Table 1. Stem height and diameter at base (0.1 cm sampling height) (January 2015), leader length (2014), mean needle density (* per 5 cm mid-section of branch) in 2014 leader, and SLA (specific leaf area) for 2014 for all assessed clones. Values shown are means ± 1 S.E pooled across the two sites. Means sharing the same letter did not differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). n = 8.
Clone Height
(m) 		Diameter
(mm) 		Leader length
ʼ14 (cm) 		Needle density * SLA
(cm2 g−1)
1 2.32 ± 0.1a 1 42.4 ± 5a 87 ± 4.11a 64 ± 4.05b 7.50 ± 0.39ab
2 1.99 ± 0.1b 41.8 ± 5a 68 ± 8.18b 85 ± 5.32a 7.86 ± 0.31ab
3 1.77 ± 0.1bc 34.9 ± 5b 50 ± 3.00c 86 ± 6.19a 6.86 ± 0.46b
4 1.69 ± 0.1c 32.8 ± 5b 56 ± 2.27bc 76 ± 3.69ab 9.06 ± 0.50a
5 1.56 ± 0.2c 33.1 ± 4b 42 ± 4.89c 86 ± 5.87a 8.27 ± 0.43ab
6 1.53 ± 0.1c 32.6 ± 5b 56 ± 7.63bc 71 ± 4.75ab 7.84 ± 0.27ab
Table 2. ANOVA summary for sources of variation and significance of P-values for mean ring width, ring density, mean radial tracheid width and cell wall thickness with each of their corresponding values for early, transition, and late wood respectively in ring 4. NS = > 0.05, * = < 0.05 and ** = < 0.01.
P-value
Source of variation Site (S) Clone (C)
Mean ring width NS **
   1. Earlywood ring width NS **
   2. Transitionwood ring width NS NS
   3. Latewood ring width NS *
Mean density NS **
   1. Earlywood density NS **
   2. Transitionwood density NS NS
   3. Latewood density * NS
Mean radial tracheid width NS **
   1. Earlywood radial tracheid width NS **
   2. Transitionwood radial tracheid width NS *
   3. Latewood radial tracheid width ** *
Mean cell wall thickness NS **
   1. Earlywood cell wall thickness NS *
   2. Transitionwood cell wall thickness NS NS
   3. Latewood cell wall thickness ** NS
1

Fig. 1. Mean ring width for all clones for annual rings 3–5 and (inset) width of EW, TW and LW in ring 4. Values shown are means pooled across the two sites (site effects not significant). Means sharing the same letter did not differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). Letters above each bar denote significant differences in mean ring width pooled across the three wood types (P ≤ 0.05). n = 8.

2

Fig. 2. Mean density for all clones for annual rings 3–5 and (inset) EW, TW, and mean density for all clones in ring 4. Values shown are means ± 1 S.E pooled across the two sites for EW and TW (site effects not significant). Values for LW varied by site and are shown separately. Means sharing the same letter did not differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). n = 8.

3

Fig. 3. Mean radial tracheid width for all clones for rings 3–5 and (inset) EW, TW, and mean radial tracheid width in ring 4. Values shown are means ± 1 S.E pooled across the two sites for EW and TW (site effects not significant). Values for LW varied by site and are shown separately. Means sharing the same letter did not differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). n = 8.

4

Fig. 4. Mean cell wall thickness for all clones for rings 3–5 and (inset) EW, TW, and mean cell wall thickness for all clones in ring 4. Values shown are means ± 1 S.E pooled across the two sites for EW and TW (site effects not significant). Values for LW varied by site and are shown separately. Means sharing the same letter did not differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). n = 8.

5

Fig. 5. Relationship between MFA and MOE in ring 4 for all ramets of each clone on both sites. Curve represent a polynomial regression. **P < 0.001. n = 48.

6

Fig. 6. Relationship between (a) ring width and radial tracheid width and (b) height and radial tracheid width in ring 4 for all clones on both sites. Each line represent linear regressions through all data points. Symbols represent each individual clone. **P < 0.001. n = 48. View larger in new window/tab.