Growth-strain had a heritability of 0.23, which was significantly lower than the only (known) previously reported value for the species, 0.63 \cite{Davies2017}. But is similar to the 0.32 value for Eucalyptus dunnii presented by \citet{Murphy2005}. The discrepancy with \cite{Davies2017} is the individuals used in that trial were from only two isolated sub populations, and there may have been significantly more genetic relatedness than assumed. As both were single site trials the environmental effects cannot be distinguished between studies, however it could also be possible the \citet{Davies2017} site caused a much stronger expression of the genes responsible for growth-strain than this studies trial site. It should be noted that the credible intervals from \citet{Davies2017}  were large (0.28 - 0.98µƐ from a sample size of 423 individuals) and overlap with this study. The modeling procedure made a number of assumptions with respect to the relatedness of families and individuals which were likely inflating the true heritabilities of the traits. Fathers were unknown and assumed to be unrelated to each other, or to the mothers. As a result there was likely less genetic variation within families than the model assumed. Because the fathers were unknown, there was an implicit assumption within the numerator relationship matrix that all individuals in a ‘family’ shared a common mother, but none shared a common father (half-sibling families). Further because the genetics of the mothers was unknown, they may have been related to each other, the unknown father trees or self-pollinated. Because of these factors, some (or all) families were probably less genetically diverse than was assumed, resulting in over estimation of heritability. It should be noted \citet{Griffin1988} warned breeders about the dangers of open pollenated trials inflating genetic parameters, which occurs because the variation from inbreeding is completely confounded with family effects, inflating estimates of additive genetic variance.
It should also be kept in mind that this experiment was conducted on a single irrigated nursery site which was not growth restricted. It is commonly believed favorable environments allow higher expressions of genetic signals related to growth \cite{Ceccarelli1994}, although no substantial studies have been undertaken to determine if this holds for wood properties. Growth-strain may not be affected to the same degree as growth by site uniformity, it may be the case that environmental effects which influence growth-strain are more site independent, such as branching asymmetry and stem wobble from micro-environmental effects. For example a lopsided crown (and hence uneven stress field within the stem to keep the stem upright), light competition or wind damage may have a much more significant effect on growth-strain than, say a temperature difference, nutrient or water deficiency across sites, as these examples require a mechanical input to restore gravitropy or heliotropy \cite{Saranpāā2014}. Therefore it should not necessarily be assumed that growth-strain heritabilities will reduce as drastically as growth traits when GxE experiments are implemented.
Few studies have been undertaken specifically investigating genetic parameters of E. bosistoana . Perhaps the most relevant, \cite{Apiolaza2011}, used a subset of this population and investigated the heritability and across site genetic correlations of height at age two. They found total height to have a heritability of 0.10 - 0.14 and across site genetic correlations to be between 0.74 and 0.99. Two of the three sites had significant mortality rates, indicating they were probably growth limited. Two of these three sites (one with high and one with low mortality) were revisited at age five and comparable height heritabilities were found (0.09 - 0.17), over-bark DBH heritabilities were found to range from 0.11 to 0.18 \cite{Burgess2015}. These sites display considerable heterogeneity. E. bosistoana has been investigated at a young age once before by \citet{Davies2017} who found hertiablities of 0.63, 0.54, 0.76 0.29 0.97 and 0.82 for growth-strain, density, diameter, volumetric shrinkage, acoustic velocity and stiffness respectively, although the study was limited by the narrow genetic base (41 families). There is overlap with all of the credible intervals between the Davies study and results reported here. The only other known studies to report heritability of growth-strain (or stress) were \cite{Henson2004} who found heritability of 0.52 in a breeding population of E. dunnii and \cite{Murphy2005} who reported heritabilities of between 0.3 and 0.5 for E. dunnii both with population sizes below 200 individuals. \citet{Naranjo2012} reported no genetic control (heritability of 0.02) of growth-strain in 4-year-old Tectona grandis.
Previously reported heritabilities in eucalypts exist for a number of the wood and growth properties reported here. Table \ref{957829} reports relevant studies of heritability in various eucalypt species for the 
properties investigated here.