Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Trends in the Use of Tissue Culture in Forest Improvement

Bio/Technology volume 5, pages 52–59 (1987)Cite this article

Abstract

We have analyzed and described the problems and potentials of using tissue culture in micropropagation and biotechnologies related to forest improvement. Trends in forest management concepts, commerical micropropagation, and tissue culture biotechnologies are discussed. Our analysis suggests that tissue culture will contribute significantly to the improvement of forests through exploitation of existing genotypes and production of new, commercially valuable genotypes. Such changes may significantly influence worldwide management decisions in forestry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Larson, P.R. 1984. Exploring the tree as an experimental organism, p. 1–10 In: Proc. 8th North American Forest Biology Workshop., Lanner R.M.(ed.) Utah State University, Logan, UT.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weaver, K.F. 1985. The search for our ancestors. Nat. Geographic 168: 561–623.

    Google Scholar 

  3. USOTA 1983. Wood Use. U.S. Competitiveness and Technology. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, OTA-ITE-210, 202 p.

  4. US National Academy of Science. 1983. Report of the Briefing Panelon Agricultural Research. National Academy Press, Washington, DC,21 p.

  5. Burg, A.W., Sacco, G.R., and Wheat, D. 1983. Biotechnology: Opportunities in the Biomedical, Chemical, Agricultural and Food Industries. Arthur D. Little Report, New York, NY. 100 p.

  6. Nelson, N.D. and Haissig, B.E. 1984. Biotechnology in the Forest Service's North Central Forest Experiment Station, p. 139–154 In: Proc. Int. Symposium of Recent Advances in Forest Biotechnology. Michigan Biotechnology Institute, East Lansing, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Skelsey, A.F. 1984. Reference Document: Needs Assessment for the Food and Agricultural Sciences. Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, Washington, DC, p. 229.

  8. Parsons, T.J., Sinkar, V.P., Stettler, R.F., Nester, E.W. and Gordon, M.P. 1986. Transformation of poplar by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Bio/Technology 4: 533–536.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sederoff, R., Stomp, A.-M., Chilton, W.S. and Moore, L.W. 1986. Gene transfer into loblolly pine by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Bio/Technology 4: 647–649.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fillatti, J.J., Sellmer, J.C. and McCown, B.H. 1986. Regeneration and transformation of Populus tissue. HortScience 21: 773.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fillatti, J.J., McCown, B., Sellmer, J., Haissig, B. and Comai, L. 1987. Agrobacterium mediated transformation and regeneration of poplar. J. Mol. Gen. Genet. (in press)

  12. Sellmer, J.C., McCown, B.H. and Haissig, B.E. 1986. A selection system for increased recovery of transformed shoots regenerated from Populus leaf tissue, p. 154–155. In: Proc Sixth Int. Cong. of Plant Tissue and Cell Culture. Sommers, D. A., Gengenbach, B. G., Bies hoer, D. D., Hackett; W. P., and Green, C. E. (eds.) University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ettinger, T.L., Read, P.E., Hackett, W.P., Ostry, M.E. and Skilling, D.D. 1986. Development of resistance in Populus to Septoria musiva utilizing somaclonal variation, p. 83–90. In: Proc. 12th Meeting of the Canadian Tree Improvement Assoc., Part 2, 1985. Caron, F., Corn- veau, A. G., and Boyle, I.J.B. (eds.) Canadian Tree Improvement Association, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Collins, G.B. 1982. Plant cell and tissue culture: An overview, p. 230–253 In: Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development, Proc. of a Workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Franclet, A., David, A., David, H., and Boulay, M. 1980. Première mise en evidence morphologique d'un rajeunissement de meristèmes primaires caulinaires de Pin maritime agé (Pinus pinaster Sol.). C.R. Acad Sci. Paris 290: 927–930.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fouret, Y., Arnaud, Y., and Larrieu, C. 1985. Rajeunissement in vitro du Sequoia sempervirens, p. 111–137. In: 1984 Annales des recherches sylvicoles. AFOCEL, Association Foret-Cellulose, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bouriquet, R., Tsongas, M. and Blaselle, A. 1985. Essais de rajeunissement de l'èpicèa par les cytokinins, p. 173–185. In: 1984 Annales des recherches sylvicoles. AFOCEL, Association Foret-Cellulose, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta, P.K. and Durzan, D.J. 1985. Shoot multiplication from mature trees of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana). Plant Cell Reports 4: 177–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Misson, J.P. and Giot-Wirgot, P. 1985. Rajeunissement d'un clone de Thuja en vue de sa multiplication in vitro, 187–197. In: 1984 Annales des recherches sylvicoles. AFOCEL, Association Foret-Cellulose, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Williams, S.B. 1984. Protection of plant varieties and parts as intellectual property. Science 255: 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anonymous, 1985. Product patent protection extended to plants. Biotechnology News 5: 1.

  22. Chee, R. 1984. Micropropagation: Can nurserymen afford to ignore it? Am. Nurseryman 159: 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  23. George, E.F. and Sherrington, P.D. 1984. Plant Propagation by Tissue Culture. Eastern Press, Reading, Berks., Great Britain, 709 p. ISBN 0-9509325-0-7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zobel, B. 1981. Vegetative propagation in forest management operations, p. 149–159. In: Proc. 16th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conf., Blacksburg, V A. Virginia Polytechnical and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aitken-Christie, J. 1984. Micropropagation of Pinus radiata. The Plant Propagator 30: 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Anonymous, 1985. 1984 Marcus Wallenbeng Prize awarded to Aracruz forestry team. Aracruz Newsletter, March, 1985.

  27. Kleinschmit, J. and Schmidt, J. 1977. Experiences with Picea abies cuttings propagation in Germany and problems connected with large scale application. Silvae Genetica 26: 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dietrichson, J. and Kierulf, C. 1982. Selection of eight-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) plants in a progeny trial and mass production by cuttings. Meddelelser fra Norsk Institutt for Skogforskning (Reports of the Norwegian Forest Research Institute), 28 p.

  29. Thompson, D.G. 1984. Clonal reforestation: Forests of the future?, p. 3–28. In: Seedling Physiology and Reforestation Success. Duryea, M. L. and Brown, G. N. (eds.) Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishens, Dordrecht, Boston, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Struve, D.K., Talbert, J.T. and McKeand, S.E. 1984. Growth of rooted cuttings and seedlings in a 40-year-old plantation of eastern white pine. Can. J. For. Res. 14: 462–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gleed, J.A. 1983. Tree improvement—first results from a radiata pine production forest. Appita 36: 386–390.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Huhtinen, O. and Yahyaoglu, Z. 1974. Das Frühe Blühen von aus Kalluskulturen herangezogenen Pflänzchen bei den Birke (Betula pendula Roth.). Silvae Genetica 23: 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Boulay, M. 1977. Multiplication rapide du Sequoia Sempervirens en culture in vitro, p. 37–67. In: 1976 Annales des Recherches Sylvicoles, AFOCEL, Association ForetCellulose, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Barker, P.K., de Fossard, R.A., and Bourne, R.A. 1977. Progress toward clonal propagation of Eucalyptus species by tissue culture techniques. Proc. Int. Plant Prop. Soc. 27: 546–556.

    Google Scholar 

  35. de Fossard, R.A., Barker, P.K., and Bourne, R.A. 1977. The organ culture of nodes of four species of eucalyptus. Acta Hort. 78: 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gupta, P.K., Mascarenhas, A.F. and Jagannathan, V. 1981. Tissue culture of forest trees—Clonal propagation of mature trees of Eucalyptus citriodora Hook, by tissue culture. Plant Sci. Lett. 20: 195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bennett, I.J. and McComb, J.A. 1982. Propagation of jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) by organ and tissue culture. Aust. For. Res. 12: 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Franclet, A. and Boulay, M. 1982. Micropropagation of frost resistant eucalypt clones. Aust. For. Res. 13: 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Reilly, K. and Washer, J. 1977. Vegetative propagation of radiata pine by tissue culture: plantlet formation from embryonic tissue. New Zealand J. For. Sci. 7: 199–206.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Aitken, J., Horgan, K.J. and Thorpe, T.A. 1981. Influence of explant selection on the shoot-forming capacity of juvenile tissues of Pinus radiata. Can. J. For. Res. 11: 112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Horgan, K.J. and Aitken, J. 1981. Reliable plantlet formation from embryos and seedling shoot tips of radiata pine. Physiol. Plant. 53: 170–175.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kellison, R.C. and Gingrich, S. 1984. Loblolly pine management and utilization—state of the art. Southern J. Applied For. 8: 88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  43. USDA. 1985. 1984 U.S. Forest Planting Report. USDA-Forest Service, Washington, DC, 12 p.

  44. Bapat, V.A. and Rao, P.S. 1979. Somatic embryogenesis and plantlet formation in tissue cultures of sandalwood (Santalum album L.). Ann. Bot. 44: 629–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sita, G.L., Vaidyanathan, C.S., and Ramakrishnan, T. 1982. Applied aspects of plant tissue culture with special reference to tree improvement. Curr. Sci. 51: 88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  46. El-Nil, A. 1980. Embryogenesis of Gymnosperm Forest Trees. United States Patent No. 4,217,730.

  47. Gharyal, P.K. and Maheshwari, S.C. 1981. In vitro differentiation of somatic embryoids in a leguminous tree—Albizzia lebbeck L. Naturwissenschaften 68: 379–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sommer, H.E. and Brown, C.L. 1980. Embryogenesis in tissue cultures of sweetgum. For. Sci. 26: 257–260.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hakman, I.C. and von Arnold, S. 1985. Plantlet regeneration through somatic embryogenesis in Picea abies (Norway spruce). J. Plant. Physiol. 121: 149–158.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Hakman, I.C., Fowke, L.C., von Arnold, S. and Erikosson, T. 1985. The development of somatic embryos in tissue cultures initiated from immature embryos of Picea abies (Norway spruce). Plant Sci. Lett. 38: 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gupta, P.K. and Durzan, D.J. 1986. Somatic polyembryogenesis from callus of mature sugar pine embryos. Bio/Technology 4: 643–645.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ozias-Akins, P., Rao, P.S., and Schieder, O. 1985. Plant regeneration from embryonic suspension-derived protoplasts of sandalwood (Santalum album), p. 338–339. In: Tissue Culture in Forestry and Agriculture. Henke, R. R., Hughes, K. W., Constantin, M. J., and Hollaender, A. (eds.) Plenum Press, NY.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Sticklen, M.B., Lineberger, R.D. and Dormir, S.C. 1985. Isolation and culture of ‘Pioneer’ elm protoplasts, p. 19 In: Biotechnology in Plant Science: Relevance to Agriculture in the Eighties, Cornell University Biotechnology Program, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sticklen, M.B., Lineberger, R.D. and Dormir, S.C. 1985. Isolation and culture of Ulmus × ‘Homestead’. Plant Sci. 41: 117–120.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Russell, J.A. and McCown, B.H. 1986. Culture and regeneration of Populus leaf protoplasts isolated from non-seedling tissue. Plant Sci. (in press).

  56. Durzan, D.J. and Lopushanski, S.M. 1975. Propagation of American elm via cell suspension cultures. Can. J. For. Res. 5: 273–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Teasdale, R.D. and Rugini, E. 1983. Preparation of viable protoplasts from cell suspension-cultured loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) cells and subsequent regeneration to callus. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 2: 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hakman, I.C. and von Arnold, S. 1983. Isolation and growth of protoplasts from cell suspensions of Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. Plant Cell Reports 2: 92–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Smith, M.A.L. and McCown, B. 1982/1983. A comparison of source tissue for protoplast isolation from three woody plant species. Plant Sci. Lett. 28: 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ahuja, M.R., 1982. Isolation, culture, and fusion of protoplasts: problems and prospects. Silvae Genetica 31: 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ahuja, M.R., 1983. Short Note: Isolation and culture of mega and normal protoplasts in aspen. Silvae Genetica 32: 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kirby, E.G. 1980. Factors affecting proliferation of protoplasts and cell cultures of Douglas-fir, p. 289–293. In: Plant Cell Cultures: Results and Perspectives. Sala, S., Baisi, B., Cella, R. and Cifenni, O. (eds.) Elsevier/North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kirby, E.G. and Cheng, T.-Y. 1979. Colony formation from protoplasts derived from Douglas fir cotyledons. Plant Sci. Lett. 14: 145–154.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. David, A. and David, H. 1979. Isolation and callus formation from cotyledon pnotoplasts of pine (Pinus pinaster). Zeit. Pflanzenphysiol. 94: 173–177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. David, H., David, A. and Mateille, T. 1982. Evaluation of parameters affecting the yield, viability and cell division of Pinus pinaster protoplasts. Physiol. Plant. 56: 108–113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. David, H., Jarlet, E. and David, A. 1984. Effects of nitrogen source, calcium concentration and osmotic stress on protoplasts and protoplast-derived cell cultures of Pinus pinaster cotyledons. Physiol. Plant. 61: 477–482.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. David, H., de Boucaud, M.-T. and Gaultier, J.-M., and David, A. 1986. Sustained division of protoplast-derived cells from primary leaves of Pinus pinaster, factors affecting growth and change in nuclear DNA content. Tree Physiol. 1: 21–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Faye, M. and David, A. 1983. Isolation and culture of gymnosperm root protoplasts (Pinus pinaster). Physiol. Plant. 59: 359–362.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Lester, D.T. and Berbee, J.G. 1977. Within-clone variation among black poplar trees derived from callus culture. For. Sci. 23: 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Diner, A.M. and Mott, R.L. 1982. A rapid axenic assay for hypersensitive resistance of Pinus lambertiana to Cronartium ribicola. Phytopathology 72: 864–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Diner, A.M. and Mott, R.L. 1982. Axenic cultures from basidiospores of Cronartium ribicola. Can. J. Bot. 60: 1950–1955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Jacobi, W.R. 1982. Growth medium for dual cultures of loblolly pine callus and Cronartium fusiforme. Phytopathology 72: 136–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Frampton, L.J., Amerson, H.V. and Weir, R.J. 1981. Potential of in vitro screening of loblolly pine for fusiform rust resistance, p. 325–331 In: Proc. 16th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conf., Blacksburg, VA. Virginia Polytechnical and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Diner, A.M., Mott, R.L. and Amerson, H.V. 1984. Cultured cells of white pine show genetic resistance to axenic blister rust hyphae. Science 224: 407–408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Mott, R.L., Thomas, H.A. and Namkoong, G. 1978. In vitro rearing of southern pine beetle larvae on tissue-cultured loblolly pine callus. Ann. Entomolog. Soc. Amer. 71: 564–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Burkot, T.R. and Benjamin, D.M. 1980. The bionomics of the cottonwood leaf beetle, Chrysomela scripta Fab, on tissue cultured Aigeiros (Populus × euramericana (Dode) Guinier subclones. Rev. Applied Entomol. 68: 12.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Kartha, K.K. (ed.) 1985. Cryopreservation of Plant Cells and Organs. CRC Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Jelaska, S. and Bornman, C.H. 1986. Application of cell culture methods in forestry. In: Proc. 18th Cong. of the Int. Union of For. Res. Organizations. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Zagreb, Yugoslavia (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Farnum, P., Timmis, R. and Kulp, J.L. 1983. Biotechnology of forest yield. Science 219: 694–702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Talbert, J.T., Weir, R.J., and Arnold, R.D. 1985. Costs and benefits of a mature first-generation loblolly pine tree improvement program. J. For. 83: 162–166.

    Google Scholar 

  81. USDA. 1985. The Friday Newsletter. USDA-Forest Service, Office of Information, Washington, DC, No. 52, 4 p.

  82. Guenther, R. 1986. Real estate, p. 33. In: The Wall Street J. Feb. 19, Section II.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Crowell, J.B.,Jr. 1984. Can timber growing investments be profitable? J. For. 82: 536–538.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Dutrow, G.F. and Kaiser, H.F. 1984. Economic opportunities for investments in forest management in the southern United States. Southern J. Applied For. 8: 76–79.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kester, D.E. 1983. The clone in horticulture. HortScience 18: 831–837.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Larkin, P.J. and Scowcroft, W.R. 1981. Somaclonal variation—a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 60: 197–214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Evans, D.A. and Sharp, W.R. 1986. Applications of somaclonal variation. Bio/Technology 4: 528–532.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Nelson, N.D., Haissig, B.E. and Riemenschneider, D.E. 1984. Applying the new somaclonal technology to forestry, p. 27–34. In: Proc. TAPPI Research and Development Conference. TAPPI Press, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Nelson, N.D., Haissig, B.E. and Riemenschneider, D.E. 1987. Applying the new somaclonal technology to fiber supply in the pulp and paper industry. BioProcess Engineering (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Nelson, N.D., 1985. North Central Forest Experiment Station biotechnology program—Application to tree improvement, p. 14–22. In: Proc. 18th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conf., Long Beach, MS. University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Park, MS.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Nelson, N.D. and Haissig, B.E. 1986. Herbicide stress: Use of biotechnology to confer herbicide resistance to selected woody plants, p. 191–215. In: Stress Physiology and Forest Productivity. Hennessey, T. C., Dougherty, P. M., Kossuth, S. V. and Johnson, J. D. (eds.), Martinus Nijhoff Pub., Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  92. Wolter, K.E. 1968. Root and shoot initiation in aspen callus cultures. Nature 219: 509–510.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Cheng, T.-Y. and Voqui, T.H. 1977. Regeneration of Douglas-fir plantlets through tissue culture. Science 198: 306–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Winton, L.L. and Verhagen, S.A. 1977. Shoots from Douglas-fir cultures. Can. J. Bot. 55: 1246–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Minocha, S.C. 1980. Callus and adventitious shoot formation in excised embryos of white pine. Can. J. Bot. 58: 366–370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Herrera, H.G., Wagely, L.M. and Phillips, G.C. 1986. De novo plantlet regeneration from long-term callus cultures of Pinus eldarica, p. 266 In: Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Plant Tissue and Cell Culture. Sommers, D. A., Gengenbach, B. G., Biesboer, D. D., Hackett, W. P., and Green, C. E. (eds.) University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (Abst.).

    Google Scholar 

  97. USDA 1983. 1982 U.S. Forest Planting Report. USDA-Forest Service, Washington, DC, 15 p.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Neil D. Nelson

    Present address: Forgene, Inc., 7014 Fire Tower Rd., Rhinelander, WI 54501, U.S.A.

  2. George H. Kidd: L. William Teweles & Co., 777 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 U.S.A.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA-Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 898, Rhinelander, WI 54501, U.S.A.

    Bruce E. Haissig, Neil D. Nelson & George H. Kidd

Authors
  1. Bruce E. Haissig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neil D. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George H. Kidd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haissig, B., Nelson, N. & Kidd, G. Trends in the Use of Tissue Culture in Forest Improvement. Nat Biotechnol 5, 52–59 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0187-52

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0187-52

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing