Table 1 Sources of imported FRM in the respective regions
From: The extent of historic translocation of Norway spruce forest reproductive material in Europe
Country | Cultivation area | Time of introduction | Seed sources used | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Germany | Baden-Württemberg | <1800 | Local, Bavaria, Tyrol, Hesse | In higher altitudes of the Black Forest, populations may have retained their autochthonous character. Several stands of unknown origin suffered by snow damage (Kirschfeld 1967). |
>1840 | Commercial seeds from Darmstadt (Harz Mountains, Thuringian Forest) | |||
>1860 | Austria, Belgium Hungary, Scandinavia, France | |||
Bavaria | <1800 | Local, low altitudes | Frequent use of inappropriate FRM; still detectible in the outgoing twentieth century due to slower growth rates and habit (Elsner 1967). Today, Bavaria has a mixture of autochthonous and allochthonous populations (Konnert 2009). | |
>1800 | Local, commercial seeds from Darmstadt, minor imports from Silesia | |||
Hesse | ∼Eighteenth century | Harz Mountains | Most cultivations were successful. Russian imports performed well (e.g. population from Hofgeismar was established with seeds from Nemanskoje) (Rossmässler 1967) | |
>1800 | Harz Mountains, Thuringian Forest, minor imports from Russia | |||
Lower Saxony | <1800 | Local, Solling, Thuringia, Saxony | A forest survey done in the 1960s indicated that the majority of spruce populations in the Harz Mountains were of inappropriate low-elevation origin (Borchers 1967). | |
>1800 | Commercial seeds from Darmstadt | |||
>1900 | Commercial seeds from Darmstadt and Silesia | |||
Saxony | <1850 | Local, minor amounts Harz Mountains, Thuringia | As a mixture of European provenances was applied in Saxon forests, it is likely that no autochthonous population has remained in Saxony (Krutzsch 1952; Schwarz 1903). | |
>1850 | Commercial seeds from Darmstadt (Bohemian Forest, Lower Franconia) | |||
>1880 | Commercial seeds from Darmstadt, Black Forest, Celle, Saxony-Anhalt, Hungary, Austria, Sweden, Norway | |||
Northern Germany | <1870 | Thuringian Forest, Lower Saxony, Denmark | It is not possible to determine respective origin of current populations. Late flushing provenances are preferred, as several populations showed late frost damage (Schrötter 1967). | |
>1870 | Silesia, low altitudes | |||
Austria | Bohemian Forest, Upper Austria | 1900 | Commercial seeds from Austria (Wiener Neustadt), Southern France | In the Bohemian Forest, several stands of unknown origin show characteristics of unsuitable low-land provenances, frequently suffering by snow damage (Georg Frank, personal communication) |
Belgium | Mostly Eastern Ardennes, former wastelands | ∼1850 | Central European (Germany, Austria) | Alpine provenances are not recommended due to the tendency of forming forks (Giertych 2007). |
Czech Republic | South and north-western parts, Sudetic Mountains, | Germany, Austria | No historic information available to assess the benefit of respective provenances. Results from growth trials support the use of FRM whose origin was between lat. 49°–51° and long. 13°–20° and at middle altitudes (Ulbrichová et al. 2015); most reported translocations were within this geographical limit. | |
Jizera Mountains, Karkonosze Mountains | >1820 | Local, low altitudes | ||
Jizera Mountains, Karkonosze Mountains | >1860 | Local, Germany (Hesse, Black Forest, Holstein), Austria, Bohemia, Moravia | ||
France | Vosges | ∼1850 | Commercial seeds from Darmstadt (mixed German provenances) | Several artificial stands of Norway spruce were replaced mainly by Douglas fir. Especially low-lying populations suffered from insect calamities and top diebacks (Jansson et al. 2013). |
Massive Central, Alps, Vosges, Pyrenees, Bretagne, Normandy, Ardennes | 1860–1900 | Austria, Alsace, Bavaria | ||
UK | Western part (low mountain range), south and south-eastern Wales, western England, Scotland (Argyl, Inverness, Highlands (coast), Grampian Mountains | >1800 | Austria and Germany (80%), minor imports from Italy and Switzerland (Alps) | Several populations of Picea abies were replaced by Picea sitchensis (Forestry Commission 2011) |
Sweden | Southern Sweden | 1889-1949 | Germany (46%), Denmark (22%), Finland | Provenances from Belarus and Romania perform better than Central European provenances (Myking et al. 2016). |
1950–1970 | Czech Republic, Slovakia | |||
>1970 | Belarus, Baltic countries | |||
Norway | Western and south-eastern Norway | >1800 | Central Europe, Sweden | German and Austrian seed sources perform well on the west coast, poorer on inland (Myking et al. 2016) |
1952–1970 | Germany (44%), Austria (39%), Sweden (4%), Slovakia (4%), Slovenia (3%), Czech Republic, other eastern countries | |||
Denmark | Jutland Heat, poor agriculture sites | ∼1800 | Germany (Thuringian Forest) | Present-day populations originate from Northern Germany and to a minor extent from Norway and Sweden. Carpathian provenances suffered from needle cast (Jansson et al. 2013). |
>1950 | Northern Germany, Norway, Sweden, Carpathian Mountains | |||
Poland | Silesia, Western Carpathian and Bihor Mountains | 1870 | Alps (Austria, Germany) | At the beginning of the twenty-first century, several stands suffered by the so-called spiral disease (associated with allochthonous population). However, the cherished Istebna provenance is supposed to originate from Austria (Sabor 2009). Most translocations from Northern Austria to Poland do not exceed the northward latitudinal transfer limit of 6° (Bergmann 1965; Giertych 2007; König 2005; Konôpka and Šimak 1990). |
Romania | Transylvania, Banat, Bucovina, Carpathian and Bihor Mountains | ∼1900 | Alps (Austria) | In Romanian provenance trials, Alpine provenances from Austria performed well in survival and growth. Furthermore, provenances from the Hercyno-Carpathian range are recommended (Mihai 2003). |
Hungary | ∼1850 | Northern and Eastern Carpathian Mountains | Most cultivations have been successful (Ujvári-Jármay et al. 2016). |