THE INVESTIGATION OF ANATOMICAL PROPERTIES OF TURKISH RED PINE WOOD FROM MUĞLA AND ISPARTA PROVINCES

Öz

Özet 1 : is an important natural material widely used in construction, furniture, paper, and energy due to its renewable, environmentally friendly, and aesthetic properties. Preferred in construction and industrial sectors due to its lightweight, high load-bearing capacity, and workability, wood contributes to environmental sustainability through its carbon storage capacity. Determining the technical properties of wood is crucial for assessing its suitability for its intended use. In this context, non-destructive testing methods are methods used to determine the physical and mechanical properties of wood samples without damaging the sample. Among these methods, the evaluation of samples taken with an increment borer provides information about the wood's density and anatomical structure. In this study, 15 logs of red pine (Pinus brutia) were taken with an increment borer from a stand in the Dalaman district of Mugla, located at an altitude of 15 m, and from a stand in the Aksu district of Isparta, located at an altitude of 1200 m. The air-dried densities of the resulting increments were determined, and their anatomical structures were examined microscopically. The effects of environmental conditions on wood quality were assessed by analyzing changes in wood density and structural properties of red pine individuals growing at different altitudes. This methodology revealed the effects of origin and habitat on wood using non-destructive methods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish Red Pine
• Anatomical Characteristics
• Regional Wood Comparison
• Altitude

THE INVESTIGATION OF ANATOMICAL PROPERTIES OF TURKISH RED PINE WOOD FROM MUGLA AND ISPARTA PROVINCES

Öz

Wood is an important natural material widely used in construction, furniture, paper, and energy due to its renewable, environmentally friendly, and aesthetic properties. Preferred in construction and industrial sectors due to its lightweight, high load-bearing capacity, and workability, wood contributes to environmental sustainability through its carbon storage capacity. Determining the technical properties of wood is crucial for assessing its suitability for its intended use. In this context, non-destructive testing methods are methods used to determine the physical and mechanical properties of wood samples without damaging the sample. Among these methods, the evaluation of samples taken with an increment borer provides information about the wood's density and anatomical structure. In this study, 15 logs of red pine (Pinus brutia) were taken with an increment borer from a stand in the Dalaman district of Mugla, located at an altitude of 15 m, and from a stand in the Aksu district of Isparta, located at an altitude of 1200 m. The air-dried densities of the resulting increments were determined, and their anatomical structures were examined microscopically. The effects of environmental conditions on wood quality were assessed by analyzing changes in wood density and structural properties of red pine individuals growing at different altitudes. This methodology revealed the effects of origin and habitat on wood using non-destructive methods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish Red Pine
• Anatomical Characteristics
• Regional Wood Comparison
• Altitude

Kaynakça

1. [1]. Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C. P. O., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z and Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability, 3(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4
2. [2]. Gustavsson, L., Madlener, R., Hoen, H. F., Jungmeier, G., Karjalainen, T and Klöhn, S. (2006). The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(5–6), 1097–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8
3. [3]. Werner, F., Richter, K. (2007). Wooden building products in comparative LCA: A literature review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(7), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.06.342
4. [4]. Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L and Sathre, R. (2014). Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy and Buildings, 82, 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.009
5. [5]. Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S and Lo, I. M. C. (2016). Comparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in Hong Kong. Waste Management, 46, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.016
6. [6]. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P and Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
7. [7]. Bribián, I. Z., Capilla, A. V and Usón, A. A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental performance. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(6), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0286-7
8. [8]. Ramesh, T., Prakash, R and Shukla, K. K. (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy and Buildings, 42(10), 1592–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007

9. [9]. Mahapatra, K., Gustavsson, L. (2008). Multi-storey wood-frame buildings in Germany, Sweden and the UK: Status, technological and economic aspects, and developer perceptions. Building and Environment, 43(4), 610–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.028
10. [10]. Simşek Turker, Y., Kılıncarslan, S. (2024). Experimental and numerical investigation of flexural properties of larch beams reinforced with different layer numbers. Revista de la construcción, 23(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.7764/rdlc.23.1.47
11. [11]. Simsek Turker, Y., Kılınçarslan, S and Yılmaz Ince, E. (2024). Performance of ANN, Random Forest and XGBoost methods in predicting the flexural properties of wood beams reinforced with carbon‑FRP. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 0(0), 1–? https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2024.2370942
12. [12]. Turker, Y. S., Kilinçarslan, S and Avcar, M. (2024). Enhancement of Mechanical Properties in FRP Reinforced Glulam Column Beam Connections: A FEM Approach. GeoStruct Innovations, 2(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.56578/gsi020102
13. [13]. Brown, L., Green, P. (2020). Mechanical characteristics of softwood species in structural applications. Journal of Wood Science, 66(4), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-020-01945-2
14. [14]. Johnson, M. T. (2018). Natural variability in wood: Growth conditions and environmental influences. Forest Ecology and Management, 409, 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.11.025
15. [15]. Davis, R., Lee, C. (2021). The potential of Pinus brutia as a sustainable construction material. Construction and Building Materials, 270, 121408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121408
16. [16]. Brown, L., Green, P. (2020). Mechanical characteristics of softwood species in structural applications. Journal of Wood Science, 66(4), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-020-01945-2
17. [17]. Johnson, M. T. (2018). Natural variability in wood: Growth conditions and environmental influences. Forest Ecology and Management, 409, 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.11.025
18. [18]. Lanvermann, C., Hass, P., Wittel, F. K and Niemz, P. (2015). Mechanical properties of Norway spruce: Intra-ring variation and generic behavior of earlywood and latewood until failure. Wood Science and Technology, 49(4), 705-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-015-0749-x
19. [19]. Shi, J., Yin, S., Huang, W and Na, B. (2021). Application of vibrational methods in wood performance testing: A short review. Bioresources, 16(1), 1234-1248. https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/application-of-vibrational-methods-in-wood-performance-testing-a-short-review/
20. [20]. Uldry, A., Husted, B. P., Pope, I and Ottosen, L. M. (2024). A review of the applicability of non-destructive testing for the determination of the fire performance of reused structural timber. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 43(2), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-024-01120-6
21. [21]. Wang, B., Zhong, S., Lee, T.L., Fancey, K. S and Mi, J. (2020). Non-destructive testing and evaluation of composite materials/structures: A state-of-the-art review. Composite Structures, 252, 112650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112650
22. [22]. Ross, R. J., Pellerin, R. F. (1994). Nondestructive testing for assessing wood members in structures: A review. Wood and Fiber Science, 26(4), 277-290. https://wfs.swst.org/index.php/wfs/article/view/1984
23. [23].Moya, R., Tomazello-Filho, M. (2008). Variation in the wood anatomical structure of Gmelina arborea (Verbenaceae) trees at different ecological conditions in Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical, 56(2), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v56i2.5617revistas.ucr.ac.cr
24. [24].Esteban, L. G., de Palacios, P., Heinz, I., Gasson, P., García-Iruela, A and García-Fernández, F. (2023). Softwood anatomy: A review. Forests, 14(2), 323. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020323MDPI
25. [25].Ramírez, M., Rodríguez, J., Peredo, M., Valenzuela, S and Mendonça, R. (2009). Wood anatomy and biometric parameters variation of Eucalyptus globulus clones. Wood Science and Technology, 43(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-008-0206-5SpringerLink
26. [26].Buttò, S., Piermattei, A and Nola, P. (2021). Different wood anatomical and growth responses in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) at three forest sites in Slovenia. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 669229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.669229Frontiers
27. [27].Rodríguez, J., Ramírez, M., Peredo, M and Valenzuela, S. (2009). Wood anatomy and biometric parameters variation of Eucalyptus globulus clones. Wood Science and Technology, 43(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-008-0206-5
28. [28].Lima, L. M., Oliveira, A. L. (2021). Comparative wood anatomy of 37 woody species of Tamaulipan Thorn Scrub, Northwestern Mexico and its relation to adaptation and wood quality: A synthesis. Journal of Plant Sciences and Research, 5(1), 175. https://doi.org/10.18689/jpsr-2349-2805-5-175opensciencepublications.com
29. [29].Zielinski, K. M., Scabini, L., Ribas, L. C., da Silva, N. R., Beeckman, H., Verwaeren, J., Bruno, O. M and De Baets, B. (2024). Advanced wood species identification based on multiple anatomical sections and using deep feature transfer and fusion. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.08585
30. [30]. Ates, S., Durmaz, E and Abuamoud, M. (2018). Comparison of some anatomical, chemical, and fibrous characteristics of Turkish Red Pine (Pinus brutia Ten.) sampled from different regions. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 75–82.
31. [31].Carrer, M., Urbinati, C and Nola, P. (2015). Wood anatomical traits respond to climate but more individualistically as compared to radial growth: Analyze trees, not means. Forest Ecology and Management, 358, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.08.042
32. [32].Rosner, S., Pospíšilová, A. (2018). Climatic influence on tree wood anatomy: A review. Journal of Wood Science, 64(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-018-1730-z
33. [33].Miyoshi, Y., Kojiro, K and Furuta, Y. (2018). Effects of density and anatomical feature on mechanical properties of various wood species in lateral tension. Journal of Wood Science, 64(6), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-018-1730-z
34. [34].Zhang, S., Zhang, X. (2019). Evaluation of wood anatomical properties from 18 tree species in the subtropical region of China. Forests, 14(12), 2344. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122344
35. [35]. Widmann, R., Fernández-Cabo, J. L and Steiger, R. (2024). Physical and mechanical properties of different beech wood species grown at various climate conditions: A review. Holzforschung, 78(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2023-0117
36. [36]. Zobel, B. J., & van Buijtenen, J. P. (1989). Wood variation: Its causes and control. Springer-Verlag.