Decay Resistance and Extractive Content of Second-Growth Port Orford Cedar (<i>Chamaecyparis Lawsoniana</i>) Wood
Keywords:
Port Orford cedar, decay resistance, <i>Postia placenta</i>, <i>Gloeophyllum trabeum</i>Abstract
Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) has a reputation for being resistant to fungal attack, but much of the work to support this premise used older growth material (80-100 yr old). Given the tendency for the heartwood from the second growth of some species to be less durable, we evaluated the decay resistance of Port Orford cedar heartwood from 12 trees in laboratory soil block tests using Postia placenta and Gloeophyllum trabeum as the test fungi. Weight losses ranged from as little as 1.1 to more than 60% with most blocks experiencing weight losses between 11 and 24%. Heartwood was resistant to attack by G. trabeum but proved to be very susceptible to P. placenta and was only moderately resistant to this species. These results suggest that the durability rating of second-growth Port Orford cedar merits a re-evaluation.References
ASTM (2001) D2017. Standard test method of accelerated laboratory test of natural decay resistance of woods. ASTM annual book of standards, Volume 4.10. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.nASTM (2011) ASTM Standard D1105. Standard test method for preparation of extractive-free wood. ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Volume 4.10. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.nAWPA (2012) Standard E10. Standard method of testing wood preservatives by laboratory soil block cultures. AWPA book of standards. American Wood Protection Association, Birmingham, AL.nClark JW, Scheffer TC (1983) Natural decay resistance of the heartwood of coast redwood (Sequioa sempervirens [D. Don] Endl). Forest Prod J 33(5):15-20.nDuncan CG, Lombard FF (1965) Fungal associated with the principal decays in wood products in the United States. Res Pap WO-4. USDA, Washington, DC.nHawley LF, Fleck LC, Richards CA (1924) The relation between durability and chemical composition in wood. Ind Eng Chem 15(7):1-7.nHumphrey CJ (1918) Laboratory tests on the durability of American Woods 1. Flask tests on conifers. Mycologia 8:80-93.nLiu Y (2004) Study on the termiticidal components of Juniperus virginiana, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis and Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. MS thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 61 pp.nMcDaniel CA (1989) Major termiticidal components of heartwood of Port-Orford cedar, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murr.) Parl. Mater Organismen 24:1-15.nMorrell JJ, Miller DJ, Schneider PF (1999) Service life of treated and untreated fence posts: 1996 Post Farm Report. Research Contribution 26. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 24 pp.nMorrell JJ, Sexton CM (1987) Decay resistance of Port Orford cedar. Forest Prod J 37(9):49-50.nPanshin AJ, De Zeeuw C (1970) Textbook of wood technology, Vol 1, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.nRudman P, DaCosta EWB (1959) Variation in extractive content and decay resistance in the heartwood of Tectona grandis. Journal of the Institute of Wood Science 3(1):33-42.nScheffer TC, Cowling EB (1966) Natural resistance of wood to microbial deterioration. Ann Rev Phytopathol 4:147-170.nScheffer TC, Morrell JJ (1998) Natural durability of wood: A worldwide checklist of species. Research Contribution 22. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 58 pp.nSherrard EC, Kurth EF (1933) The distribution of extractive in redwood: Its relation to durability. Ind Eng Chem 25(3):300-302.nStillinger JR (1953) Strength and related properties of second growth Port Orford cedar. J Forestry 51(8):555-559.nTaylor AM, Brooks JR, Lachenbruch BL, Morrell JJ (2007) Radial patterns of carbon isotopes in the xylem extractives and cellulose of Douglas-fir. Tree Physiol 27(6): 921-927.nTaylor AM, Gartner BL, Morrell JJ (2002) Heartwood formation and natural durability—A review. Wood Fiber Sci 34(4):587-611.nTunnicliffe JE (nd) Comparative heartwood durability and strength values of Incense cedar (Librocedrus decurrens), Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) Alaska cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). California Lumber Inspection Service, San Jose, CA. 11 pp.nWhite DG (1922) Relative durability of untreated native woods. So Lumberman (Sept) 2:46-47.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
