نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار ، گروه علوم و صنایع چوب و کاغذ، دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران،
2 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی‌ارشد، گروه علوم و صنایع چوب و کاغذ، دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران،
3 استاد ،گروه علوم و صنایع چوب و کاغذ، دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران،
4 استادیار ، گروه علوم و صنایع چوب و کاغذ، دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Background and Objectives: All imported softwoods are called "Russian wood", in Iran. Despite the existence of domestic Persian terms for naming each individual conifer genius, they are known and traded by Russian names like "Sasna (Сосна)", "Yulka (Ёлка)", and "Leastvinitsa (Лиственница)" in the Iranian market. Although, practically, some wood sellers relate these Russian names to a specific genus or species but no systematic investigation has been done to verify it and there is huge confusion for consumers to obtain the right softwood. According to differences in applicability and end-use of different softwoods, not knowing the genus/species of purchased timber can be problematic. Hence, the aims of this research were to survey the sawn softwood market in Iran, in terms of abundance and identification of different woods.
Materials and Methods: 25 different softwood pieces were collected from the Ports and Maritime Organization of Guilan as well as 10 big lumberyards in Tehran and Karaj. Those wood sellers who did not discriminate between softwood types and sell all of them under the general name of "Russian wood" were excluded. The collected woods were investigated macroscopically and after preparing microscopic slides and picturing, the anatomical features of samples were extracted according to the IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification. Then, genus or species of wood was identified based on the combination of proposed methods.
Results: The most abundant softwoods in the Iran market were respectively, Yulka, Sasna, and Leastvinitsa while true fir was remarkably less common. Other than true fir, imported softwoods were in good accordance with the corresponding genus/species attributed to each Russian name. Eight out of ten Yulka samples were identified as Picea sp.; six out of seven Sasna samples were identified as Pinus sylvestris; and all of three Leastvinitsa pieces were of the species Larix sibirica. However, regarding true fir (Abies sp.), considerable discrepancies existed. Some wood sellers entitled all purchasable softwoods as "fir" and did not discriminate between them. Among four sources who acknowledged that fir is an exclusive type of wood, half of the samples were actually pine.
Conclusion: Macroscopic features of softwoods, e.g. color, texture, sheen or luster, size and frequency of resin canals, the transition from earlywood to latewood, and presence of pitch pockets in longitudinal planes are not reliable properties for wood identification and precise identification of these woods entitles a microscopic investigation. On a macroscopic scale, the only decisive feature is the presence/absence of the resin canals in the transverse plane, which can be used to easily isolate true fir from the rest of the softwoods in the Iran market. On a microscopic scale, Scots pine having big cross-field pitting can simply be separated from two other woods also bearing resin canals i.e. spruce and larch. However, two latter softwoods cannot readily be distinguished from each other. Overall, it can be concluded that although Russian names of softwoods in Iran are somewhat correctly applied to the corresponding sawn lumbers but popularizing equivalent long-lasting Persian terms is recommended to avoid confusion and discrepancies.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)