journal article·2016-09

Aboveground Decay Resistance of Selected Canadian Softwoods at Four Test Sites after 10 Years of Exposure

Paul Ian Morris, Peter Laks, Glenn Larkin, Janet K. Ingram, Rod Stirling

Forest Products Journal· Volume 66· Issue 5-6
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Aboveground field performance data are needed to help users select appropriate materials, assist in the development of evidence-based codes and standards, and support the development of new export markets. A review of the literature in the early 2000s revealed that there was very little hard data on the performance of North American naturally durable wood species, particularly for aboveground applications. Field tests of six Canadian wood species reputed to have moderate to high natural durability were therefore installed in test out-of-ground contact in the autumn of 2004 and spring of 2005 at two test sites in Canada and two in the United States. Decay results are reported after 10 years. The test site with the fastest aboveground decay rate was in Hawaii. Above ground, yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) were the most consistently durable at all four test sites. However, it would not have been possible to predict the relative performance of naturally durable species in one climate and location from their relative performance in another climate and location. The presence of sapwood was associated with more severe decay, although it was unclear whether the presence of sapwood increased the risk of decay in the adjacent heartwood. There was no substantial difference between decay in old-growth and second-growth samples above ground. The presence of a coating applied to decking had some protective effect against decay at the less aggressive test sites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nuclear and radioactivity studies · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Forest ecology and management

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (21)

Show source-provided references
1. American Wood Protection Association (AWPA). 2008. Standard field test for evaluation of wood preservatives to be used above ground (UC3B): Decking method. Standard E25‐08. AWPA, Birmingham, Alabama. 8pp.
2. Brischke, C., L. Meyer, G. Alfredsen, M. Humar, L. Francis, P. O. Flæte, and P. Larsson-Brelid. 2013. Natural durability of timber exposed above ground—A survey. Drvna Ind. 64:113–129.
3. Clark, J. W. and T. C. Scheffer. 1983. Natural decay resistance of the heartwood of coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. Forest Prod. J. 33(5):15–20.
4. Cook, J. A. and P. I. Morris. 1995. Modelling data from stake tests of waterborne wood preservatives. Forest. Prod. J. 45(11/12):61–65.
5. Flæte, P. O., G. Alfredsen, and F. G. Evans. 2011. Natural durability of wood tested in different environments in Northern Europe. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 11‐10747. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm. 8pp.
6. Francis, L. P. and J. Norton. 2005. Above-ground durability estimation in Australia. Results after 16 years exposure. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 05‐20314. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm.17pp.
7. Freitag, C. M. and J. J. Morrell. 2001. Durability of a changing western redcedar resource. Wood Fiber Sci. 33(1):69–75.
8. Kirker, G. T., A. B. Blodgett, S. T. Lebow, and C. A. Clausen. 2012. Above ground field evaluation and GC-MS analysis of naturally durable wood species. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 12‐10764. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm. 13pp.
9. Laks, P. E., P. I. Morris, G. M. Larkin, and J. K. Ingram. 2008. Field tests of naturally durable North American wood species. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 08‐10675. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm. 11pp.
10. Morris, P. I. 1998. Beyond the log probability model. Proc. Am. Wood Preserv. Assoc. 94:267–273.
11. Morris, P. I., J. Ingram, G. Larkin, and P. Laks. 2011. Field tests of naturally durable species. Forest Prod. J. 61(5):344–351.
12. Morris, P. I. and J. Wang. 2008. A new decay hazard map for North America using the Scheffer index. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 08‐10672. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm. 13pp.
13. Nault, J. 1988. Radial distribution of thujaplicins in old growth and second growth western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn). Wood Sci. Technol. 22(1):73–80.
14. Scheffer, T. C. 1971. A climate index for estimating potential decay in wood structure above ground. Forest Prod. J. 21(10):29–31.
15. Scheffer, T. C. and G. H. Englerth. 1952. Decay resistance of second-growth Douglas-fir. J. Forestry50:439–442.
16. Scheffer, T. C. and J. J. Morrell. 1998. Natural durability of wood: A worldwide checklist of species. College of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 58pp.
17. Setliff, E. C. 1986. Wood decay hazard in Canada based on Scheffer's climate index formula. Forestry Chron. 62(5):456–459.
18. Standards Australia. 2005. Timber—Natural durability ratings. AS 5604‐2005. Standards Australia, Sydney. 24pp.
19. Thelandersson, S., T. Isaksson, E. Suttie, T. Toratti, H. Viitanen, and J. Jermer. 2011. Quantitative design guideline for wood in outdoor above ground applications. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 11‐20465. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm. 19pp.
20. US Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory (USDA FPL). 2010. Wood Handbook, Wood as an Engineering Material. FPL-GTR-190. USDA FPL, Madison, Wisconsin. 508pp.
21. Zahora, A., A. Preston, and L. Jin. 2012. Performance of wood protection systems at multiple field test sites using the ground proximity test method. International Research Group on Wood Protection IRG/WP 12‐20499. IRG Secretariat, Stockholm. 10pp.