about 90% of cases. Furthermore, it appears form continues to improve with increasing rainfall. It was noted that nearly all well-formed stands in areas receiving <450 mm rainfall had either ground water access or supplementary run-on water. Outlier points on the graph are due to the influence of factors such as climate, type of planting and spacing, soil characteristics and thinning and pruning history as well as supplementary water.

11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 1 2 3 4 5

stem form quality1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor,

5=very poor

rain

(mm

)

Figure 5: Stem form quality related to rainfall (showing trendline)

4.4 Timber properties

Properties tested were density, modulus of rupture (MOR) and modulus of elasticity (MOE) in bending. Number of test pieces per sample is also listed. Trees sampled at Bundaleer were growing in park-like conditions thus retaining many live branches, so test pieces often contained parts of the resulting knots. The test results were sorted with a second group of data being for clear wood identified as “no knot values”. In the case of P. brutia, the “no knot” densities were almost always slightly lower than that of the corresponding “all values group”; with P. halepensis there was little difference. Standard errors of mean values were so high in all samples for all properties that no conclusions could be drawn about properties in respect to either radial or longitudinal stem position, even with data restricted to clear timber results only.

A summary of the clear timbers results is given in

Table 6. In Table 6 the first number in the code identifies particular trees. The final numbers for P. halepensis and P. brutia samples indicate sample trunk position, numbers ascending from the butt. Where three numbers are used in the code (for butt samples only), the second number, 1 or 2, merely indicates division of the sample sections into two parts for ease of handling the large number of test pieces. Note that both P. halepensis “BHALCH” and “SEHAL” were aged, slow-grown large trees. Their comparatively high densities and corresponding high MOR values (and to a lesser extent MOE) are consistent with this growth pattern. The “SERADFS” samples were “fillet sticks” used in kiln drying. Possibly the repeated kiln exposure has caused some modification to the wood causing strength and stiffness to be unexpectedly high. South East Timber Testing Association (SETTA) tests on “in grade” P. radiata give MOR values ranging from 40% to 80% of the mean for P. radiata obtained in our tests, corresponding to F5 through to F11 grades. CSIRO Technological Paper 25(49) reported 49 MPa as the mean value for South East grown P. radiata.

To clarify this issue, a further set of normally kiln dried P. radiata samples were obtained from Forwood Products, Mount Gambier and 100 prepared for testing. These are identified as “DKSERAD”. Properties of this group are significantly lower than the “SERADFS” P. radiata, and about 13% lower, on average, than other P. radiata, P. halepensis and P. brutia results, but still higher than SETTA results. In retrospect, the fillet stick samples, which were of convenient size for testing, should not have been selected.

12

Table 6: Summary of mechanical properties for clear timber

Average Values Samples Code

Density (kg/m3)

Modulus of Rupture

(MPa)

Modulus of Elasticity

(GPa) BHAL1 555 75 7.8 BHAL91CH 666 100 9.2 WBHAL 587 93 7.5 SEHAL 640 111 8.7 W+B RAD 561 86 8.4 SERADFS 562 102 11.9 BBRUT1 548 82 7.7 BBRUT2 568 81 6.9 SEBRUT1 541 84 7.7 SEBRUT2 522 89 7.5 DKSERAD 524 73 8.2

The reason for the difference between

Table 6 MOR data and the routine quality assurance results of the SETTA remains unexplained. It may be a function of test piece dimensions. This discrepancy needs explanation before use of the absolute test values derived in this work.

There is remarkably little difference in MOR and MOE between P. halepensis, P. brutia and P. radiata that cannot be attributed to density, with no evidence of the poor structural potential of the Aleppo group as being “not strong” and “brittle”.(50) Therefore, provided recommended silvicultural practices are followed, backed up by good milling and grading practices, it can be assumed that P. halepensis and particularly P. brutia timber can substitute P. radiata in all its current applications using stock of the same dimensions. The substantiating test data are presented in summary form in Table 7. In Table 7, all P. radiata data is consolidated apart from the DKSERAD group. For each group, all test results for individual trees are combined to obtain overall group means and standard deviations for both “all data” and “no knots” cases. From this information, lower design limits for short term loading can be estimated for MOR from the 95 percentile (Xbar - 1.64σ) and MOE from the 70 percentile (Xbar - 0.52σ) respectively.(51) These values are listed in the table. They indicate that plantation grown P. halepensis/P. brutia (free of loose knots) should proof test at least with F5 and F7 grades, similar to P. radiata, with a significant proportion higher. MOE is the determining factor, not MOR. These derived design values, as with the actual test result values, remain subject to verification. Although the differences in average MOR between the “all data” sample groups and their corresponding “no knot” groups are not large, ranging from nil to about 33% higher, this disguises the seriousness of the presence of knots from structural and sometimes visual standpoints. Some knots may dislodge or crack when under tension. This caused some test pieces to break at practically no load. As structural design requires use of strength and stiffness values based on a lower limit value derived from the distribution of test values, it can be seen that an unsorted parcel of such timber could not be used with safety for any structural use involving tensile stress. Therefore sawn timber sold for structural use requires pre-sorting into strength groups, preferably by proof testing. Visual assessment is unreliable. In conducting the MOR tests, it was found that P. halepensis and P. brutia were no more vulnerable in this regard than P. radiata, other than that, through the nature of the timber and/or the growing regime, more knots and larger knots were present. This indicates that where pruning is intended as a silvicultural technique (eg. windbreak or widespread agroforest trees), it should be done before branches develop to a large size. Anecdotal evidence exists about P. halepensis/P. brutia displaying greater bearing strength and toughness than P. radiata in pallet application and producing stronger salt-treated posts. This led to the supposition that P. halepensis/P. brutia may be higher in density than P. radiata and may exhibit a different density profile in

13

cross-section. If juvenile Aleppo wood is denser than P. radiata and its ratio of outer wood density to inner is higher, these unproven impressions could be explained. Juvenile P. radiata timber is notorious for its poorly structured character and its density is distinctly lower than later growth. Note that Table 7 data shows that fast grown Northern SA forests ‘no knots’ and the South East P. brutia are of the same order of density as South East forests P. radiata. (Compare “BBRUT” and “SEBRUT” with “DKSERAD”). Table 7: Mechanical properties — Determination of design values

DENSITY MOR MOE SPECIES

DATA GROUP

Xbar

(kg/m3)

SD

(kg/m3)

Xbar

(MPa)

SD

(MPa)

Lower Design Limit

(MPa)

Xbar (GPa)

SD

(GPa)

Lower Design Limit (GPa)

P. radiata ‘all other’ all data 534 98 72 17 44 7.1 2.6 5.7 no knots 526 103 72 15 47 7.4 2.4 6.2 DKSERAD all data 524 32 70 13 49 7.9 2.4 6.6 no knots 535 37 73 9 58 8.2 2.2 7.7 P. brutia

BBRUT1 all data 557 33 70 18 40 6.8 1.5 6.0 no knots 540 32 78 11 60 7.2 1.2 6.6 BBRUT2 all data 567 43 69 17 41 6.3 1.9 5.3 no knots 559 29 80 13 59 6.8 1.6 6.0 SEBRUT1 all data 552 44 83 14 60 7.5 1.6 6.7 no knots 545 42 85 12 65 7.9 1.6 7.1 SEBRUT2 all data 547 30 92 16 66 8.1 1.6 7.3 no knots 528 33 87 9 72 7.5 1.4 6.8 P. halepensis

BHAL1 all data 555 48 64 21 30 6.6 2.4 5.4 no knots 551 34 72 14 58 7.3 2.2 6.2 WBHAL 1-7 all data 534 47 82 21 48 7.0 2.3 5.8 no knots 596 40 94 15 69 8.1 2.1 7.0 SEHAL 3&4 all data 639 41 100 26 57 8.0 1.9 7.0 no knots 642 42 107 18 77 8.7 1.9 7.7

Table 8 presents a summary of cross sectional position averages prepared by sorting individual test data into concentric ring groups. Stem positional averages according to vertical position on the stem are also given in Table 9. The data tends to indicate that a consistent property profile is not present, although data for some particular samples do seem to show that outer wood is denser and stronger. Sorting results into concentric rings truly reflecting age groups is not easy and is a confounding factor. The anecdotal evidence of Aleppo pine’s high strength may derive from generally higher density which has arisen from slow growing conditions and poor thinning practice (rather than inherent species higher density). Further work to clarify this matter is warranted as there may be a worthwhile advantage for Aleppo pine used as rounds in post and pole applications.

14

Table 8: Summary of positional densities — radial to stem centreline

Sample Cross-sectional position Code Innermost< >Outermost BGRAD 1 540 560 680 620 BBRUT1 580 560 530 570 BBRUT2 590 560 530 570 SEBRUT1 560 550 570 SEBRUT2 530 550 550 BHAL1 570 550 560 550 BHAL91CH 625 665 660 680 WBHAL1 550 560 600 610 SEHAL360 640 620 670

Table 9: Summary of positional densities (kg/m3) — linear positions along stem

Sample Stem Height for Sampling Code Lowest< >Highest BGRAD 1 650 510 BBRUT1 530 540 610 600 560 BBRUT2 570 650 510 540 570 SEBRUT1 580 560 550 SEBRUT2 560 540 480 BHAL1 590 560 540 540 600 540 520 BHAL91CH 660 WBHAL1 620 540 600 540 560 590 590 SEHAL360 640

Variation between vertical stem locations is quite marked but shows no consistent positional trend. It is thought more likely that the variations are due to relative proximity to branch whorls. Preservative treated P. halepensis posts have been qualitatively evaluated in typical farm applications as part of this project, but not machine strength tested. It certainly has been the impression of the local preservation treatment operators that this species provides higher performance posts than P. radiata. Perhaps this is partly due to their being sourced from slow grown (dense) natural regeneration trees and not buzz machining the posts (in the case of one operator) which often removes the strongest wood from the zone of highest application stresses. The penalty for leaving the outer wood entire was ragged, crooked, untidy posts which would undoubtedly encounter market resistance. However, even on a equal footing, it is still possible that 75 mm diameter P. halepensis posts could substitute 100 mm P. radiata, if not 125 mm. As made clear under the next section ‘Economic evaluation’, the possibilities of increasing first thinnings recovery, thinning earlier or gaining higher prices could make crucial improvements in project viability. Clarification of this issue by further investigation is also warranted.

4.5 Economic evaluation A visitor travelling through European, and particularly the United Kingdom countryside, can quickly observe that a surprisingly high proportion of land is given over to copses, woodlots and forest plantations ranging in size from modest to very large (eg. in Scotland). One might then wonder why much of the Australian croplands are not similarly planted given that vulnerability to wind and water erosion and salinity is far greater with benefits from crop and stock shelter probably at least as great. In part, the answer lies with EU financial inducements to set aside land from agricultural pursuits and direct support of forest planting. These inducements might well transform the farm landscape in this country with significant benefit to long term farm sustainability, but these levels of support are quite unrealistic in Australian circumstances.

15

Large scale planting of timber on unsubsidised Australian farms, especially in marginal rainfall areas, requires careful cost benefit demonstration to a sensibly sceptical farming community that such plantings can be justified. After all, it will take a working lifetime to realise the benefits, because that is the length of the tree crop cycle with most income coming from clear felling at the end, and in that time income from the substituted agricultural pursuits on the forested land has been foregone for forty years or more. There are compensations along the way from crop and stock protection, but until recently it has been difficult to provide composite quantification of these benefits integrated with direct returns from the windbreak crops. Loane(52) and more recently Bulman and others(3) have devised models to carry out cost benefit analyses for specific farm situations. In the various cases considered here, Bulman’s ReVal model has been employed using predicted growth rates and other information on Aleppo pine derived from the survey work summarised in Appendices 2 and 3. This has allowed evaluation of a wide range of planting and financial scenarios. Even with this powerful evaluation tool, it is still necessary to note that assumptions on such matters as growth rate are subject to estimation tolerance, and the existence of sawmills within certain distances of plantings willing to accept logs at predicted price levels over the forest cycle must be recognized as just that - assumptions. Data on costs and returns from alternative agricultural activities was provided by PIRSA or taken from the 1996 Farm Budget Guide information(53) presents analysis of the situations investigated in summary form. Figure 7 illustrates a typical ReVal summary sheet applying to a low rainfall farm forestry enterprise. A basic assumption made for the Table 10 analyses is that the species used is P. brutia, not P. halepensis. This should avoid unacceptably low recovery due to poor stem form, but this needs to be demonstrated in trial plantings of P. brutia in prospective locations (see Recommendations). The base case presented is for a 1200 x 100 m woodlot which is a compromise between achieving best windbreak performance to maximise agricultural benefits and minimal plantation perimeter for best self-pruning and other stem form and cost benefits. Other base case assumptions can be seen in Figure 7 and by inspection of the data listed in Table 10 for each separate parameter considered. One of the most important is that an MAI of 15 m3/ha/yr is obtained. As demonstrated by field survey data, this requires that growing conditions are near the most favourable in the range under consideration. The figures indicate that the base case is profitable provided the various assumptions hold good. Full details of assumptions and calculations concerning agricultural gains and losses, establishment and management costs, tree growth, wood harvest, wood returns, financial matters and cashflows for the base case for the various scenarios investigated using ReVal are too extensive to be included in this report.

16

Table 10: Summary of economic analyses TABLE 10 ECONOMIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS CASE IDENTIFICATION

DESCRIPTION CASH/ha AT TERMINATION($)

NPV ($) for 5% discount

IRR (%) COMMENTS

Base case 1200x100 12ha plot perpendicular to prevailing wind with shelter

benefit unidirectional. 21100 1000 6.2 Most parameters for base case indicated in following sections.

Shape - length 1000m 21100 980 6.2 Literature indicates length should be at least 12 x height for windbreak effectiveness.

500m 21000 880 6.0 250m 20800 680 5.7 125m 20400 280 5.3 Shape - width (rows)

(Base case) 33 21100 1000 6.2 Effect of number of rows on porosity of

25 21300 980 6.1 planting not taken into account. 10 22200 890 5.9 Porosity assumed 30% for all cases. 5 23600 730 5.6 Effect of narrow width plantings on stem 2 27600 330 5.2 quality not taken into account 1 32400 -210 4.9 Establishment costs

Double base case 20700 550 5.6 Comparative insensitivity to

Base case 21100 1000 6.2 establishment costs indicates that best 50% base case 21400 1210 6.6 establishment practices should always 10% base case 21600 1380 6.9 be used. Survival (Base case) Survival 100% 21100 1000 6.2 Data indicates that cost penalties of Replanting 5% 21100 980 6.2 making good losses are not high. Replanting 10% 21100 950 6.2 Silvicultural benefits worthwhile. Replanting 1 5% 21100 930 6.1 Even replanting total failures is justified Replanting 100% 20700 570 5.6 if done by following year.

17

CASE IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION CASH/ha AT

TERMINATION($)NPV ($) for 5%

discountIRR (%) COMMENTS

MAI Base case 21100 1000 6.2 Note critical importance of reasonable growth rate unless other factors very favourable.

reduced from 15 to 12 m3/ha,yr. (all pulp, sawlog values x12/15)

15000 -16 (large -ve)

increased from 15 to 18 m3/ha,yr (all pulp, sawlog values x18/15)

27400 2040 7.2

Growth cycle Base case thin at yr 15 25 35 45 21100 1000 6.2 Growth cycle time reflects growth rate Case 1 thin at yr 12 20 30 40 21100 2260 8.1 and is also critically important in Case 2 thin at yr 15 27 39 51 21100 -1400 (large -ve) obtaining a positive NPV. Mature tree height 15m 20600 860 6.0 Calculations assume that 15m3/ha,yr 20m 20900 930 6.1 maintained regardless of height;a (Base case) 25m 21100 1000 6.2 questionable assumption. The slight 30m 21400 1070 6.3 variations arise from altered shelter 40m 22000 1210 6.4 benefits. Wood returns Returns on: pulp T2 s/log CF s/log Even though pulp returns are only a Base case $/m3 20 45 60 21100 1000 6.2 minor part of total wood income their Case 1 $/m3 25 50 75 28800 2250 7.4 effect on damping the escalating cost Case 2 $/m3 (3)* 45 60 17400 -520 (large -ve) of lost opportunity money is crucial. Case 3 $/m3 (nil) 35 50 12200 -1400 (large -ve) Where only “post” market exists for thinnings, (*) case2, pruning may be justified. Agricultural gains (%) wool wheat barley canola Base case 10 10 12 15 21100 1000 6.2 Impact not high..

Case 2 6 6 8 10 20700 880 6.1 Case 3 4 4 6 8 20400 830 6.0 Case 4 2 2 4 6 20200 780 5.9 Case 5 0 0 0 0 19800 680 5.8 1 ha salinity saved by planting 12 ha base case 21800 1215 6.5 Doubtful that isolated woodlots can produce salinity reduction of this extent.

18

CASE IDENTIFICATION

DESCRIPTION CASH/ha AT TERMINATION($)

NPV ($) for 5% discount

IRR (%) COMMENTS

Agricultural losses $300/ha,yr 17800 -210 (large -ve) Likelihood of achieving high MAI growth greatest (Base case) $231/ha,yr 21100 1000 6.2 on most productive land but this land imposes $200/ha,yr 22700 1550 7.0 highest lost opportunity cost penalty. If potentially $150/ha,yr 25100 2440 8.4 high productivity land is being under-utilised $100/ha,yr 27500 3320 10.3 growing timber presents an attractive option. Discount rate (Base case) 5% 21100 1000 6.2 Landholder perception of the time value 3% 21100 4500 6.2 of money determines a handsome profit 7% 21100 -420 6.2 - or a loss! Superannuation Base case Woodlot as per above as retirement nest

egg (per ha).21100 1000 6.2 A well grown pine forest can deliver a large amount of money after 45 years if a buyer is

nearby.

Case 1 Direct+lost opportunity inputs into superfund earning 7%, at same times as expended on woodlot

69000 8830 (high) However the returns from regular superfunds are better, have less risk and require less effort.

Case 2 As for case 1 but fund earning 5% 37700 5300 (high)

Case 3 As for case 1 but fund earning 3% 20300 2020 (high)

Case 4 Same total inputs but normal annual input profile into simulated commercial fund

25250 5200 (high)

Equilibrium. 1/45 planted,

Base case for comparison 21100 1000 6.2 Astute choice of grandparents required.

1/45 harvested each year.

Case 1 Steady state 21100 8400 (high)

Vertical integration. Base case Contract felling, loading and transport. 21100 1000 6.2 It is more profitable to cut and cart the timber than to spend 45 years growing it.

Case 1 Own felling, loading, transport at 1/2 contract rate.

31300 3200 8.7

19

Agricultural shelter gains Inspection of Table 10 data shows that agricultural gains arising from a 10% increase in agricultural productivity in the sheltered area can be quite significant, increasing the NPV by 50%). As woodlot length is reduced, the area sheltered is rapidly diminished. Wind swirling around the ends of windbreaks, thus spoiling the lee-side shelter, become the dominant factor. Windbreaks less than 12 x tree height have been shown to limit shelter benefits(50) and thus overall cost effectiveness of farm woodlots. NPV starts to fall rapidly for plantings below 500 m length. Table 10 presents analysis of the effect of varying plantation row numbers without any consequent modification to wind porosity taken into account. The lost agricultural opportunity cost from narrow timberbelts is much lower than from, for instance, the 33 row base case, but timber returns (if any) are also much lower. Plantation porosity of 30% has been assumed for the base case. However, 60% porosity provides maximum shelter benefit (ReVal “Ag. Benefits” spreadsheet data). If narrow windbreaks are closer to this porosity their value is understated in Table 10 figures. Bulman (pers com) considers a six to ten-row belt to be a reasonable compromise between porosity/shelter, pruning requirements, wood production, internal tree suppression and displaced agriculture. Without a wood production objective, a narrow shelterbelt (one or two rows) increases project cash at termination, but NPV and IRR are reduced. Bulman has concluded that pruning selected stems of two-row belts for clear wood only marginally increases profitability if the labour for pruning is fully costed. The author feels that, in practice, it is unlikely that any single-row windbreak of pines would produce acceptable quality timber, regardless of how carefully pruned.

Tree height A 20% change in mature tree height without concomitant change in harvested volume alters NPV about 7%, due to effect on shelter. However, as tree height is a good indicator of site quality, it is probable that MAI and the proportion of saleable wood per stem also increases with height. Conversely the opposite applies. Existence of stunted growth of Aleppo pine in any area being considered for planting woodlots is a warning that acceptable returns are unlikely.

Establishment cost IRR is little affected by establishment costs but NPV is significantly reduced if these costs rise markedly. Nevertheless, best establishment practices should always be used The benefits of all trees surviving, growing away quickly with unhindered root runs, free of weed competition and animal predations easily outweigh marginal extra establishment costs. In an on-farm situation, trees that do not survive should be replanted as soon as practicable, preferably within 12 months. It is still better financially to replant a 100% establishment loss than to write off the money and effort already invested, provided site selection was basically sound in the first place (NPV is reduced by 40%, but remains strongly positive). The landholder’s instinct might suggest otherwise!

Growth rate Profitability is highly dependent on growth rate. With other base case parameters held constant a reduction in MAI of about 1 m3/ha/yr is sufficient to nullify non-wood benefits. It is clear that the 15 m3/ha/yr base case growth rate will only be achievable on the most favourable sites. In Table 10 sensitivity analysis, the breakeven MAI with non-wood benefits is about 12 m3/ha/yr, indicating that in farm forestry enterprises less productive than this, the wood production would need to considered as ‘icing on the cake’.

Timing of harvesting Extending rotation length (years to clearfell) reduces the MAI and reduces the net present value of returns. However, once a plantation is established, even if growth is slower than expected, provided survival and stem form are satisfactory, it is probably better to wait long enough for the trees to increase in diameter sufficiently to justify clear felling for sawlog. ‘Base case’ wood production figures in the ReVal spreadsheet calculations (too extensive for inclusion here) show that about 2/3 of gross sales income derives from final clearfelling. Attempting to deal with slow growth by clearfelling at say year 20 for posts is counter-productive. All economic indicators are very unfavourable.

20

Wood returns Obviously wood returns have a marked effect on project cashflow and cash at project termination. With such long lead times and many other impacting factors, estimation of payment levels for thinnings and clearfell timber must have wide tolerance limits. The high sensitivity of project financial outcome to variation in timber prices is clearly shown in the examples presented in Table 10.. Figure 6 shows discounted cashflow for the Table 10 base case. It makes clear that being able to sell first thinnings is crucial in a long rotation crop, as cash received ‘early’ is much less discounted than the later, particularly the final, returns. This presents a significant problem for low rainfall forest growers remote from pulpwood markets. Without this sale, the downward trend from agricultural lost opportunity continues unabated; progressive wood harvest returns T2, T3 and CF are insufficient to lift the final cumulative discounted cash position into the (+)ve range. Where such pulp markets do not exist, growers must seek to maximise production of post quality stems.

-30000

-20000

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Years Planted

Cum

ulat

ive

Inco

me,

NPV

$

Figure 6: Discounted cashflow (5% discount rate) (project income is from T1, T2, T3 sequential thinnings and CF, the clear fell at termination)

Salinity Tree planting is often carried out to help control salinity. If, for example, one hectare was saved from salinisation by a 12 ha woodlot, NPV improves by 20%, IRR by 5% and cash at termination by 3.5%. Property value would also increase. A ‘whole catchment approach’(54) is most commonly advocated to address this serious and complex problem, with trees as just one component. Shelter benefits

Profitability of woodlot plantings is not highly sensitive to moderate variation in productivity gained from shelter benefits, but if the assumed base case increase in production in sheltered areas of 10 to 15% (depending on displaced activity) is achieved, project profitability is 50% higher than with nil benefit.

Cost of displacing agriculture

The lost opportunity of income (based on gross margins) from existing agricultural pursuits on land allocated to woodlots strongly influences NPV. The more productive the land under its regular farming use, the higher the compensating timber income needs to be for net profitability. On the other hand, this is probably the very farm land most likely to be of site quality capable of producing timber meeting the necessary quantity and quality criteria. The per hectare returns from various agricultural endeavours in the Mid-North of SA are shown in Figure 7. These activities are reckoned to bring annual net operating returns between $100 and $300 per hectare with $231 being the weighted average for the selected mix of cropping and animal husbandry used in the Table 10 sensitivity analyses. The data shows that, as income increases above $231/ha, NPV quite rapidly diminishes to zero if no compensating increase in MAI above 15 m3/ha/yr is presumed. An increase of the order of a 1.5

21

m3/ha/yr increase in MAI is needed for every $50 increase in average paddock returns above the base case $231/ha to maintain the status quo. Value of farm labour is not costed in the gross margins for agricultural activities. Costing farm labour for these activities would make farm forestry relatively more attractive.

22

Figure 7: Typical ReVal summary sheet

REVAL – REVegetation EVALuation model pcc 23-01-98

ENTER DATA ONLY IN BLUE CELLS Property Northern Ag Districts - Main North Road, Bundaleer Design Woodlot Paddock - Project length 45 yrs NPV $11,980 Enterprises Sheep/cropping Discount rate 5% IRR 6.2% Species Aleppo pine woodlot Rotations WBCPP npv/ha $998

SUMMARY Costs $338 /ha C.A.T./ ha 21144 Length 1200 m Benefits $412 /ha Breadth 100 m B/C 1.2 No. of rows 33 Biodiversity rating 2 Shelt area 18.0 ha Planted area 12.0 ha Initial ag loss $2,777 /yr Total affected area 13.4 ha Full ag loss $3,110 /yr Planting method Seedlings Cost $2,700 Cost/ha $225 Labour rate $90 /day Fence type electric Fence length 1300 m Fence cost $2,080 Site preparation $353 Planting cost $2,925 Post planting cost $121 Management cost $210 Annual costs $0 Total net wood rev $375,900 Max seed prod rev $0 /yr Av. shelter gain 15.4% Value of shelter $570 /yr Reduced salinity $0 /yr Reduced w'log $0 /yr Reduced wind eros $54 /yr Prop. val. increase $0 Total labour 3 days Gross margins ($/ha) Av % paddock use

Pasture Years in cycle Cattle $70 0% $0 6dse/ha Prime lambs $160 0% $0 Wool - SR merino ewe $125 2 40% $50 Wool - wether $100 0% $0 Wool - carpet $90 0% $0 Wheat $299 1 20% $60 Barley - malting $282 1 20% $56 Barley - feed $210 0% $0 Oats milling $169 0% $0 Oats - export hay $249 0% $0 Faba beans $204 0% $0 Lupins $99 0% $0 Chick peas $217 0% $0 Field peas $147 0% $0 Linola $205 0% $0 Canola $326 1 20% $65

Total 5 Average GM $231 /ha/yr

23

It is doubtful whether attempts to minimise early years’ agricultural losses by planting inter-row annual crops in close spaced pine plantations would even recover costs, let alone make a worthwhile contribution.

Discount rate A 3% discount rate pushes up the perceived value of the base case calculated on 5%, by 4.5 times, as gauged by NPV. However, perhaps the people in the fortunate position to value money so altruistically are the very ones who have acquired wealth by applying more stringent criteria than 5% discount rate to their previous pursuits - and are unlikely to change their stringent criteria in their assessment of a low rainfall forest project!

Other perspectives If the “base case” project is approached from a completely different perspective - from that of an investor rather than low rainfall farmer - profitability can appear quite different. Land of the type suitable in the Mid-North of SA can be bought for about $1000 to $1500/ha, so $150/ha/yr can be considered as a reasonably generous lost opportunity cost. Table 10 shows that, if $150 is substituted for agricultural loss, NPV is increased to 250% of the base case figure and IRR raised 66% - a highly profitable enterprise made possible simply by considering the land in a different way. Likewise a landholder satisfied to reckon agricultural losses as $150/ha/yr may also be well able to be satisfied with a lower discount rate than the 5% used in our base case, especially if the low rainfall forest establishment cost is not considered as 100% of money spent pre-tax, but say 61% thereof post-tax. If this approach of an investment opportunity rather than an extension of farm activities is taken further by eliminating agricultural benefits and agricultural displacement losses from consideration NPV is increased 450% and IRR 250%. (A similar result is obtained by setting gross margin on current farm activities to zero). The corresponding IRR of 16% would be sufficient justification for many industrial enterprises. When these altered baselines are applied to the superannuation cases examined in Table 10, it makes low rainfall forestry sufficiently attractive to be at least competitive with commercially managed external superannuation funds. Various hypothetical superannuation scheme cases are presented for comparison with growing pine plantations as providers of retirement income. In the first three cases, superannuation fund inputs equal plantation inputs plus lost opportunity costs with the inputs occurring at the same times as the negative forest project cashflows - a fairly unlikely scenario. What this shows is that such funds, admittedly with a annual investment profile distorted toward the early years, even if poorly managed with very low returns, outperform the baseline pine project. Additionally they are free of the physical project work, hassles and uncertainties. If fund inputs are maintained as above in total amount, but are redistributed with progressive annual increases from commencement to termination and typical fund management charges included, a commercially managed fund returning only 5% on its accumulating investments still outperforms the low rainfall forestry base case. Even when ‘agricultural losses’ are restricted to $150/ha/yr, the external superannuation investment remains slightly more attractive. Reinvestment of accumulated positive cashflow after T3 on a well performing farm woodlot project would boost termination cash significantly. Other additional benefits, most probably in higher MAI, higher wood returns, salinity reduction or tax savings are needed to make a forest retirement fund more attractive than a regular superannuation fund. Furthermore, it is unlikely that there will be many 20 year olds with the foresight and wherewithal to plant their forests forthwith so they can harvest the superannuation reward in 40 to 45 years time. The most financially attractive farm forests, low rainfall or otherwise, are the ones planted by grandparents, circa 1950, well maintained by the next generation and recently inherited by the present owners. Even more attractive, in the long run, is such a farm forest maintained in equilibrium by equal area harvesting and replanting at regular close intervals, if not 1/45th of the plantation area every year, then for practicality say 1/15th every three years - more or less similar to State or large private company forests. Although the actual annual income remains the same, the income “feels” 8.5 times higher through increase in NPV. The IRR is also very high. Persistence pays off, particularly predecessor persistence! Unfortunately this is not an operating mechanism that is going to convince a “critical mass” of would-be low rainfall forest growers in a particular location of the justification for each to start planting now to benefit their descendants through timber sales, and other locals in the future by enabling a forward integration neighbourhood milling enterprise to be established.

24

Another potential advantage of the steady-state scenario is that it overcomes the problem of profit occurring in infrequent but large amounts that are not sufficiently smoothed by tax averaging provisions to avoid an unwarranted proportion to be hived off to Government coffers. Farmers are, of necessity, very self-reliant, self-sufficient and multi-skilled. Somewhat amazingly, the economics of farm forestry can be altered totally by the landholders carrying out felling and carting operations themselves. In other words, using their own resources instead of contracting. Depending on circumstances, which include access to equipment and familiarisation with its safe use, NPV can be increased 800% by doing a few weeks work at CF alone, with similar action in dealing with thinnings further improving the numbers. More income can be obtained by doing this work than the ‘stumpage’ returns from growing the trees over 45 years! Just put a reminder in your will! In summary, the advisability of planting forestry trees on farms is highly sensitive to a wide range of agricultural, market and financial factors. With the range of uncertainty in predicting values, it is apparent that prospective timber producers in marginal rainfall areas should obtain as much advice as possible from extension services such as PIRSA to ensure decision making information is specific to circumstances with estimation errors minimised. Slight estimation variations can markedly shift profitability due to the long growth cycle having such a large effect on the ‘time value’ of money.

25

5 Discussion of Results

5.1 Objective 1. Aleppo pine group low rainfall forestry profitability 1 It has been shown that Aleppo pine can be grown on cropping and grazing low rainfall farms and that

the activity can be profitable. However, these conclusions are circumscribed by numerous provisions in silvicultural and financial areas which were dealt with individually in the Results section of the report.

2 Field inspections have shown that P. halepensis can be grown with good stem form in low rainfall farm areas under favourable conditions, particularly higher rainfall and deeper, more fertile soils, but this species tends toward stunted misshapen trunk development in harsher environments, regardless of provenance source. P. brutia Cyprus provenance selection has better formation and is a more handsome tree generally than P. halepensis, but there is a dearth of examples of P. brutia in all areas inspected, particularly in farm situations and particularly in lower site quality country. Demonstration plantings are needed.

3 Trial plantings in 1969 at Jerilderie, NSW and Bundaleer, Caroline and Wanilla, SA have not uncovered any new Aleppo group pine provenances that perform significantly better than the seed stock used in SA for the last 50-100 years by ForestrySA; if anything, the opposite. Searching for quality stem form provenances of P. halepensis, a supposed P. halepensis/P. brutia natural hybrid and the source of the well-performed P. brutia provenance trialled in WA is, however, still justified. Such material could be the basis of a genetic improvement programme.

4 Best growing conditions for successful Aleppo pine low rainfall forestry have been determined. The main ones are Mediterranean climate, minimum 450 mm annual rainfall (preferably more) and/or access to supplementary water and deep well-structured soils preferably of at least moderate fertility. In SA these conditions exist in parts of the Mid-North, Upper South-East and Lower Eyre Peninsula. It is probable large areas of WA and parts of western Victoria are suitable. These areas are shown on Figure 1.

5 Stem quality is markedly better if Aleppo pine is grown as close-spaced woodlots. It is unproven whether millable timber can be recovered from narrow row windbreaks in low rainfall farm situations, especially the volume needed to sustain an industry . As woodlot length should be at least twelve times expected tree height to obtain good windbreak effect, plantations are best if at least 500 m in length.

6 Best silvicultural practices are needed in establishment and management of low rainfall pine forests to achieve good survival, wood quantity, quality and profitability. ForestrySA standard practice or similar in soil preparation involving ripping, mounding and weedicide regimes is probably essential in all heavy soil and sheet limestone sites.

7 Initial planting should be close-spaced as for P. radiata practice with thinning generally timed to occur as canopy cover is established/re-established in order to obtain as many straight stems as possible but not hinder diameter growth of remaining stems through tree competition.

5.2 Objective 2. Suitability and advantages of Aleppo pine group timber 1 There appears to be little difference between wood density, strength and stiffness properties of

Aleppo and radiata pine grown under forest conditions with reasonable silvicultural maintenance, although presence of knots presented a confounding factor in comparing properties. Some slow grown P.halepensis had significantly higher density with noticeably higher mechanical properties resulting. This cannot be considered of practical benefit as slow growth imposes economic disadvantage.

2 Some knots, which appear sound, cause breakage at very low stress, so 100% mechanical grading for structural use is advisable. This situation is equally applicable to P. radiata. Removal of knots when small by self-prune close planting, or mechanical pruning, is needed for good stem form.

3 Large slow grown aged Aleppo pine free of large knots mills best. The wood is lighter, straighter grained, more stable than younger wood and thus has better milling characteristics with good

26

prospects for furniture applications. Of course, availability would be very limited. Younger tree wood did not have this attractive appearance but its stability in drying, including samples containing knots, was equally as good as P. radiata.

4 A preliminary estimate has been made of safe design properties for P. halepensis and P. brutia. It appears likely that most plantation timber would proof test into F5 and F7 groups, similar to P. radiata, maybe slightly better. Previous reports in the literature tending to classify Aleppo pine wood as weak, brittle and only suitable for low grade construction are misleading(50).

5 A batch of CCA treated Aleppo pine rounds obtained from D. Blesing’s Wirrabara sawmill has been evaluated in post and simple structural applications. The rounds were trimmed but not shaped leaving a high proportion quite untidy in appearance. However, there is no doubt of the structural adequacy. What remains unclear is whether the Aleppo pine group can substitute for radiata pine of greater diameter in some or all applications, and particularly whether faster-grown lower-density Aleppo pine group can. This should be clarified in further work.

5.3 Objective 3. Promulgation of findings Promulgation of findings is a post-report activity. The intention is to: • publish findings in specialist farm forestry and rural press; and through other media as opportunities arise • develop an entertaining informative presentation package including a video suitable for direct reporting to

farmer and other interested groups • arrange demonstration plantings in different locations using P. brutia • continue to work closely with PIRSA officers

The multiple factors affecting decision-making on low rainfall forestry and implications on profitability of such enterprises makes it highly advisable that decisions are made with expert input from PIRSA using their ReVal revegetation model software using data derived from findings of this project. This should be done on a case by case basis.

27

6 Implications As discussed in the introduction, it would be possible with even 5% of agricultural land in the Mid-North of SA, as an example, planted with Aleppo pine forest, to produce sufficient timber to support ‘world class’ sawmilling and ancillary processing operations. Even with a much lower landholder adoption of woodlot plantings, eg. 0.5%, a viable local forestry, post preservation and sawmilling enterprise could be viable, providing another (long term) source of farm income and additional local employment. Realistically, although planting of this magnitude can be progressive over 40 years, the likelihood of farmer uptake of the concept at even the lower adoption level, equivalent to 3000 ha, is questionable. However, the Mid-North has the advantage of existing mills, so any individual planting can be viable provided other assumptions made in this report remain valid and the silvicultural recommendations are followed. One of these assumptions is that P. brutia will deliver the predicted quantity and quality of timber on most properties across all of those areas nominated as potentially suitable. Before landholders can be confidently advised to plant P. brutia woodlots, further evidence of likely success is needed. This requires demonstration plots to be planted widely on representative sites as a intermediate step.

28

7 Recommendations Further investigations:

1 Search for high quality stem form provenance of P. halepensis, P. halepensis/P. brutia natural hybrid and the source of the P. brutia provenance well-performed in WA. Obtain seed stock for field trials.

2 Liaise with large overseas commercial Aleppo pine forestry operators (France) to review germination techniques, planting practices, ie. protected direct seeding, open-rooted, and/or Speedling and/or tubestock planting. Incorporate in field trials.

3 Arrange several widespread field trial plots of P. brutia to demonstrate potential as a low rainfall timber crop in a range of site conditions in prospective areas identified, including salinity control sites. For this purpose, identify and arrange sites with landholders, obtain suitable P. brutia seed stock, arrange planting, maintenance and monitoring.

4 Investigate the reason for inconsistency between strength test values obtained in this work with CSIRO and SETTA values.

5 Assess the possible strength advantage of salt-treated Aleppo pine rounds over radiata pine.

29

8 References

8.1 Cited references 1 1 Underdown M (PISA) 1995. Personal communication.

2 Butt S Pine plantations - high income, long wait! AgWA Management Matters No.20 2A Stirzaker R and Lefroy EC 1997. Alley farming in Australia: current research and future directions pp

44-47 RIRDC 3 Bulman P and others 1997. REVAL --- REVegetation EVALuation model (spreadsheet programme). 4 Bulman P 1995. Farmtree$ for the Mount Lofty Ranges p 11-140. 5 Polunin O and Huxley A ‘Flowers of the Mediterranean’ Chatto and Windus; London; 1965 pp. 53 5A Gachon L [Archaeological information: the kinds of trees used in shipbuilding on the

Mediterranean, 2000 years ago.] Foret Privee Francaise (1975) No. 107, 87-88 6 Almedag S [Development, yield and management rules of Red Pine (Pinus brutia) forests in Turkey]

Orm. Arast. Enst. tek. Bult. No.11 1962 pp.viii +160 7 Eccher A, Fusaro E and Pelleri F [Results of research in Italy on the main provenances of pines in

section halepensis ten years after planting.] Foret Mediterraneenne (1987) 9 (1) 5-14 8 Flores Calderon E [Experience in the propagation of Pinus halepensis in Chihuahua.] Bosques y

Fauna (1973) 10 (2) 27-34 9 Heth D [Decisive factors affecting the growth of Pine and their evaluation by punched cards.] La-

Yaaran 15 (4), 1965 (101-13, 127) 10 Hopkins ER Drought resistance in seedlings of P. pinaster (and others). Forests Department of WA

1971 Bulletin 82. 35 pp. 11 Bouillard MA [Growth of Pinus radiata, P. pinaster and P. halepensis on the dunes of San Clemente

del Tuyu and Mar de Ajo, Buenos Aires province.] Revista Forestal Argentina (1972) 16 (3/4) 75, 97-101

12 Eccher A [Comparative observations on young plantations of Pinus radiata, P. pinea, P. halepensis and P. canariensis near Rome.] Cellulosa e Carta (1972) 23 (6) 29-42

13 Eccher A [Mensurational observations on young plantations of Pinus radiata, P. pinea and P. halepensis in the vicinity of Rome.] Cellulosa e Carta (1974) 25 (7/8) 21-36

14 Morandini R and Campolucci P [First data on increment in a plantation of Pinus radiata in the provence of Grosseto.] Cellulosa e Carta 1970 21 (9), (12-7)

15 Gatteschi P and Arrentini C [Reafforestation in the Tuscan Archipeligo: past, present and future] Annali - Accademia Italiana Di Scienze Forestali. (1990) No. 39, 33-54

16 Moulalis D, Bassiotis C and Mitsopoulis D Controlled pollinations among Pine species in Greece. Silvae Genetica (1976) 25 (3/4) 95-107

17 Moulopoulos C and Mpasiotes [Bassiotis] K [Artificial hybrids of Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia.] Epistemonike Epeteris, Geoponike kai Dasologike Schole, Aristoteleion Panepistemion Thessalonikes 6, 1961 (159-80)

18 Panetsos CP Natural hybridization between Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia in Greece. Silvae Genetica (1976) 24 (5/6) 163-168

19 Safar J [Pinus brutia. 1. Range and sites. 2. Ecological and economic features.] Sum. List 1970 94 (1/2). (1-9. 10-20)

20 Weinstein A Provenance evaluation of Pinus halepensis, P. brutia and P. eldarica in Israel. Forest Ecology and Management (1989) 26 (3) 215-225

21 Weinstein A [Effect of seed origin on early growth of Pinus halepensis Mill. and Pinus brutia Ten. in Israel]. La-Yaaran (1982) 32 (1-4) 25-30, 67-65

22 Gkourasas I [Reaffestation with Thasos Pine [Pinus brutia?].] Das. Chron. 4 (11/12), 1962 (528-33) 23 Razzag AA [The influence of site on afforestation success in Jordan.] Gottinger Beitrage zur Land-

und Forstwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen (1986) No. 13, 173 pp. 24 Zech W and Cepel N [Relations between soil and relief characteristics and the yield of Pinus brutia

stands in S. Anatolia.] Istanbul Universitesi Orman Fakultsei Yayinlari (1972) No. 191, 107 pp. 25 Bidner-Barhava N and Ramati B The tolerance of some species of Eucalyptus, Pinus and other forest

trees to soil salinity and low soil moisture in the Negev. Israel J. agric. Res. 1967 17 (2) 65-76 26 Schiller G [Ecological factors affecting the growth of Aleppo Pine in the Southern Judean hills.]

Leaflet, Division of Forestry, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel (1972) No. 44, 21 pp.

30

27 Hadri H and Tschinkel H [Hydrology of three small catchments characterised by different land use.] Annales de l’Institut National de Recherches Forestieres de Tunisie (1976) 6 (2) 100 pp.

28 Calamassi R [Light and temperature effects on seed germination of some provenances of P. halepensis and P. brutia Ten.] Italia Forestale e Montana Jul-Aug 1982 v. 37 (4) pp. 174-187

29 Oppenheimer HR Final Report on Project No. A10-FS7, Grant No. FG-Is-119. Mechanisms of drought resistance in conifers of the Mediterranean zone and the arid west of the USA. Part 1. Physiological and anatomical investigations. Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

30 Poduje L and Lell JD [The cultivation of Pinus halepensis in the semi-arid, sub-humid region of the province of La Pampa, Argentina.] Revista Forestal Argentina (1973) 17 (1) 11-17

30A Kligler E Planting techniques in the semi-arid and arid Negev regions. AFZ 24-26 (1989) 31 Agamirova MI [Effects of different doses of fertilizers on the increment of introduced species of pine]

Lesn. Khoz. 1971 (10) , (38-39) 32 Cepel N [Trials to improve the growth of pine plantations on difficult sites in Antalya forest district

(Turkey)] Istanbul Universitesi Orman Fakutesi Yayinlari (1971) I.U. No. 1644 O.F. No.168, 76pp. 33 Cepel N and Zech W [Nutrition and growth of Pinus brutia stands in South Anatolia.]

Forswissenschsftliches Centrablatt (1982) 101 (4) 260-273 34 Hernandez Aina A [Work in the conservation and restoration of soils in the provinces of Nador and

Alhucemas in the former Northern Zone of Morocco.] Montes, Madrid 18 (108), 1962 (509-19) 35 Ciancio O [Experiments on first thinnings (in direct-sown stands) of Mediterranean Pines.] Annali,

Istuto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura, Arezzo 1970 1, (199-269) 36 Heth D and Spetter D Growth of Aleppo and Brutia pines as affected by thinning intensities.

Proceedings, IUFRO S4.01.00 meeting, Orleans, France 1983. Colloques del’INRA (1983, publ. 1984) No. 19, 167-177 For. Dep., Agric. Res. Org., Ilanot, Israel

37 Urgenc S [Comparison between the initial growth of Pinus brutia, P. pinaster and P. radiata in the Mediterranean zone of Turkey.] Revue Forestiere Francaise (1972) 24 (2) 115-117

38 Moron, I [Control of erosion in gullies.] Repr. from Anales de la Universidad del Trabajo del Uruguay, Montevideo No. 1, 1961 (5-19)

39 Dahman M [Pinus halepensis: its technological characteristics and utilization.] Bulletin d’Information, Institut National de Recherches Forestieres, Tunisia (1974) No. 17, 9-12

40 Hilmi HA Density variation in Pinus brutia. Extr. from Rep. Imp. For. Inst., Oxf. 1959/60, 1960 (21)

41 Chittenden AE and Flaws LJ Particleboards from Cyprus-grown trees. T.P.I. Rep. Trop. Prod. Inst. No. G49, 1970 pp. 10

42 Newall RJ, Hudson RW and White NC Peeling and slicing Pinus brutia for fruit boxes. Progress Report. Forest Products Research Laboratory, Princes Risborough No. 69, 1969 pp. 9

43 Sertmehmetoglu Z, Acer O and Birler AS Some investigations on rotation and industrial raw material yield of Red Pine (Pinus brutia Ten.) forests with relation to the paper industry in southern Anatolia. Izmit, Turkey, Poplar Research Institute (1968) 24 pp.

44 Kaethner D 1997. Personal communication. 45 Wurst K 1996. Personal communication. 46

Thomas S and Borough C Australian Forest Grower Vol.20 No.1 Autumn 1997. Special Liftout Section No. 39.

47A Palmberg C Geographic variation and early growth in south-eastern semi-arid Australia of Pinus halepensis Mill. and Pinus brutia Ten. species complex. Silvae Genetica (1976) 24 (5/6) 150-160

47

Spencer D J 1985. Dry country pines: Provenance Evaluation of the Pinus halepensis -P. brutia complex in the semi-arid region of South-East Australia. Aust. For., 15 263 - 279.

48 Boardman R 1989. Aleppo Pine Provenance Trials. Unpublished data. 49

Bolza E and Kloot N H 1963. The Mechanical Properties of 174 Australian Timbers. CSIRO Division of Forest Products Technological Paper 25.

50

Brown A and Hall N 1968. Growing Trees on Australian Farms. Comm. of Aust. Dept. of Natural Resources. Forestry and Timber Bureau. p. 169.

51 Page BR 1987. Softwood Holdings Ltd. Engineering and Technical Services. Internal documents. 52

Loane B Oct. 1995. Farmtree Model (computer programme). DAV-DCNR Vic. Joint Agroforestry Committee.

53 ( - ) 1996 Farm Budget Guide. SA Stock Journal 54 Barnet S, Henschke C, Hatton T and Cole P 1996. Dryland salinity in South Australia. SA Dryland

Salinity Committee.

31

8.2 Bibiography - General References - Aleppo Pine (uncited)

1 ( - ) [Forest development and management. Algeria - Inventory of the forest areas of the Aures (3 vols.).] FAO. (1974) 148 + 110 + 423 pp. From Review in Revue Forestiere Francaise 25, xl.

2 Abbas H, Barbero M, Loisel R, Quezel P [The Aleppo pine forests in Mediterranean south-eastern France. Ecodendrometric analyses. Part 1]. Foret Mediterraneenne (1985) 7 (1) 35-42,105, 110-112

3 Abido MS Morpho-physiological evaluations of Aleppo and brutia pine seedlings under two different moisture regimes. Dissertation Abstracts International, B (Sciences and Engineering) (1986) 47 (4) 1349-B

4 Agamirova MI [Early and late flushing forms of Pinus halepensis in the Apsheron region] Dokl. AN AzSSR 1970 26 (8) , (66-9)

5 Alexandres SG [Soils on rhyolite and serpentine, and the nutrient status of Pinus brutia stands. Deltion Ereunon, Kentron Dasikon Ereunon Boreiou Hellados, Thessalonike No. 46, 1971 pp 54

6 Alexandris S [Nutritional status of plantations of various Pine species in northern Greece] Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung (1976) 147 (1) 16-23

7 Alonso J and Gersosimo FJ [Growth of Pinus halepensis and trials with other Pines in the Estacion Forestal Fernandez (Santiago del Estero) [Proc.] I. Reun. Reg. Conif. Asoc. For. Argent., B. Aires 1961. pp [119-27]

8 Ans B [Investigation of the form of the endogenous variation in thickness of annual growth rings of Pinus halepensis] Flora. GDR (1973) 162 (4) 335-351

9 Arbez M Forest Genetics Resources Info. 3, FAO For. Occas. Pap. 1974/1 pp 21-33 10 Augustin H and Rahmani M [Suitability of mixed Moroccan wood species for the production of pulp and

paper.] Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff (1975) 33 (1) 26-31 11 Bacilieri R and Puissi P [Reafforestation of Monte Argentario (Tuscany)] Italia Forestale e Montana

1989 44 (6) 465-488 12 Bellefontaine R [Eleven years of forestry genetic improvement] Annales de la Recherche Forestiere au

Maroc 1979 19, 15-48 13 Bellefontaine R [Synthesis of the first trials in Morocco on provenances of Pinus brutia. Interim

results.] Annales de la Recherche Forestiere au Maroc 1980 20 153-181 14 Bellefontaine R and Raggabi M [Contribution to the study of pines of the section Halepensis (Pinus

brutia, P. eldarica and P. halepensis) in Morocco: general considerations and international provenance trials.] Annales de la Recherche Forestiere au Maro.

15 Bicanic B [Objects of management of forests in lower localities in the Eumediterranean zone of Dalmatia, and their realization] Sum. List 85 (5/6), 1961 (205-21).

16 Blanco Gutierrez JL et al. Provenance assays: P. brutia. Ten. [in semi-arid zones of Spain] No. 8 nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, Madrid 1981-1984 Bolotin M [Growth of Aleppo Pine as influenced by stand density.] La-Yaaran 11 (

17 Bosia A and Nisi D Paper characteristics of two fast growing conifers (Cedrus atlantica and P. halepensis )and of one hardwood tree (Paulonia fortunei). Symposium Internacional EU CE PA, Madrid (1974) Paper No. 5 16 pp.

18 Branovicij ML [Afforestation in Syria] Lesn. Hoz. 16 (8), 1965 (88-90) 19 Bustamante Ezpeleta L [The use of small wood for pulping] An. Inst. For. Invest. Esp., Madrid (TomoI)

1966 (5-24) 20 Buyukyildirim L [The importance of our coastal dunes and the experimental plantations of 1955 on the

Manavgat Side-Sorkun dunes.] Orm. Arast. Enst. Yayinlari (Muhtelif Yayinlar Serisi), Ankara No. 7, 1961 pp.49

21 Buyukyildirim L [Erosion, gradoni terracing and reafforestation] Orm. Arast. Enst. Derg. 6 (1), 1960 (6-22)

22 Byles B Pinus halepensis Australia Cnth Forestry Bureau. Canberra 1981 Vol 16 #1 23 Castellani C [ Volume and yield tables for Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) in Italy.] Ann. Ist. Sper.

Assest. For. Alp. (1980-1982) 8, 3-44 24 Castellani C [ Volume and yield tables for the Italian Forests] Ann. Ist. Sper. Assest. For. Alp. 1970 1

(1) pp. 431 25 Cersosimo FJ and Alonso J [Growth of Pinus halepensis, and trials with other Pines] Notas silvic.

Adm. Nac. Bosques, B. Aires No. 18, 1964. pp. 10 26 Chudnoff M Field tests of preservation treatments of wooden posts. Leafl. For. Div. Nat. Univ. Inst.

Agric. Ilanoth No. 21, 1962 pp. 18 27 Clark GM and Johnson JA Farm woodlots in the central belt of Scotland: a socio-economic critique.

32

Scottish Forestry Vol. 47 No. 2 April 1993 28 Cote M [An experiment in arid-zone afforestation: the forest belt of Eastern Morocco] Ann. Rech. for.

Maroc 1965 (1967) 9, (223-44) 29 Critchfield WB and Little EL Geographic Distribution of the pines of the world. US Dept. Agric. Misc.

Publ. No. 991 (1966) 30 Deidda P and Dettori S [Comparisons between seven fast-grown tree species in a semi-arid

environment.] Cellulosa e Carta (1990) 41 (2) 24-29 31 Destremau DX [Detailed notes on the natural distribution of the principal Moroccan conifers with a

view to distinguishing provenances.] Annales de la Recherche Forestiere au Maroc. (1974) 3-90 32 Eccher A, Fusaro E and Righi F [Preliminary results of a provenance trial of mediterranean pines of the

‘Halepensis’ section, with particular reference to Pinus eldarica.] Cellulosa e Carta (1982) 33 (3) 3-30 33 Fernandez AE and Lugea MJ [Species of Pinus in the Estacion Forestal Castelar.] Reun. Reg. Conif.

Asoc. For. Argent., B. Aires 1961. pp [79-86] 34 Ffolliot PF Initial survival and growth of tree seedlings in a water harvesting agrisystem. Hydrology

and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest (1988) 18, 43-47 35 Fisher JT, Neumann RW and Mexal JG Performance of Pinus halepensis/brutia group pines in southern

New Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management (1986) 16 (1-4) (403-410) 36 Flores Calderon E [ Report on experience with Pinus halepensis in Anahuac Colony, Chihuahua.]

Mexico sus Bosques (1973) 12 (5) 23-24 37 Flores Calderon E [Experience in the propagation of Pinus halepensis in Chihuahua. Part II.]

Bosques y Fauna (1973) 10 (3) 20-28 38 Franz F and Forster H [Yield table for Pinus halepensis in the Aures Mountains, Algeria.]

Bundesministerium fur wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (1980) 110 pp. [de] Universitat Munchen, GDR 39 Fuerstenberg CV and Saeed H A forest management plan for Ninevah plantation in Iraq. Mesopot.

Agric. 1969 4, (82-92). 40 Fusaro E [A note onthe performance of promising Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) provenances from

eastern Greece.] Quaderi di Ricerca - centro di Sperimentazione Agricola e Forestale/Istituto di Sperimentazione per la Pioppicoltura (1986) No. 11,

41 Gachon L [Archaeological information: the kinds of trees used in shipbuilding on the Mediterranean, 2000 years ago.] Foret Privee Francaise (1975) No. 107, 87-88

42 Gale J and Poljakoff-Mayber A A further observation on the spot-watering and mulching technique for planting Aleppo pine La-Yaaran (1970), 20 (1-2), 35-4

43 Gandullo JM (Editor) [The ecology of the Spanish Pine forests. III. Pinus halepensis.] Mill. Madrid, Spain, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias. (1972) 307pp.

44 Gezer A Silviculture of the Brutian pine (Pinus brutia Henry) in Turkey. Doga, Tarim ve Ormancilik (1987) 11 (1) 139-151

45 Gindel I Some eco-physiological properties of three tree xerophytes grown in desert. (Ecol. Plant., Paris 1968 3 (1), (49-67)

46 Giulimondi G and Duranti G [Study of the occurrence of deaths in a coastal belt of Pinus halepensis and P. pinea.] Cellulosa e Carta 1971 22 (5), (33-45)

47 Golubovic U and Mestrovic S [Tourist income as a function of the forest stands situated along the Adriatic and the motorway.] Sum. List 1966 90 (11/12), (481-96)

48 Graf H [Soil erosion and measures of control in the Moroccan Rif range.] Schweizerische Zeitschrift furforstwesen (1973) 124 (11) 863-870

49 Greco M and Greco I [Economics and techniques for a policy for Mediterranean Europe on productive afforestation.] Quaderni dell’Amministrazone Provinciale, Bari (1979) No. 8

50 Grigor’ev AG [Individual selection of winter-hardy seedlings in mass sowings of Pinus halepensis and Cupressus arizonica.] Bjull. Gos. Nikit. Bot. Sada 1969 (1), (18-20)

51 Grigor’ev AG [Mass sowing of seeds and individual selection of frost-resistant forms in [plant] introduction.] Bjull. Gos. Nikit. Bot. Sada (1972) No. 83, 18-21

52 Gualdi V [The productivity of even-aged stands of Pinus halepensis on the high plateau of Constantine in Algeria.] Italia Forestale e Montana (1979) 34 (3) 101-120

53 Hadzigeorgiev K [Possibility of growing certain species of Cupressus and Pinus in the Quercus coccifera region of Macedonia.] Godisdn. Sum.Inst., Skopje 5 1960-1961 (1962), (99-115)

54 Hall N et al. Uses of Trees and Shrubs in the Dry Country of Australia. (1972) AGPS; Canberra 55 Hasan SM, Al-Saraf MJ and Khalil MT [Comparative studies on the growth of Pinus brutia in pure and

mixed plantations.] Mesopotamia journal of Agriculture (1980) 15 (1) Ar 61-73 56 Heth D [Growth of Aleppo pine plantations in Israel. Effect of stand density.] Leaflet, Division of

Forestry, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel (1976) No. 55, 32 pp. 57 Heth D [Decisive ecological factors in afforestation of P. brutia Ten..] La-Yaaran (1969), 19 (2), 67-5

33

58 Ilijanic L and Gracanin M [Water relations of some Mediterranean plants.] Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft (1972) 85 (7/9) 329-339

59 Jimenez-Castellanos y Conde A [Afforestation of calcareous sites with little or no organic soil. Trials with steel rod method.] Montes, Madrid 20 (116), 1964 (87-90)

60 Jovancevic M [Ecology of forest trees and shrubs in the region of Dubrovnik.] Anali za Sumarstvo (1974) 5, 224 pp. + 6 pl., 1 map, 3 tab.

61 Keys RN, Cech FC and Davidson WH The performance of Austrian pine [P. brutia] seed sources on various sites in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania. Proceedings - Northeastern Forest Tree Improvement Conf. (USA) (1981) No. 27, pp 103-114

62 Laatsch W [Relationship between nutrient status and growth in some Spanish plantations of Pinus halepensis.] An. Edafol. Agrobiol. 1966 25 (3/4), (205-29).

63 Laatsch W [Relationship between site, nutrient status, and growth in Pine plantations in the Mediterranean region] Forstwiss. Cbl. 1967 86 (2), (69-81)

64 Liphschitz N and Mendel Z Comparative radial growth of Pinus halepensis Mill. and Pinus brutia in Israel. Foret Mediterraneenne (1987) 9 (2) 115-117

65 Lorrain-Smith R Comparing set-aside payments with forestry cashflows. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 1966 90 (1): 59-66

66 Lovenstein HM Runoff agroforestry in arid lands. For. Ecol. and Managmt. 45 (1991) 59-70 67 Manzari R [Forest improvements and afforestation in Algeria.] Monti e boschi (1990) 41 (2) 19-24 68 Marion J [Some thoughts on forestry in central Tunisia.] Bull. Inform. Inst. Rebois. Tunis 1966 (4), (9-

13) 69 Marti JA [Report from the Department of Lands and Forests of Sante Fe province.] [Proc.] I Reun. Reg.

Conif. Asoc. For. Argent., B. Aires 1961 pp. [185-91] 70 Mirov NT ‘The Genus Pinus’ 1967; Ronald Press; New York. 71 Moulopoulos C [The morphology of the systems of Pinus brutia and Cupressus sempivirens var.

horizontalis and their importance for the structure of mixtures.] Epistemonike Epeteris, Geoponike kai Dasologike Schole, Aristoteleion Panepistemion Thes

72 Nahal I [Pinus brutia subsp. brutia. Part 2]. Foret Mediterraneenne (1984) 6 (1) 5-18, 71-73 73 Ortigosa LM, Garcia-Ruiz jm and Gil E Land reclamation by reforestation in the central Pyrenees.

Mountain Research and Development (1990) 10 (3) 281-288 74 Ozdemir T, Eler U and Sirlak U [Effects of release cutting for natural Pinus brutia stands in the Antalya

forest region.] Ormancilik Arastirma Enstitusu Yayinlari Teknik Bulten Serisi (1987) No. 184, 31 pp. 75 Palmberg C Geographic variation and early growth in south-eastern semi-arid Australia of Pinus

halepensis Mill. and Pinus brutia Ten. species complex. Silvae Genetica (1976) 24 (5/6) 150-160 76 Pelizzo A and Tocci A [Preliminary research on seeds and seedlings of Pinus halepensis and Pinus

brutia-eldarica.] Annali dell’Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura, Italy (1978) 9, 109-130 77 Pipkov N and Ovcharov G [Pinus halepensis in amenity and commercial afforestation in Bulgaria.]

Gorsko Stoparstvo (1976) 32 (8) 17-19 78 Pita Carpenter PA [Increment and yield of Spanish forests. Summary of measurements and plots in

1965.] An. Inst. For. Invest. Exp., Madrid 1965 37 (10), (13-34) 79 Poupon H [Height and girth increment of some species of Pines and Eucalypts in the arboretum at

Zernia.] Ann. Inst. Nat. Rech. For. Tunis. 1970 4 (5), pp.30 80 Quezel P et al. Aleppo pine and associated species: distribution and general overview of ecology,

characteristics: recent changes in Mediterranean France. Foret Mediterraneenne 1992 13 (3): 158-170 81 Richardson KF Afforestation on adverse sites: recent improvements in planting techniques in Lesotho. In

Forestry Quo Vadis? Proceedings, Symposium of the Southern African Institute of Forestry, Pietermaritzburg, 23 June 1983

82 Safar J [Problems of Afforestation in the littoral Karst region [of Jugoslavia].] Sum. List 1968 92 (3/4), (147-153)

83 Schiller G Significance of bedrock as a site factor for Aleppo pine. Forest Ecology and Management (1982) 4 (3) 213-233

84 Schiller G Interrelations between site factors and performance of Aleppo pine in the Sha’ar Hagay Forest La-yaaran (1977) 27 (1-4), 47

85 Souleres G [Pinus halepensis in Tunisia.] Ann. Inst. Nat. Rech. For. Tunis 1969 2 (1). pp. 126 86 Souleres G [Pinus halepensis in Tunisia; rapid determination of [the volume of] trees and stands.] Note

tech. Inst. Rebois. Tunis No. 14, 1970. pp.13 87 Souleres G [Site-quality classes and yield of Tunisian Pinus halepensis forests.] Revue Forestiere

Francaise (1975) 27 (1) 41-49 88 Tucker J Forestry practices in Israel. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 1993 224-229 89 Zech W and Cepel N [The relations between estimated available water capacity in forest soils and

34

height growth of P. brutia stands in the Mediterranean subtropical regions of Anatolia.] Z. PflErnahr. Bodenk. 1970 127 (1), (41-49)

8.3 Bibliography - Australian References (uncited)

1 ( - ) Forest culture In South Australia. (No.1-5) SA Register Feb. to March 1885 2 ( - ) Integrating forestry and farming: commercial wood production on cleared agricultural land.

National Plantations Advisory Committee. Nov.'91 3 ( - ) Superannuation benefits; today and tomorrow. Farming Ahead No. 59 Nov. '96 4 ( - ) Taxation and individual forestry investment. ABARE Discussion Paper 91-2 Nov.'94 reprint 5 ( - ) Weather, Climate Variability and Agriculture. Climate Consultancy, Bureau of Meteorology, SA

Sept.1995 6 ( - ) Wood and paper industry strategy. Government of Australia 1995 7 Bills J Commodity update. NAB Rural Focus 8, Oct. '96 8 Boardman R (in) The Ecology of the Forests and Woodlands of South Australia, Wallace HR ed., Jan.

1986 (history and management of SA forests and woodlands) 9 Campbell MW Financial incentives for planting trees. Farm, Jan. 1990 pp. 40-41 10 Clarke F Tips and traps for pine growing. Farm, Jan. 1990 pp.30-32 11 Haines P Integrating trees with livestock grazing. RIRDC/LWRRDC/FWPRDC joint ag. prog. May 1997 12 Heinjus D Farm Tree Planting Dept. Ag. SA 1992 13 Jones J High prices for clearwood pine. Aust. For. Journal, Jan. '96 pp. 54-55 14 Jowett D (source) Money tree$. Aust. Farm Journal, Jan. 1996 pp. 34-39 15 Kaethner D The potential of Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) to expand the commercial forest estate of SA.

1997 (unpublished) 16 Laut P et al. Environments of South Australia Handbook. CSIRO Divn. of Land Use Research. Canberra

Aust. 1977 17 Lewis NB et al. Bulletin 'B' Yield regulation in SA Pinus radiata plantations. 1976 18 Loane W Agroforestry - economic aspects. Dept. of Ag. Vic. Sept. '93 19 Prinsley R (coordinator) Low Rainfall Agroforestry. RIRDC/LWRRDC Workshop Proceedings Aug.

1992 20 Robertson I (Leaflet) Pinus radiata costings. PIRSA Oct. '95

66

9 Appendices

67

Appendix 1 Jerilderie - McCaughey Memorial Institute Pinus halepensis performance Code Number

Seed Provenance

Dominant Tree Height

Surviving Stems ex 9 per Plot

Basal Dia & Counts

Mean Annual Increment

Comments

# Country Altitude (m) # (cm). (m3/ha/yr) (DL= double leader) 7 Greece 90-400 14 4 25 23 23 20 2.9 Stems bent 10 Tunisia 200 10 4 20 18 18 15 1.4 Some stems bent 20 Tunisia 800 16 4 23 20 20 15 2.5 28 Tunisia 1680 14 4 23 20 20 20 2.5 31 Malta - 12 4 23 18 15 13 0.7 DL on 23,18 12 Tunisia 200 10 4 18 18 13 10 0.9 DL on 13 21 Tunisia 730 14 4 23 23 20 20 2.7 16 Tunisia 100 12 4 20 20 18 18 1.8 One stem bent 18 Tunisia 350 14 4 25 25 25 23 3.4 One stem bent 39 Morocco 1140 13 5 20 20 20 20 15 2.5 26 Tunisia 1220 14 4 23 20 18 18 2.9 9 Tunisia 200 12 4 25 18 15 13 2.1 40 Algeria - 12 4 20 20 20 20 2.1 22 Tunisia 700 14 4 23 20 20 18 2.9 24 Tunisia 300 12 5 20 20 20 15 15 2.0 Two stems 300 lean 23 Tunisia 910 13 5 23 20 18 18 8 2.0 11 Tunisia 300 12 5 13 13 13 13 8 0.5 18 Tunisia 50 12 4 20 15 15 15 1.4 30 Tunisia 350 14 5 23 20 20 20 5 2.5

68

Code Number

Seed Provenance

Dominant Tree Height

Surviving Stems ex 9 per Plot

Basal Dia & Counts

Mean Annual Increment

Comments

# Country Altitude (m) # (cm). (m3/ha/yr) (DL= double leader) 4 Italy 20 17 4 28 25 23 18 3.9 39 Algeria 1310 13 4 23 23 18 18 2.9 17 Tunisia 300 16 4 25 25 23 23 3.6 19 Tunisia 500 14 6 20 20 18 18 15 13 2.7 38 Algeria 810 14 6 20 18 18 18 15 13 2.5 37 Algeria 1200 15 4 20 18 18 18 2.1 2 Italy 400 15 4 25 20 20 13 2.5 3 Italy 150-300 14 4 25 25 25 23 3.4 16 Israel 370 16 4 20 18 18 15 2.1 1 France 120 15 4 23 23 23 20 3.0 15 Tunisia 400 15 4 23 20 18 18 2.9 6 Spain 300 17 4 25 20 20 20 3.6 27 Tunisia 800 15 4 23 23 23 18 2.7 14 Tunisia 700 15 6 20 18 15 13 10 10 2.0 35 Jordan 930 14 5 25 20 18 18 15 2.7 13 Tunisia 660 15 3 20 18 15 1.4 29 Tunisia 610 13 3 18 15 13 0.9 25 Tunisia 980 18 3 20 18 15 1.4 Heights 18,14,14. 5 Spain 150 14 4 23 20 15 15 2.1 17 Cyprus - 13 4 23 20 18 18 2.1 4 Iraq - 11 4 20 20 20 13 1.6 22 Iran 1280 14 6 23 23 23 23 20 15 3.9 20 Greece 400 18 4 30 28 20 15 4.1 Next best height 14 18 Turkey 0-300 15 4 25 23 20 15 2.8 10 Lebanon 400 12 2 15 15 0.6 17 Turkey 850-1100 17 4 25 20 18 15 2.8 3 Turkey 700 15 4 20 20 20 18 2.4 5 Greece 200 14 4 25 23 20 18 2.7

69

Code Number

Seed Provenance

Dominant Tree Height

Surviving Stems ex 9 per Plot

Basal Dia & Counts

Mean Annual Increment

Comments

# Country Altitude (m) # (cm). (m3/ha/yr) (DL= double leader) 11 Greece - 14 4 23 20 20 18 2.4 6 Cyprus 460 13 4 20 20 20 20 2.2 12 Turkey 600-700 14 4 23 20 20 20 2.5 19 Turkey 800 15 4 23 20 20 20 2.7 8 Cyprus 600-900 17 3 23 20 20 2.4 21 Greece 600 14 4 25 23 23 20 3.0 16 Turkey 700 14 4 25 23 20 18 2.7 Other stems cut prior 13 Turkey 450-700 13 4 25 23 23 23 2.9 Barrier trees missing 1 (USSR) <50 14 4 23 23 20 18 2.5 14 Turkey 800-1000 13 4 23 20 18 18 2.1 9 Iran 1200 12 4 23 23 23 18 2.3 15 Turkey 50 14 4 20 20 18 15 2.0 2 (USSR) <50 15 4 23 20 20 18 2.6 Barrier trees missing

70

Appendix 2 Bundaleer plantation Aleppo pines provenance trial growth data Block Plot Row Provenance

Code Number Planted (25 positions)

Number Survived

Counts for Diameter Groups (centimetres) (Basal Diameter over Bark)

Total Height Dominant Tree

Typical Useful Stem Height

Merchantable Plot Timber Volume

Mean Annual Increment

(#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) 15 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 (m) (m) (m3) m3/ha/yr

1 1 1 40 12 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 20 13 1.6 6.2 2 1 3 13 20 9 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 9 1.0 3.9 2 2 1 48 25 13 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 18 12 2.1 5.6 2 6 1 18 18 12 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 20 16 2.4 6.9 3 3 3 43 20 9 2 3 1 4 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 22 16 2.9 11.0 3 4 3 40 20 7 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 19 12 1.7 8.1 4 1 4 18 20 11 0 2 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 17 13 1.7 5.4 4 2 3 51 20 11 0 0 2 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 13 2.0 6.1 4 3 1 13 25 12 2 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 19 14 2.5 7.0 4 3 3 3 15 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 1.6 7.7 4 5 2 48 20 11 2 2 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 12 1.5 4.6 4 6 1 14 20 9 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 1.7 6.4 8 3 8 51 25 19 0 0 1 6 2 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 24 19 4.6 8.3 8 2 6 40 15 11 1 0 2 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 19 10 1.6 5.0 8 3 4 48 25 21 6 7 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 12 2.2 3.6 8 3 3 43 12 11 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 11 1.4 4.5 7 3 8 3 12 11 1 0 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 1.2 3.8 7 2 7 51 20 18 1 5 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 12 1.9 3.6 7 3 7 18 20 14 3 2 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 11 1.6 4.0 7 2 4 13 25 12 3 0 4 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 11 1.6 4.4 7 3 4 14 25 12 1 1 4 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 10 1.7 4.7 7 2 3 18 25 11 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 0.9 2.8 7 1 2 14 25 14 0 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 18 13 2.6 6.5 7 2 1 3 15 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 19 14 1.5 8.4 6 3 3 40 15 8 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 18 12 1.5 6.2 6 1 1 40 15 12 0 0 1 2 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 18 11 2.2 6.2 5 3 8 51 25 20 0 5 5 2 4 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 19 12 3.4 5.8 5 2 7 18 20 10 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 14 1.8 6.3 5 2 3 14 25 14 0 1 5 0 1 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 20 14 3.7 9.1 5 1 2 3 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 14 1.5 10.4 5 1 1 18 25 6 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 19 14 1.7 9.9