AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Breanna S Sabin for the degree of Master of Science in Forest Resources
presented on June 6 2008.
Title: Relationship Between Allometric Variables and Biomass in Western
Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis)
Abstract approved:
_______________________________________________________________
Richard F. Miller
Paul S. Doescher
A tenfold expansion of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis spp.
occidentalis) into the sagebrush steppe has led to the degradation of the
economic and ecological potential of these landscapes. Land managers have
enacted numerous methods to reduce distributions and densities of these trees.
Assessment of above ground juniper biomass, expressed overall as well as in
each of four fuel - size classes is useful information to land managers for
several reasons. These include: enhance smoke management for prescribed
burns, appraise feasibility of locating biomass cogeneration power plants, and
extrapolating known nutrient and carbon concentrations contained within
juniper to the landscape scale. Two sites were selected within Lake County,
OR for this research. Allometric measurements including canopy area,
canopy volume, age, height, basal diameter were taken from 129 trees and 56
of these were destructively sampled to obtain biomass of each tree; by size
classes as well as over all. Regression statistics were utilized to find the
correlation between allometric and biomass measurements. Of the allometric
variables measured for this research, canopy volume, canopy area, and basal
diameter were the strongest predictors of biomass found, with respective R2
values of 0.88, 0.87, 0.81. The proportion of biomass within each of the four
size classes was: 34% for size class 1, 15% for size class 2, 23% for size class
3, and 28% for size class 4. Average biomass for these sites was 2,482 kg/ha
for the Fort Rock site and 5,410 kg/ha for the Lakeview site. These models
can be used to estimate biomass for co-generation plants, estimate nutrient
pools and fuel loads, and predict changes in community biomass based on
species or growth form groups.
©Copyright by Breanna S. Sabin
June 6, 2008
All Rights Reserved
Relationship Between Allometric Variables and Biomass in Western Juniper
(Juniperus occidentalis)
by
Breanna S. Sabin
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented June 6, 2008
Commencement June 2009
Master of Science thesis of Breanna S. Sabin presented on June 6, 2008.
APPROVED:
_______________________________________________________________
Co-Major Professor, representing Forest Resources
_______________________________________________________________
Co-Major Professor, representing Forest Resources
_______________________________________________________________
Head of the Department of Forest Resources
_______________________________________________________________
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of
Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of
my thesis to an reader upon request.
_______________________________________________________________
Breanna S. Sabin, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this thesis would not be possible without my family,
friends and professors. Their continued patience and encouragement has
helped me to learn and grow as a student and individual.
I would especially like to thank the following individuals.
My Parents: for believing in me and always recognizing my potential.
My Husband: for his sacrifices and continued support.
My Sisters: for their positive encouragement
My Professors: for the great leadership, education and patience
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………1
METHODS…...................................................................................................5
Study Area………………………………………………………………..5
Lakeview……………………………………….............................6
Fort Rock………………………………………………………....8
Data Collection….....................................................................................10
Study Design…………………………………………………….10
Field Data Collection……………………………………………12
Destructive Sampling……………………………………………14
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………17
RESULTS……………………………………………………………….…..19
Fort Rock versus Lakeview……………………………………………..20
Fort Rock………………………………………………………………..22
Total Tree Dry Weight…………………………………………..22
Size Class Dry Weight…………………………………………..24
Lakeview………………………………………………………………...27
Total Tree Dry Weight…………………………………………..27
Size Class Dry Weight…………………………………………..28
Combined Sites ……………………………………………………………..31
Total Tree Dry Weight…………………………………………………..31
Size Class Dry Weight…………………………………………………..32
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………..35
Total Tree Dry Weight………………………………………………...35
Size Class Dry Weight………………………………………………...37
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS……………………………………...39
SCOPE OF INFERENCE…………………………………………………41
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………42
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………..45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Location of research sites within Lake County within the state
of Oregon ……………………………………………………………..….6
2. The Lakeview study area composed of Idaho fescue,
mountain big sagebrush, green rabbitbrush, and western
juniper.…………………………………………………………………....8
3. The Fort Rock study area composed of Idaho fescue, sagebrush,
bitterbrush, green rabbitbrush, and western juniper …………..…….......10
4. A map of the Lakeview site showing locations of weighed and
unweighed trees………………..………………………………………...11
5. A map of the Fort Rock site showing the location of weighed and
unweighed trees…………………………..……………………………...12
6. The various sizes of the first three size classes ………………..………...14
7. Picture of the work truck with the boom attached to the rear of the
pickup with the load cell attached ……..………………………………...15
8. Picture of the scale and pulley system connected with the tarp
which was used to lift the samples ……………………..………………..16
9. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and
canopy area from the Fort Rock site.………………………….………....23
10. Average percentages of size class weights for the Fort
Rock site for individual western juniper trees ………….…………….…24
11. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and
canopy area from the Lakeview site…………….……….………………28
12. Average percentage of size class weights for the Lakeview
site for individual western juniper trees……………….…………….…...29
13. Scatterplot showing the correlation between total tree weights and
canopy area measurements for both sites combined…………….…….....32
14. Average percentage of size class weights for both
sites combined for individual western juniper trees………….....……….33
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Descriptions of field measurements and techniques……….……………13
2. Sub-Sample measurements: technique, minimum weight per
sample without paper bag, temperature and time it took to dry,
for the four fuel classes. ………………. …………………………….…17
3. The formula used to solve for the total dry weight of the tree. ….……...17
4. Simple comparisons between the Fort Rock and Lakeview site….……..19
5. Two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances results for
total tree weights, allometric variables, and age between
Fort Rock and Lakeview………………………………………………...20
6. Two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances results for
size class weights between Fort Rock and Lakeview……………...……21
7. P-values comparing slopes of the relationships among tree
variables and weights between the two sites………………………….....22
8. Results of linear regression analysis predicting total tree
dry weight (kg) with tree allometric and age variables at the
Fort Rock site……………………………………………………………23
9. Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg)
for each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age variables
at the Fort Rock site……………………………………………………...26
10. Results of linear regression analysis predicting total tree dry
weight (kg) with tree allometric and age variables at the Lakeview
site………………………………………………………………………..27
11. Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg)
for each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age variables
at the Lakeview site……………………………………………………...30
12. Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg)
for each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age
variables for both sites combined………………………………………..31
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Page
13. Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg)
for each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age variables
for both sites combined…………………………………………………..34
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
1. Study site characteristics…………………… …………………………46
2. Scatterplot and correlation between the total tree weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.…….…………..48
3. Scatterplot and correlation between the total tree weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site….……..48
4. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site. …….……………..49
5. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights
and canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site….…………49
6. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.………………...50
7. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site………...50
8. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.……....…………....51
9. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site………….…......51
10. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site……....…….52
11. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…………....…….52
12. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site……………...53
13. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…………………….53
14. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…….……...54
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
15. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…….….54
16. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…………………55
17. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site……………..55
18. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site……………………56
19. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site....………...56
20. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site……….57
21. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…………………57
22. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site………...58
23. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…………………….58
24. Scatterplot and correlation between fuel class 4 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site…………....59
25. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site………..59
26. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site………………….60
27. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………60
28. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site……………………..61
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
29. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site.……….61
30. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site………………....62
31. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site………...62
32. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………………….63
33. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………...63
34. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site………..64
35. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………………64
36. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site………...65
37. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………………….65
38. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………...66
39. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site………..66
40. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………………67
41. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site………...67
42. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site…………………….68
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
43. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site……………..68
44. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site………....69
45. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site……………….…..69
46. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site………….……70
47. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site……………………...70
48. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site………….…71
49. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site………..71
50. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree height (transformed) for both sites combined…………………..72
51. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined………….72
52. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree age (transformed) for both sites combined……………………...73
53. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined………....73
54. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree height (transformed) for both sites combined………....………..74
55. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined………….74
56. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree age (transformed) for both sites combined……………………...75
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
57. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined…………...75
58. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined………..76
59. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree height (transformed) for both sites combined…………………76
60. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined………...77
61. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree age (transformed) for both sites combined…………………….77
62. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined…………...78
63. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined………..78
64. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree height (transformed) for both sites combined…………………79
65. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined………..79
66. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree age (transformed) for both sites combined…………………….80
67. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined…………...80
68. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined………..81
69. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree height (transformed) for both sites combined…………………81
70. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined………...82
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
71. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree age (transformed) for both sites combined……………………82
72. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined…………...83
73. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined………..83
74. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree height for the Fort Rock site…………………………………...84
75. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site…………………………..84
76. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree age for the Fort Rock site………………………………………85
77. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site……………………………..85
78. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site………………………….86
79. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree height for the Fort Rock site……………………………………86
80. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site…………………………...87
81. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree age for the Fort Rock site.……………………………………...87
82. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site.…………………………….88
83. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site………………………….88
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
84. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree height for the Fort Rock site. ……...………….…………….…89
85. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site.…...………………….…89
86. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree age for the Fort Rock site………...…………………………....90
87. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site.………...……………….…90
88. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site…………………………91
89. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree height for the Fort Rock site…………………………………...91
90. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site…………………………..92
91. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree age for the Fort Rock site………………………………………92
92. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site……………………………..93
93. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site………………………….93
94. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree height for the Fort Rock site…………………………………...94
95. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site…………………………..94
96. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree age for the Fort Rock site………………………………………95
97. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site……………………………..95
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
98. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site…………………..………96
99. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree height for the Lakeview site…………………………..………...96
100.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site………..…………..97
101.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree age for the Lakeview site…………………………….....97
102.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy area for the Lakeview site………………………98
103.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site…………………..98
104.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree height for the Lakeview site………………………….....99
105.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site…………………...99
106.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree age for the Lakeview site.……………………………..100
107.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy area for the Lakeview site.…………………….100
108.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site…………………101
109.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree height for the Lakeview site…………………………...101
110.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site………………….102
111.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree age for the Lakeview site……………………………...102
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
112.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy area for the Lakeview site…………………….103
113.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site…………………103
114.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree height for the Lakeview site…………………………..104
115.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site………………….104
116.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree age from the Lakeview site……………………………105
117.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy area for the Lakeview site…………………….105
118.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site………………....106
119.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree height for the Lakeview site…………………………...106
120.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site…………………..107
121.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree age for the Lakeview site……………………………...107
122.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy area for the Lakeview site…………….……….108
123.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site…….…………...108
124.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree height for both sites combined………………………..109
125.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree basal diameter for both sites combined……………….109
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
126.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight
and tree age for both sites combined…………………………...110
127.
Scatterplot and correlation between
total tree weight and canopy area for both sites combined…….110
128.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree canopy volume for both sites combined…………….……..111
129.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height for both sites combined……………..……………...111
130.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter for both sites combined………….………..112
131.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age for both sites combined……….……………………...112
132.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy area for both sites combined……….………...113
133.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights
and tree canopy volume for both sites combined………….…..113
134.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree height for both sites combined……..………………...114
135.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree basal diameter for both sites combined…….………...114
136.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree age measurements for both sites combined..…………115
137.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and tree canopy area for both sites combined……….………...115
138.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights
and canopy volume for both sites combined……………….….116
139.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree height for both sites combined…….…………………116
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
140.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and basal diameter for both sites combined…………………..117
141.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree age for both sites combined………………………….117
142.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy area for both sites combined………………...118
143.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights
and tree canopy volume for both sites combined……………..118
144.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree height for both sites combined………………………119
145.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree basal diameter for both sites combined……………...119
146.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree age for both sites combined………………………….120
147.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy area for both sites combined….……………..120
148.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights
and tree canopy volume for both sites combined…….……….121
149.
R-squares for correlations between individual tree
weight and individual independent variables (canopy area,
canopy volume, age, height, and basal diameter) for the
Fort Rock site............................................................................121
150.
R-squares for correlations between individual tree
weight and individual independent variables (canopy area,
canopy volume, age, height, and basal diameter) for the
Lakeview site.………………………………………………...122
151.
R-squares for correlations between individual tree
weight and individual independent variables (canopy area,
canopy volume, age, height, and basal diameter) for both sites
combined.……………………………………………………..123
LIST OF APPENDICES (Continued)
Appendix
Page
152.
R-squares for correlations between independent variables
(canopy area, canopy volume, age, height, and basal diameter)
and fuel class weights (1,2,3, and 4) for the
Fort Rock site…………………………………………………...123
153.
R-squares for correlations between independent variables
(canopy area, canopy volume, age, height, and basal diameter)
and fuel class weights (1, 2, 3 and 4) for the
Lakeview site…….……………………………………………..124
154.
R-squares for correlations between independent variables
(canopy area, canopy volume, age, height, and basal diameter)
and fuel class weights (1, 2, 3, and 4) for both sites
combined.……………...……………………………………......124
155.
Weight prediction equations for individual tree dry weight
for Fort Rock, Lakeview, and both sites combined……...……..125
156.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE),
sample sizes (n) and r-squared values for the models
in appendix 155…………………………..……………………..125
157.
Size class weight prediction equations for the Fort
Rock site……………………..………………………………….126
158.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE)
and r-squared values for the models in appendix 157, for
the Fort Rock site…….………………………………………....126
159.
Size class weight prediction equations for the
Lakeview site…………………….……………………………..127
160.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE)
and r-squared values for the models in appendix 159, for the
Lakeview site…….…………………………..………………....127
161.
Fuel class weight prediction equations for both sites
combined…………….………………………………………….128
162.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE)
and r-squared values for the models in appendix 161, for
both sites combined ………………..………………..………….128
Relationship Between Allometric Variables and Biomass in Western Juniper
(Juniperus occidentalis)
INTRODUCTION
The spread of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis spp. occidentalis)
into the sagebrush steppe has raised concerns about increased soil erosion,
reduced water resources and forage production, and altered wildlife habitat
(Buckhouse and Mattison 1980, Gifford 1975, Peiper 1990, Miller et al.
2005). This expansion is the result of several causes including fire and
domestic livestock grazing. Western juniper currently occupies 3,642,170 ha
ranging from northwestern Nevada to northeastern California and north
through eastern Oregon and extending into southern Washington (Miller et al.
2005). Throughout much of its range of over 3.6 million ha, it has been
shown that >90% of these potentially long lived trees have established post
European settlement (Miller et al. 2008). The majority of this expansion has
resulted in the replacement and continued encroachment into mountain big
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana ) and low sagebrush (Artemisia
arbuscula) communities that occupy moderate to deep soil sites.
Juniper reduction programs have been implemented with the goal of
restoring northern Great Basin shrub-steppe plant communities and to reduce
fuel loads (Bates et al. 2005). These programs use control methods such as
prescribed fire, herbicide application, manual cutting, and mechanical
treatments. The most common control method currently used is cutting,
2
which can be done either manually using chainsaws or mechanically (Miller et
al. 2005). Cutting treatments are often used in woodlands that have a depleted
shrub and herbaceous understory, making prescribed fire no longer a viable
treatment due to a lack of fuels (Miller et al. 2000, Bates et al. 2005). Some
of the advantages of cutting are: the ability to control the treated area,
selectivity of what trees are to be cut, little soil disturbance, minimal liability,
and the ability to apply the treatment over a longer time period during the year
(Miller et al. 2005). Disadvantages include high cost, large amounts of woody
debris remaining on site, limitation in size of the treated area due to the
amount of time it takes to cut, and the life of the treatment is usually shorter as
a result of missing the small trees (Miller et al. 2005).
Prescribed fire is also a common method used for juniper control. This
tool can be successful if conducted under the appropriate conditions. Primary
factors that influence post-burn responses are plant composition, current seed
pool, fire severity and complexity (patchiness), climate conditions and postmanagement (Miller et al. 2005). Advantage of prescribed fire include: it is a
natural process, typically economical in terms of application costs, can treat
large areas, has the longest return interval of juniper coming back to the site,
and removes slash off site (Miller et al. 2005). Disadvantages include:
liability, threat of weed invasions, reduction of shrubs, limited tree selectivity,
need to have adequate fuels conditions, potential nutrient and carbon loss,
3
smoke management, and limitations due to climatic conditions (Miller et al.
2005).
Mechanical reduction with heavy equipment is another method used to
remove unwanted junipers. Techniques involve the use of heavy equipment
such as bulldozers, feller-bunchers, excavators, front-end loaders, and farmforestry tractors. This method is expensive and can also disturb the soil and
wildlife, often limiting its use (Miller et al. 2005).
However, recent interest in using biomass of western juniper as fuel for
energy operation plants, has the potential to sell, substantially reduce cost of
juniper removal. One factor that will aid in the economic evaluation of using
mechanical reduction for energy production is the development of a reliable
means to estimate available biomass. Recently built and projected
cogeneration plants need reliable estimates of available biomass to assess cost
effectiveness. In addition the amounts of nutrient and carbon tied up in the
above-ground tree biomass is also a concern related to juniper removal
projects. At this time tools are limited to estimate above ground tree biomass
at the individual, community or landscape level. Several studies have
evaluated biomass of juniperus sp. and pinyon and the possible allometric
measurements thereof (Gholz 1980, Miller 1981, Brown 1982, Tiedemann
2000). Miller found a close correlation between the crown diameter of juniper
and pinyon to biomass (Miller 1981). Gholz’s used basal circumference to
develop regression equations for estimation of biomass. To estimate juniper
4
biomass at the landscape level we need predictive models that will extrapolate
the biomass of individual trees to the landscape level.
My overall goal was to develop a tool that uses an easily measurable tree
variable to predict western juniper biomass that could be used both in the field
and from aerial imagery. Estimates of tree biomass could be useful to
determine woody material available for converting to energy, fuel loads,
estimating nutrient and carbon pools tied up in the tree layer, and estimating
net annual productivity. To address this goal we evaluated the relationship
between tree biomass to several tree allometrics. Our specific objective was
to determine the strength of the relationship between total tree biomass and
different components of the tree based on diameter class with canopy area,
canopy volume, height, age and basal diameter.
5
METHODS
Study Area
Two study areas were located in the High Desert Ecological Province in
Lake County, southeastern Oregon, on lands managed by Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Lakeview District (Fig. 1). This High Desert Ecological
Province consists of numerous large and small closed basins surrounded by
extensive terraces formed in ancient lakes (Anderson et al. 1998). This area is
interspersed by low basaltic ridges, hilly uplands, isolated buttes, mountains,
and block – faulted igneous formations. The High Desert Ecological Province,
which encompasses the northern most extent of the Great Basin and a large
portion of the range of western juniper, receives an average annual
precipitation of 12.7 to 63.5 cm, with most juniper forest receiving 25.4 to
38.1 cm (Gedney et al. 1999).
Plant associations for the study areas were representative of the mountain
big sagebrush alliance. These communities are common throughout the
region and have been actively encroached by western juniper since the late
1800’s (Miller et al. 2000 see JRM53-574-585). Both stands were in the early
stage of woodland development, where although mature trees were present,
they accounted for 6% or less canopy cover and grasses and shrubs dominate.
This stage is similar to phase I described by Miller et al. (2005) and Johnson
Miller (2006).
6
Figure 1. Location of research sites within Lake County within the state of
Oregon (Geology 2008)
Lakeview
The first study area was located 0.4 km east of the Plush cut-off Road –
CR3-13, which is about 32.2 km southeast of Lakeview, Oregon and 32.2 km
east of Plush, Oregon (latitude of 42 degrees 15 minutes , longitude of 120
degrees 4 minutes). The plot was located on a Shallow Loam 10-20″ PZ
ecological site ( NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service) 2008). In the winter months the mean
7
minimum temperature is 3.33º C and in the summer months the mean
maximum temperature 20.3º C (WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center)
2008). The annual precipitation, which occurs mostly in the winter months,
is approximately 35.6 to 45.7 cm and the mean annual air temperature is 7.2 –
8.3º C (NRCS 2008).
The plant association is mountain big sagebrush / Idaho fescue (Festuca
idahoensis) (NRCS 2008). The site is currently dominated by both species in
addition to western juniper and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus
viscidiflorus). The elevation is 1713 m with an NE aspect and a 2 to 15 %
slope (NRCS 2008). Soils are shallow loam 35.56 – 45.72 cm depth and are
formed from colluvium derived from basalt, rhyolite and tuff (NRCS 2008).
The underlying soil is the Booth complex, which has a depth of approximately
66.04 cm. Historical documentation from the BLM indicates that this area was
used for grazing of cattle and sheep, and wildlife such as pronghorn antelope,
mule deer, and various birds are also abundant in this area.
8
Figure 2. The Lakeview study area composed of Idaho fescue, mountain big
sagebrush, green rabbitbrush, and western juniper.
Fort Rock
The second study area was located on the northern part of the BLM
Lakeview District in the Fort Rock area, about 32.2 km north of Christmas
Valley, (latitude of 43 degrees 31 minutes, longitude of 120 degrees 39
minutes). The plot was located on a Pumice High Plains 10-12″ PZ ecological
site (NRCS 2008). The average annual precipitation is approximately 22.9 to
30.5 cm, and the mean annual air temp is 7.2 to 12.7º C (NRCS 2008). The
temperature in this area has an average maximum temperature of 17.4º C in
9
the summer months and an average minimum of -0.72º C in the winter months
(WRCC 2008).
The plant association is mountain big sagebrush-bitterbrush (Purshia
tridentata) / Idaho fescue (NRCS 2008). The community is currently codominated by Idaho fescue and western juniper. Mountain big sagebrush,
bitterbrush, green rabbitbrush, and western needlegrass (Achnatherum
occidentale) are also present on the site. Mountain big sagebrush has recently
been reduced to less than 5% cover by the aroga moth (Aroga websterii).
Elevation is around 1433 m with a 1 to 8% slope, and the terrain consists of
lava plateaus and buttes (NRCS 2008).
Soils are loamy, primarily derived from eolian deposits of volcanic ash
overlying igneous residuum weathered from basalt and tuff (NRCS 1989).
The soil type in this area is Moonbeam Connleyhills Complex. Historical
documentation from the BLM indicates that this area has had small scattered
wildfires and is good habitat for wildlife such as mule deer, elk and a variety
birds. This site also contains scattered old growth juniper, which is prevalent
throughout the whole Fort Rock Area.
10
Figure 3. The Fort Rock study area composed of Idaho fescue, sagebrush,
bitterbrush, green and grey rabbitbrush, and western juniper.
Data Collection
Study Design
Sampling within the study areas consisted of one 3.35 ha plot in
Lakeview and one 4.5 ha plot in Fort Rock; each located within a single
ecological site. Each site was chosen based on plant community, plot sites
varied due to trees that were chosen to be sampled. Trees were chosen based
on accessibility, overall tree condition and size. Since easy access was
required to bring equipment in for weighing the trees on the study areas, plots
were located adjacent to access roads. Allometric measures were recorded for
11
all trees over 3 m tall in each plot; excluding trees exhibiting old growth
characteristics as explained by Miller et. al (2005). A subsample of trees from
each plot were cut and weighed. The pictures below indicate which trees were
sampled and weighed and which trees were left unweighed on each site (Fig 4
and 5).
Figure 4. A map of the Lakeview site showing locations of weighed and
unweighed trees.
12
Figure 5. A map of the Fort Rock site showing the location of weighed and
unweighed trees.
Field Data Collection
Prior to destructive sampling, crown and trunk measurements were
recorded on all trees over 3 m tall within each plot. Measurements taken
included: live crown height, tree height, crown diameter, and basal diameter
(Table 1). Crown area and crown volume were calculated using the formulas
in Table 2. The formula used to estimate crown volume estimates a conoide
(a shape whose base is a circle and whose sides taper in the shape of an arch
to a point), which best fit the silhouette of the majority of trees on both study
sites. A subsample of trees was selected in each plot for destructive sampling
13
to acquire biomass estimates. The number of trees sampled was 31 and 25 at
the Fort Rock and Lakeview sites respectively. All sampling was done June
through September of 2006
Table 1.
Descriptions of field measurements and techniques.
Parameter
Description and Measurement Technique
Basal Diameter
Trunk diameter at 30 cm above ground
level, read using a diameter tape
Crown Diameter
Foliage spread measured along and
perpendicular to the direction of maximum
foliage spread, measure with a meter tape
Live Crown Height
Measured from ground to first live foliage,
measured with a meter tape
Tree Height
Measured after the tree was cut from base of
the stump to top of the tree using a meter
tape
Age
Measured after the tree was cut by counting
the rings on the remaining stump at 30 cm
Canopy Area
π[(crown diameter1 +crown diameter2)/4]²
Canopy Volume
((π/6)(live crown height * crown diameter1
* crown diameter2))
14
Destructive Sampling
Trees selected for biomass measurements were felled, all main branches
(those originating from the main trunk) were removed from the main stem,
and sectioned into manageable pieces (11.4 to 22.7 kg) using a chainsaw. All
portions of the tree were separated into four size classes, based on branch
diameters used for fuel measurements (Fig. 6). Each size class was weighed
using a digital hanging scale (accurate to the decigram) attached to a boom
extended from the rear of a pickup (Figs. 7 and 8). Following separation, the
samples from each size class were placed separately into the tarp, weighed,
and recorded (Fig. 7).
Figure 6. The various sizes of the first three fuel classes (Brown 1978).
15
Figure 7. Picture of the work truck with the boom attached to the rear of the
pickup with the load cell attached.
16
Figure 8. Picture of the scale and pulley system connected with the tarp,
which was used to lift the samples.
Sub-samples from each size class for each tree were collected and
individually weighed in the field to attain wet field weight (Table 2). These
sub-samples were then brought back to the Eastern Oregon Research Center’s
drying ovens and dried at 60 ْC to determine field moisture content. All field
wet weights for each size class were converted to dry weights (Table 3).
Samples were weighed daily or weekly until a constant weight was reached.
17
Table 2.
Sub-Sample dry weight measurements: minimum weight per
sample without paper bag and time it took to dry, for the four fuel
classes to reach a steady weight at 60 ْC.
Fuel Class
Minimum weight
without paper bag
Time
1-hour
500 g
1 – 2 weeks
10- hour
1000g
3-4 weeks
100-hour
1000g
3-4 weeks
1000-hour
1500g
4-6 weeks
Table 3.
The formula used to solve for the total dry weight of the tree.
Total weight
for fuel class
% dry
weight
Add all
weights for
each fuel class
and subtract
tarp weight
Sub-sample
dry weight /
sub-sample
wet weight =
% dry weight
Total dry
weight
(% dry weight)
(total field
weight) = total
dry weight
Total weight of
tree
Total dry weight
class 1 + class 2+
class 3+ class 4 =
total weight
Data Analysis
Relationship between allometric and age measurements (independent
variables) were regressed with dry weight for each size class and total tree
biomass was determined using regression analysis (PROC MIX Statistical
Analysis System, SAS). Plotted data points for both total tree and size class
18
biomass measurements showed uneven variability among varying size trees so
all variables were log-transformed.
19
RESULTS
Allometric measurements were collected on 58 trees in the Fort Rock and
71 trees in the Lakeview plots, of which we destructively sampled 31 and 25
trees, respectively (Table 4). Both sites had relatively open canopies ranging
from 2% canopy cover at Fort Rock to 6% at Lakeview (Table 4). Of the five
tree measurements, canopy area, canopy volume, and basal diameter were the
strongest and most consistent variables for predicting biomass across the four
size classes and for the total tree.
Table 4.
Simple comparisons between the Fort Rock and Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Fort Rock
Trees Measured
71
58
Trees Sampled
25
31
Tree Density
20 trees / ha
13 trees / ha
Tree Canopy Area
566 m²/ha
164 m²/ha
Tree Height
4.2 to 11.6 m
(avg 6.9 m)
3.6 to 7.95m
(avg 6.2m)
Tree Age
28 to 97 yr
(avg 63 yr)
29 to 85 yr
(avg 63yr)
Tree Basal Diameter
19.1 to 63.2 cm
(avg 40.3cm)
14 to 61cm
(avg 30cm)
20
Fort Rock versus Lakeview
The relationship between all tree allometric variables (canopy area,
canopy volume, height and basal diameter) and age with individual tree
weights and size class weights was compared between the two study sites
(Table 5 and 6). Total tree weight, canopy area, canopy volume, and basal
diameter were different between the two study sites. Size class one was also
different between sites (Table 6).
Table 5.
Two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances results for total tree
weights, allometric variables, and age between Fort Rock and
Lakeview.
Study Site
Allometric
Variable
Mean
Variance
Fort Rock
Total Tree
Weight (kg)
2.163
.1134
2.323
.1119
1.032
.0855
1.334
.0871
Lakeview
Fort Rock
Canopy Area
(m²)
Lakeview
Fort Rock
Lakeview
Fort Rock
Canopy Volume 1.6094
(m³)
1.9214
Basal Diameter
(cm)
Lakeview
Fort Rock
Lakeview
Tree Height (m)
Fort Rock
Lakeview
Tree Age (yr)
P
t-stat
.04
1.77
.0001
3.82
.0022
2.96
.1465
.1577
1.4489
.0248
1.5857
.0181
.0004
3.50
.7748
.8227
.0132
.0137
.066
1.53
1.7871
1.776
.0131
.0231
.381
-0.304
21
Table 6.
Two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances results for size class
weights between Fort Rock and Lakeview.
Study Site
Size Class
Mean
Variance
P
t-stat
Fort Rock
Lakeview
One
1.7354
1.8764
.0797
.0831
.036
1.83
Fort Rock
Lakeview
Two
1.3841
1.4768
.0829
.0997
.131
1.14
Fort Rock
Lakeview
Three
1.4234
1.6076
.1939
.2085
.067
1.53
Fort Rock
Lakeview
Four
1.5496
1.7229
.2066
.1897
.076
1.45
All correlation relationships with tree allometric variables (canopy area,
canopy volume, height and basal diameter) and age, and individual tree
weights and size class weights were compared between the two study sites
(Table 7). When comparing between sites there was no correlation
differences found between tested variables and whole tree weights. However,
differences were found between sites for certain variables and size class
weights. Size class 1 showed a difference in age, size class 2 had a difference
in basal diameter, and size class 4 has a difference in age and height (Table 7).
22
Table 7.
P-values comparing slopes of the relationships among tree
variables and weights between the two sites.
Variable
Tree
Weight
Size
Class 1
Weight
Size
Class 2
Weight
Size
Class 3
Weight
Size
Class 4
Weight
Canopy Area
.5923
.5485
.4994
.8003
.2815
Canopy
Volume
.3208
.3329
.7899
.6280
.1338
Age
.0204
.0126
.1752
.0865
.0140
Basal
Diameter
.1417
.2541
.0324
.1625
.7278
Height
.1535
.1734
.4843
.3716
.0421
Fort Rock
Total Tree Dry Weight
On the Fort Rock site all allometric variables were significant in
predicting total tree biomass; age being the weakest predictor and canopy
volume and area the strongest (Table 8, Fig. 9 see Appendix for nontransformed relationships and graphs 74-78, 149, 155-156). The correlation
between canopy area and canopy volume to total tree biomass was 15.7 kg/m2
and 3.37 kg/m3; respectively. The average individual tree weight increased 7
kg/yr for trees >3m in height.
23
Results of linear regression analysis predicting total tree dry
weight (kg) with tree allometric and age variables at the Fort Rock
site. Measured variables were log transformed for regression
analysis.
Table 8.
Allometric variable
Intercept
Slope
R2
P
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
1.0107
0.7902
-0.6210
0.0684
-2.4816
1.1156
0.8530
1.9215
2.7033
2.5989
0.9389
0.9400
0.8079
0.8526
0.7822
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Total Tree Weight
(kg)
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 1.1157x + 1.0107
R2 = 0.9389
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Figure 9. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and canopy
area from the Fort Rock site.
24
Size Class Dry Weight
Size Class Composition
Over a third of the total tree biomass was accounted for in the smallest
size class (< 0.64 cm), which was composed mostly of foliage. Biomass in the
largest size class (> 7.6 cm) accounted for about a fourth of the total biomass
(Fig. 10).
Average Percentage of Size Class Weights for the
Fort Rock Site for
Individual Western Juniper Trees
28%
35%
Size Class 1
Size Class 2
Size Class 3
22%
15%
Size Class 4
Figure 10. Average percentages of size class weights for the Fort Rock site
for individual western juniper trees.
25
Allometric Variables and Dry Weight
All allometric variables and age were significant in predicting biomass for
each size class on the Fort Rock site (Table 9). Age was generally the
weakest predictor with the exception of size class 1 and 4 where basal
diameter was the weakest predictor. The strongest and most consistent
predictors for biomass among the different size classes were canopy volume
and area (see Appendix for non-transformed relationships and graphs 79-98,
152, 157-158).
26
Table 9.
Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg) for
each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age variables
at the Fort Rock site. Measured variables were log transformed for
regression analysis.
Allometric variable
Intercept
Slope
R2
P
Size class 1
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.7827
0.5977
-0.5307
0.0114
-2.1362
0.9223
0.7068
1.5639
2.2248
2.1663
0.9128
0.9181
0.7613
0.8214
0.7731
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size Class 2
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.4822
0.3068
-0.8743
-0.2565
-2.1984
0.8731
0.6693
1.5586
2.1173
2.0046
0.7871
0.7923
0.7276
0.7158
0.6369
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size class 3
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
-0.2080
-0.2870
-2.1781
-1.1512
-4.3659
1.4052
1.0627
2.4856
3.3227
3.2395
0.8715
0.8537
0.7910
0.7536
0.7110
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size Class 4
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.6328
-0.2483
-1.8446
-1.3060
-4.6612
1.4390
1.1171
2.3425
3.6853
3.4753
0.8579
0.8855
0.6595
0.8702
0.7681
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
27
Lakeview
Total Tree Dry Weight
On the Lakeview site, all allometric variables were significant in
predicting total tree biomass with height being the weakest predictor and
canopy volume and basal diameter the strongest (Table 10, Fig.11 see
Appendix for non-transformed relationships and graphs 99-103, 150, 155156). Total tree weight averaged 10 kg for each 1.0 m² of canopy area, and
2.2 kg for every 1.0 m³ in canopy volume. Total individual tree weight
increased an average of 6.25 kg/yr.
Table 10. Results of linear regression analysis predicting total tree dry
weight (kg) with tree allometric variables at the Lakeview site.
Measured variables were log transformed for regression analysis.
Allometric variable
Intercept
Slope
R2
P
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.9008
0.8301
-1.3509
0.6177
-0.5808
1.0655
0.7770
2.3169
2.0727
1.6351
0.8840
0.8522
0.8698
0.5263
0.5516
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
28
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 1.0655x + 0.9009
(Transformed)
Total Tree Weight
(kg)
R2 = 0.884
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Figure 11. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and canopy
area from the Lakeview site.
Size Class Dry Weight
Size Class Composition
Biomass averages were calculated from the Lakeview site data for each of
the four size classes. The largest proportion of the biomass was found in size
class 1 and 4, while size class 2 had the smallest proportion of biomass.
29
Average Percentage of Size Class Weights for the
Lakeview Site for
Individual Western Juniper Trees
28%
34%
Size Class 1
Size Class 2
Size Class 3
24%
14%
Size Class 4
Figure 12. Average percentage of size class weights for the Lakeview site
for individual western juniper trees.
Allometric Variables and Dry Weight
Similar to the Fort Rock site, all allometric and age variables were found
to be significantly correlated with tree weight for each size class. The best
predictors for estimating biomass for each size class were canopy area and
volume, and basal diameter. The least effective allometric predictor for size
classes 2, 3, and 4 was height. Consistently the weakest allometric predictors
of biomass across size classes were height and age (Table 11, see Appendix
for non-transformed relationships and graphs 104-123, 153, 159-160).
30
Table 11. Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg) for
each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age variables
at the Lakeview site. Measured variables were log transformed for
regression analysis.
Allometric variable
Intercept
Slope
R2
P
Size class 1
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.7299
0.6719
-1.0963
0.5011
-0.2009
0.8589
0.6269
1.8747
1.6716
1.1697
0.7733
0.7467
0.7665
0.4608
0.3800
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
.0002
.0010
Size Class 2
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.1944
0.1395
-1.94
0.0059
-1.0415
0.9607
0.6960
2.1547
1.7877
1.4179
0.8063
0.7672
0.8441
0.4393
0.4655
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
.0003
.0002
Size class 3
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
-0.2078
-0.3006
-3.2149
-0.6426
-2.3743
1.3601
0.9932
3.0413
2.7350
2.2422
0.7729
0.7470
0.8040
0.4917
0.5565
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size Class 4
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.0860
0.0019
-2.2812
-0.2722
-1.9769
1.2263
0.8957
2.5251
2.4249
2.0832
0.6906
0.6678
0.6093
0.4248
0.5281
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
.0004
<.0001
31
Combined Sites
Total Tree Dry Weight
Pooled across the two sites all allometric variables were significant in
predicting total tree biomass, with age being the weakest predictor and canopy
volume and area the strongest (Table 12, Fig. 13 see Appendix for nontransformed relationships and graphs 124-128, 151, 155-156). Total tree
weight was 12 kg for each 1.0 m² in canopy area, and 2.6 kg for every 1.0 m³
in canopy volume. Total individual tree weight increased an average of 6.25
kg/yr.
Table 12. Results of linear regression analysis predicting total tree dry
weight (kg) with tree allometric and age variables for both sites
combined.
Allometric variable
Intercept
Slope
R2
P
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
1.0982
0.8793
-0.6432
0.2787
-1.3406
0.9731
0.7749
1.9057
2.4563
2.0060
0.8701
0.8883
0.8111
0.7096
0.5933
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
32
Total Tree Weight
(kg)
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 0.9731x + 1.0982
R2 = 0.8701
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Figure 13. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and canopy
area from both study sites combined.
Size Class Dry Weight
Size Class Composition
Biomass averages were calculated for both sites combined for each of the
four size classes. Size class 1 had the largest proportion of the biomass, while
size class 2 had the smallest.
33
Average Percentage of Size Class Weights for the
Combined Sites for
Individual Western Juniper Trees
28%
34%
Size Class 1
Size Class 2
Size Class 3
23%
15%
Size Class 4
Figure 14. Average percentage of size class weights for both sites combined
for individual western juniper trees.
Allometric Variables and Dry Weight
For both sites combined the weakest allometric predictor for each size
class was age and the strongest were canopy volume and area. (Table 13, see
Appendix for non-transformed relationships and graphs 129-148, 154, 161162).
34
Table 13. Results of linear regression analysis predicting dry weight (kg) for
each of the four size classes with tree allometric and age variables
for both sites combined. Measured variables were log transformed
for regression analysis.
Allometric variable
Intercept
Slope
R2
P
Size class 1
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.8607
0.6805
-0.5603
0.1940
-0.9786
0.8029
0.6392
1.5620
2.0148
1.5582
0.8185
0.8352
0.7529
0.6597
0.4946
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size Class 2
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.5107
0.3282
-0.9608
-0.1404
-1.5039
0.7834
0.6274
1.5803
1.9666
1.6437
0.7268
0.7507
0.7189
0.5863
0.5134
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size class 3
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.0812
-0.1882
-2.1919
-0.9543
-3.1671
1.2199
0.9686
2.4487
3.0895
2.6219
0.7802
0.7919
0.7640
0.6406
0.5783
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
Size Class 4
Canopy area (m2)
Canopy volume (m3)
Basal Diameter (cm)
Height (m)
Age (yr)
0.2496
-0.0346
-1.7014
-0.8695
-3.0581
1.1796
0.9501
2.2042
3.1353
2.6289
0.7376
0.7705
0.6260
0.6671
0.5879
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
35
DISCUSSION
Our work shows tree allometric measurements can be used to estimate
total tree biomass as well as the proportion of biomass contained within each
of the four fuel classes. Although all allometric and age measurements were
usually significant in providing estimates of tree biomass, canopy area and
canopy volume were the most consistent at predicting biomass for the total
tree as well as for each of the four size classes. Tree canopy cover, which can
be estimated using remote sensing data, is the most useful variable for
predicting tree biomass at the landscape level.
Total Tree Weight
Although both study sites contained large mature trees, tree canopies were
open and less than 6% canopy cover (Figs. 2-5). Densities of trees >3m in
height were also 20 or less/ha. Both study sites were in the early stages of
woodland development. Estimated above-ground juniper biomass for these
two sites were 2,482 kg/ha in Fort Rock and 5,410 kg/ha in Lakeview.
However, both sites have the potential to support a considerably greater
canopy of western juniper. Mean tree canopy cover of 48% and densities of
478/ha in late succession juniper stands for the mountain big sagebrush/ Idaho
fescue plant association have been reported for closed stands of western
juniper (Miller et. al 2000). In the mountain big sagebrush / bluebunch
wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata ) plant association a maximum of 43
36
percent western juniper tree cover and 345 trees per hectare were reported for
late successional woodlands (Miller et al. 2000). Fully developed woodlands
on similar ecological sites with greater than 40% tree canopy cover (assuming
12 kg/m²) total tree biomass could exceed 48,000 kg/ha. Gholz (1980)
estimated total dry weight for a juniper forest (stands containing >10% cover)
averaged across canopy classes was 21,161.4 kg/ha. According to Gedney
(1999) the proportion of western juniper woodlands for five canopy cover
classes in Lake County were: 34.1% had a canopy cover of 10-19%, 11.7%
were 20-29% cover, 13.2% were 30-39% cover, 17.0% were 40-49% cover,
and 24.0% greater than 50% cover.
Cover and density values for western juniper woodlands are similar to
those reported for other woodlands in the Intermountain West. Canopy cover
and density in a young woodland consisting of a mix of singleleaf pinyon
(Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus monosperma) in north-central
Arizona averaged 28.6% and 344 trees/ha (Grier et al. 1992). In mature
stands mean canopy cover typically increased to 40.1% and density slightly
decreasing to 320 trees/ha (Grier et al. 1992). In singleleaf pinyon – Utah
juniper woodlands in north-central Arizona, total dry weight in a 350 year old
forest was 54,050 kg/ha and a 90 year old forest 23,700 kg/ha (Grier et al.
1992).
Using the formula of tree canopy area to predict biomass developed for
the combined sites, average dry weights of individual trees with canopy
37
diameters of 2.7, 4.4, and 7 meters had respective average dry weights of 92.5,
184.5, and 410 kg (8.9, 9.9, and 7.25 kg/m²). Tiedmann and Klemmedson
(2000) estimated tree biomass for western juniper based off tree canopy
diameters in Central Oregon. Trees ranging from 2.1 to 3.3 m canopy
diameter had an average total dry weight of 56.4 kg. For trees with canopy
diameters ranging from 3.2 to 5.6 m and 5.3 to 8.7 m, estimated total weight
was 212.3 kg and 433.6 kg, respectively.
Size Class Dry Weight
Since both study sites had an open canopy with a canopy cover of <6%,
we decided to use the data for each size class and linearly raise the canopy
cover to 40% to be able to make comparisons to other research that has been
done. Using the derived 40% canopy cover on the Fort Rock site, size class 1
would have 16,800 kg/ha, size class 2 would have 7,200 kg/ha, size class 3
would have 10,560 kg/ha and for size class 4 it would be 13,440 kg/ha. Trees
on the Lakeview site would have an average of 16,800 kg/ha for size class 1,
6,720 kg/ha for size class 11,520 kg/ha for size class 3 and 13,440 kg/ha for
size class 4. The average biomass for both sites would have been: 16,320
kg/ha for size class 7,200 kg/ha for size class 11,040 kg/ha for size class 3,
and 13,440 kg/ha for size class 4. Grier (1992) sampled mature pinyonjuniper forest with a 20% pinyon and 20% juniper canopy cover and found
that foliage, which would be comparable to size class 1, had 4,390 kg/ha, size
38
class 2 had a weight of 3,330 kg/ha, size class 3 had 3,910 kg/ha, and size
class 4 had 3,470 kg/ha. Grier (1992) sampled both live and dead fuels for his
research, but for this research, live fuels were only accounted for. The drastic
difference between this work, and what was found by Grier (1992), can most
likely be attributed to our assumption that canopy cover and biomass
increased proportionally.
39
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Results of this study indicate biomass of western juniper trees in Lake
County, Oregon is closely correlated with canopy area and canopy volume.
This correlation between biomass and these two allometric measurements
could be utilized by land managers within the western juniper range in a
number of ways.
With >90% of the long lived western juniper trees having established post
European settlement in southeastern Oregon central Nevada and western Utah
(Miller et al. 2005, 2008), and the negative ecological and ecological
ramifications of this encroachment well documented, land managers need to
be able to make better inventories of juniper biomass on site (Miller et al.
2005). This not only enhances smoke management assessment of biomass for
prescribed burns of early phase encroached sites, but also allows for appraisal
for the feasibility of possible stewardship contracts utilizing biomass; such as
is needed for determination of cogeneration power plants. With mechanical
cutting of juniper trees currently costing $70-$80/acre in Lake County, and
energy prices at an all time high, land managers and power companies could
develop a mutually beneficial partnership in reclamation of juniper
encroached sage steppe sites. Removal of juniper biomass for cogeneration
power has the added benefit to land managers of removing downed-dead
material from the site, and significantly reducing fuel loads, which if
otherwise left on site could lead to devastating wildfires. Also using reported
40
nutrient and carbon concentrations in juniper, above ground pools contained
in the tree layer can be estimated.
41
SCOPE OF INFERENCE AND LIMITATIONS
The scope of inference for this study could potentially be the range of
western juniper. Observations have shown growth forms of western juniper do
not significantly change across sites or across its range as a result of different
soils, climate, or topographic position. However, tree growth form does
change on sites where a high density pulse of trees have established and intraspecific competition becomes a factor during the early stages of woodland
development (Johnson and Miller 2006). These sites are typically
characterized by small lower limbs, crown lift (lower limbs dying as trees
increase in height), and tall often more gradually tapered canopies. The
relationship between age and tree size also changes with site potential
intraspecific competition, and age of the trees as they approach their
maximum height. This potentially limits my research to stands in early to mid
succession and possibly stands in approaching maximum canopy closure
where tree growth form in similar to more open stands within this range,
meaning trees growing with minimal competition.
The primary limitation of this data set is due to having only two study
sites. This significantly limits extrapolation to other sites in the same and
different plant associations throughout the range of western juniper. Ideally it
would have been nice to have 5 or more sites each in several plant
associations and stands ranging from early-mid to late phase.
42
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Anderson, E.W., M.M. Borman, and W.C. Krueger. 1998. Ecological
provinces of Oregon: a treatise on the basic ecological geography of
the state. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Azuma, David L.; Hiserote, Bruce A.; Dunham, Paul A. 2005. The western
juniper resource of eastern Oregon, 1999. Resource Bulletin PNWRB-249. Portland, OR: United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18p.
Bates J.D., R.F. Miller, and T. Svejcar 2005. Long-Term Successional Trends
Following Western Juniper Cutting. Journal of Rangeland Ecology &
Management: Vol. 58, No. 5 pp. 533-541.
Brown, J.K., R.F. Oberheu, and C.M. Johnston. 1982. Handbook for
Inventorying Surface Fuels and Biomass in the Interior West. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-129, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ogden, Utah.
Brown, J.K. 1978. Weight and density of crowns of Rocky Mountain conifers.
USDA Forest Service Resource Paper INT-197, 56 p. Intermountain
Forest and Range Experimental Station. Ogden, Utah.
Buckhouse, J.C. and J.L. Mattison. 1980. Potential soil erosion of selected
habitat types in the high desert region of central Oregon. Journal of
Range Management 33:282-285.
Eddleman, L.E., R.F. Miller, P.M. Miller, and P.L. Dysart. 1994 Western
juniper woodlands of the Pacific Northwest: Science Assessment.
Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, and N. McKay. 1999. Western
Juniper in eastern Oregon. United States Forest Service General
Technical Report NW-GTR-464.
Geology.com [online]. 2005-2008. U.S. Map Collections. www.geology.com
Gholz, H.L. 1980. Structure and productivity of Juniperus occidentalis in
central Oregon. American Midland Naturalist. 103: 251-261.
43
Gifford, G.E., and F.E. Busby, eds. 1975 The pinyon-juniper ecosystem: a
symposium 194 p. Utah Stat University, College of Natural Resources,
Utah Agriculture Experiment Station, Logan.
Grier, C.C., K.J. Elliot and D.G. McCullough. 1992. Biomass distribution and
productivity of Pinus edulis-Juniperus monosperma woodlands of
north-central Arizona. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management
50:331-350.
Johnson, D.D., and R.F. Miller. 2006. Structure and development of
expanding western juniper woodlands as influenced by two
topographic variables. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management.
229: 7-15.
Miller, E. L., R.O. Meeuwig, and J.D. Budy. 1981. Biomass of singleleaf
pinyon and Utah juniper. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station Resource Paper INT-273, 11 p.
Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, L.E. Eddleman. 2005.
Biology, ecology, and management of western juniper. Oregon State
University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 152,
Corvallis, OR.
Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and J.A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on
plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range
Management 53:574 -585.
Pieper, R.D. 1990. Overstory-understory relations in pinyon-juniper
woodlands in New Mexico. Journal of Range Management 43:413415.
Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States.
Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p.
Tiedemann, A.R., and J.O. Klemmedson. 2000. Biomass and Nutrient
Distribution and System Nutrient Budget for Western Juniper in
Central Oregon. Northwest Science. 12-24.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service [online]. 1989 – 2008. Ecological Site Description.
http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/esis_report/.
44
Vasek, F.C. 1966. The distribution and taxonomy of three western junipers.
Brittonia 18:350-372.
Western Regional Climate Center [online]. 2008. Historical Climate
Information. www.wrcc.dri.edu.
45
APPENDICES
46
Appendix 1. Study site characteristics.
Lakeview
Fort Rock
Slope (%)
2 to 15
1 to 8
Aspect
North
NA
Elevation (m)
5000m
4700 to 5000m
Terrain
Foot slopes and benches on hill
Lava plateaus and
buttes
Topography
Soil
Booth Complex
Connleyhills
Parent
Material
Colluvium from
basalt, rhyolite
and tuff
Eolian deposits and
Volcanic ash eolian
residuum weathered
deposits from volcanic
from basalt and tuff
rock over igneous
residuum weathered from
basalt and tuff
0 to 4 inches :
very dark brown
very stony loam
0 to 4 inches: gravelly
ashy sandy loam
0 to 3 inches: stony
ashy sandy loam
4 to 11 inches: ashy
coarse sandy loam
3 to 8 inches:
gravelly ashy sandy
clay loam
Typical
Profile:
4 to 12 inches:
very dark brown
clay
12 to 24 inches:
dark brown clay
24 to 26 inches:
olive brown
partially
weathered tuff
26 inches:
unweathered tuff
Drainage
11 to 15 inches: very
cobbly ashy clay loam
15 to 22 inches: very
cobbly clay
Moonbeam
8 to 14 inches: clay
14 to 18 inches: clay
22 to 29 inches: clay
18 to 27 inches:
cemented material
29 to 32 inches: very
stony ashy clay loam
27 to 31 inches:
bedrock
32 to 43 inches: bedrock
47
Class:
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Appendix 1. Continued
Climate
Mean Annual
Precipitation
14 to 18 inches
9 to 12 inches
Mean Annual Air
Temperature
45 to 47 degrees Fahrenheit
45 to 55 degrees
Fahrenheit
Minimum
Temperature
-11 degrees Fahrenheit
-15 degrees Fahrenheit
Maximum
Temperature
103 degrees Fahrenheit
105 degrees Fahrenheit
Plant Association
Idaho fescue, Antelope
bitterbrush, Mountain big
sagebrush, Basin wildrye,
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Idaho fescue, Bluebunch
wheatgrass, Mountain big
sage, Western juniper,
Sandberg bluegrass
Dominant Plant
Idaho fescue, Mountain big
sage, Western juniper
Idaho fescue, Western
juniper, Mountain big
sage
Vegetation
48
Appendix 2. Scatterplot and correlation between the total tree weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.7033x + 0.0684
R2 = 0.8526
3
Tree Weight
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Tree Height
Appendix 3. Scatterplot and correlation between the total tree weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
y = 1.9215x - 0.621
(Transformed)
R2 = 0.8079
3
Tree Weight
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
49
Appendix 4. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and tree
age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.5989x - 2.4816
R2 = 0.7822
3
Tree Weight
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 5. Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weights and
canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Canopy Volume
y = 0.853x + 0.7902
(Transformed)
Total Tree Weight
(kg)
R2 = 0.94
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Canopy Volume (m³)
2
2.5
50
Appendix 6. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 1 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.2248x + 0.0114
R2 = 0.8214
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Tree Height
Appendix 7. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 1.5639x - 0.5307
Size Class 1 Weight
R2 = 0.7613
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
51
Appendix 8. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 1 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.1663x - 2.1362
R2 = 0.7731
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 9. Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 0.9224x + 0.7827
(Transformed)
Size Class 1 Weight
(kg)
R2 = 0.9128
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
1.2
1.4
1.6
52
Appendix 10.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.7068x + 0.5978
Size Class 1 Weight
R2 = 0.9181
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Canopy Volume
Appendix 11.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 2 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.1173x - 0.2565
R2 = 0.7158
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Tree Height
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
53
Appendix 12.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
y = 1.5586x - 0.8743
(Transformed)
Size Class 2 Weight
R2 = 0.7276
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Tree Basal Diameter
Appendix 13.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 2 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.0046x - 2.1984
R2 = 0.6369
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Age
2
2.5
54
Appendix 14.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 2 Weight
(kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 0.8731x + 0.4823
R2 = 0.7871
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 15.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.6693x + 0.307
Size Class 2 Weight
R2 = 0.792
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Canopy Volume
2
2.5
55
Appendix 16.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 3 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 3.3227x - 1.1512
R2 = 0.7536
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Tree Height
Appendix 17.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 2.4857x - 2.1781
Size Class 3 Weight
R2 = 0.791
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
56
Appendix 18.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 3 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 3.2395x - 4.3659
R2 = 0.711
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 19.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 3 Weight
(kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 1.4053x - 0.028
R2 = 0.8715
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
1.2
1.4
1.6
57
Appendix 20.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.9399x - 0.247
Size Class 3 Weight
R2 = 0.8501
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Canopy Volume
Appendix 21.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 4 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 3.6853x - 1.306
R2 = 0.8702
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Tree Height
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
58
Appendix 22.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
basal diameter (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
y = 2.3425x - 1.8446
(Transformed)
Size Class 4 Weight
R2 = 0.6595
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Tree Basal Diameter
Appendix 23.
Scatterplot correlation between size class 4 weights and tree
age (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 4 Weight
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 3.4753x - 4.6612
R2 = 0.7681
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Age
2
2.5
59
Appendix 24.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 4 Weight
(kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 1.4391x + 0.0633
R2 = 0.8579
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 25.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.7929x + 0.3807
Size Class 4 Weight
R2 = 0.8861
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Canopy Volume
2
2.5
60
Appendix 26.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
height (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Tree Weight
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.0727x + 0.6177
R2 = 0.5263
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Height
Appendix 27.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
y = 2.3169x - 1.3509
(Transformed)
Tree Weight
R2 = 0.8698
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
61
Appendix 28.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
age (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Tree Weight
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 1.6351x - 0.5808
R2 = 0.5516
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 29. Scatterplot showing the correlation between total tree weight
and tree canopy volume measurements from the Lakeview
site.
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 1.0967x - 0.6265
R2 = 0.8522
Tree Weight
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Canopy Volume
2.5
3
3.5
62
Appendix 30.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 1 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 1.6716x + 0.5011
R2 = 0.4608
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Height
Appendix 31.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 1.8747x - 1.0963
Size Class 1 Weight
R2 = 0.7665
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
63
Appendix 32.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 1 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 1.1697x - 0.2009
R2 = 0.38
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 33.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 1 Weight
(kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 0.8589x + 0.7299
R2 = 0.7733
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
2
2.5
64
Appendix 34.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 1.191x - 0.3136
Size Class 1 Weight
R2 = 0.7467
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Canopy Volume
Appendix 35.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 2 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 1.7877x + 0.0059
R2 = 0.4393
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Tree Height
0.8
1
1.2
65
Appendix 36.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
y = 2.1547x - 1.94
(Transformed)
Size Class 2 Weight
R2 = 0.8441
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Tree Basal Diameter
Appendix 37.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 2 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 1.418x - 1.0415
R2 = 0.4655
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Age
2
2.5
66
Appendix 38.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 2 Weight
(kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 0.9607x + 0.1945
R2 = 0.8063
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 39.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 1.1022x + 0.2935
Size Class 2 Weight
R2 = 0.7672
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Canopy Volume
2
2.5
67
Appendix 40.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 3 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.735x - 0.6426
R2 = 0.4917
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Height
Appendix 41.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 3.0413x - 3.215
Size Class 3 Weight
R2 = 0.804
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
68
Appendix 42.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 3 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.2422x - 2.3744
R2 = 0.5565
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 43.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 3 Weight
(kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 1.3602x - 0.2078
R2 = 0.7729
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
2
2.5
69
Appendix 44.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.7521x + 0.7121
Size Class 3 Weight
R2 = 0.747
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Canopy Volume
Appendix 45.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree height (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 4 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.4249x - 0.2722
R2 = 0.4248
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Tree Height
0.8
1
1.2
70
Appendix 46.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 2.5251x - 2.2813
Size Class 4 Weight
R2 = 0.6093
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Tree Basal Diameter
Appendix 47.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree age (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 4 Weight
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.0832x - 1.9769
R2 = 0.5281
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Age
2
2.5
71
Appendix 48.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Size Class 4 Weight
(kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 1.2263x + 0.0861
R2 = 0.6906
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 49.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) from the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.7455x + 0.6367
Size Class 4 Weight
R2 = 0.6678
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Canopy Volume
2
2.5
72
Appendix 50.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
height (transformed) for both sites combined.
Tree Weight
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.4563x + 0.2787
R2 = 0.7096
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Height
Appendix 51.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 1.9058x - 0.6432
Tree Weight
R2 = 0.8111
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
73
Appendix 52.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
age (transformed) for both sites combined.
Tree Weight
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.0061x - 1.3406
R2 = 0.5933
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 53.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 1.1464x - 0.813
R2 = 0.8883
Total Tree Weight
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Canopy Volume
2.5
3
3.5
74
Appendix 54.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 1 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 2.0148x + 0.194
R2 = 0.6597
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Height
Appendix 55.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 1.562x - 0.5603
Size Class 1 Weight
R2 = 0.7529
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
75
Appendix 56.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 1 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 1.5582x - 0.9786
R2 = 0.4946
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Basal Age
Appendix 57.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 1 Weight
(kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 0.803x + 0.8608
R2 = 0.8185
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
2
2.5
76
Appendix 58.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 1.3066x - 0.6012
Size Class 1 Weight
R2 = 0.8351
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Canopy Volume
Appendix 59.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree height (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 2 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 1.9666x - 0.1404
R2 = 0.5863
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Tree Height
0.8
1
1.2
77
Appendix 60.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 1.5803x - 0.9608
Size Class 2 Weight
R2 = 0.7189
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Tree Basal Diameter
Appendix 61.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree age (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 2 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 1.6437x - 1.5039
R2 = 0.5134
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Age
2
2.5
78
Appendix 62. Scatterplot showing and between size class 2 weights and tree
canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
(Transformed)
y = 0.7834x + 0.5107
Size Class 2 Weight
(kg)
R2 = 0.7268
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 63.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 1.1964x + 0.0431
Size Class 2 Weight
R2 = 0.7506
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Canopy Volume
2
2.5
79
Appendix 64.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree height (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 3 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 3.0895x - 0.9544
R2 = 0.6406
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Height
Appendix 65.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
(Transformed)
y = 2.4487x - 2.1919
Size Class 3 Weight
R2 = 0.764
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Tree Basal Diameter
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
80
Appendix 66.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree age (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 3 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.622x - 3.1671
R2 = 0.5783
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Age
Appendix 67.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 1.2199x + 0.0812
(Transformed)
Size Class 3 Weight
(kg)
R2 = 0.7802
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
2
2.5
81
Appendix 68.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.8176x + 0.5176
Size Class 3 Weight
R2 = 0.7918
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Canopy Volume
Appendix 69.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree height (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 4 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Height
(Transformed)
y = 3.1354x - 0.8695
R2 = 0.6671
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Tree Height
0.8
1
1.2
82
Appendix 70.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree basal diameter (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
y = 2.2042x - 1.7014
(Transformed)
Size Class 4 Weight
R2 = 0.626
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Tree Basal Diameter
Appendix 71.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree age (transformed) for both sites combined.
Size Class 4 Weight
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Age
(Transformed)
y = 2.6289x - 3.0582
R2 = 0.5879
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Tree Age
2
2.5
83
Appendix 72.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy area (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 1.1796x + 0.2496
(Transformed)
Size Class 4 Weight
(kg)
R2 = 0.7376
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 73.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy volume (transformed) for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
(Transformed)
y = 0.811x + 0.429
Size Class 4 Weight
R2 = 0.7705
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Canopy Volume
2
2.5
84
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
height for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 74.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Height
Tree Weight (kg)
y = 69.321x - 238.74
R2 = 0.7058
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tree Height (m)
Appendix 75.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
basal diameter for the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Basal Diameter
Tree Weight (kg)
y = 10.926x - 138.92
R2 = 0.8129
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
85
Scatterplot correlation between total tree weight and tree age
for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 76.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Age
Tree Weight (kg)
y = 6.894x - 247.82
R2 = 0.6424
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 77.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
canopy area for the Fort Rock site.
Total Tree Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 15.502x - 15.375
R2 = 0.8711
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
25
30
35
86
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
canopy volume for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 78.
Fort Rock
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
y = 0.2877x + 1.6555
R2 = 0.8485
Tree Weight (kg)
200
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Canopy Volume (m³)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 79.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 20.297x - 59.734
R2 = 0.7525
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Tree Height (m)
6
7
8
9
10
87
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 80.
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 2.9628x - 23.442
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.7434
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 81.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 2.0236x - 62.715
R2 = 0.6883
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Tree Age (yr)
60
70
80
90
88
Appendix 82.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 4.3287x + 8.4195
R2 = 0.8448
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 83.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 1 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.0026x - 9.6351
R2 = 0.8285
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Canopy Volume (m³)
120
140
160
180
89
Appendix 84.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree height for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 8.3478x - 22.214
R2 = 0.5896
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tree Height (m)
Appendix 85.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 1.3523x - 11.288
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.7173
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
90
Appendix 86.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree age for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 0.8188x - 22.588
R2 = 0.5219
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 87.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 1.8265x + 5.2108
R2 = 0.6966
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
25
30
35
91
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 88.
Fort Rock
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 2 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.9404x - 0.8724
R2 = 0.67
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Canopy Volume (m³)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree height for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 89.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 18.133x - 70.992
R2 = 0.6074
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Tree Height (m)
6
7
8
9
10
92
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 90.
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 3.0324x - 50.098
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.7876
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Scatterplot correlation between size class 3 weights and tree
age for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 91.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 1.7908x - 72.574
R2 = 0.5451
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Tree Age (yr)
60
70
80
90
93
Appendix 92.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 4.2786x - 15.496
R2 = 0.8347
200
150
100
50
0
-50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 93.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 3 Weight
(kg)
y = 0.9997x + 15.119
R2 = 0.8145
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Canopy Volume (m³)
120
140
160
180
94
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree height for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 94.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 22.534x - 85.757
R2 = 0.6841
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tree Height (m)
Appendix 95.
Scatterplot correlation between size class 4 weights and tree
basal diameter for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter
y = 3.5776x - 54.085
R2 = 0.7994
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
95
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree age for the Fort Rock site.
Appendix 96.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 2.2602x - 89.924
R2 = 0.6333
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 97.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy area for the Fort Rock site.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 5.0639x - 13.475
R2 = 0.8527
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
25
30
35
96
Appendix 98.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Fort Rock site.
Fort Rock
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 4 Weight
(kg)
y = 0.8611x + 10.143
R2 = 0.8285
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Canopy Volume (m³)
Appendix 99.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and tree
height for the Lakeview site.
Tree Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 76.236x - 255.98
R2 = 0.5757
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
Tree Height (m)
10
12
14
97
Appendix 100.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site.
Tree Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter
y = 13.717x - 283.38
R2 = 0.7569
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Appendix 101.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree age for the Lakeview site.
Tree Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 6.2327x - 124.36
R2 = 0.4607
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
Tree Basal Age (yr)
80
100
120
98
Appendix 102.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree canopy area for the Lakeview site.
Total Tree Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 9.6311x + 11.321
R2 = 0.9468
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 103.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Total Tree Weight (kg)
y = 0.6209x - 44.77
R2 = 0.874
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Canopy Volume (m³)
600
700
800
900
99
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 104.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 22.275x - 62.276
R2 = 0.5341
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Tree Height (m)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 105.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter
300
y = 3.9411x - 67.598
R2 = 0.6791
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
100
Appendix 106.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 1.5587x - 7.2685
R2 = 0.3131
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 107.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy area for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 2.6586x + 19.981
R2 = 0.7841
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
70
80
90
100
101
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 108.
Lakeview
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class1 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.8913x - 50.082
R2 = 0.7461
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Canopy Volume (m³)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree height for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 109.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 10.652x - 34.941
R2 = 0.4646
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
2
4
6
8
Tree Height (m)
10
12
14
102
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 110.
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 2.1371x - 47.649
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.7595
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Appendix 111.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree age for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 0.9059x - 18.761
R2 = 0.4023
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
Tree Age (yr)
80
100
120
103
Appendix 112.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy area for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 1.4241x + 0.3135
R2 = 0.8557
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 113.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 2 Weight
(kg)
y = 3.7589x - 22.153
R2 = 0.7749
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
Canopy Volume (m³)
100
120
140
104
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree height for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 114.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 26.184x - 116.76
R2 = 0.5195
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Tree Height (m)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 115.
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 4.3049x - 109.82
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.5703
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
105
Appendix 116.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree age for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 2.0019x - 62.802
R2 = 0.3635
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 117.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy area for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 3.3633x - 26.434
R2 = 0.8832
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
70
80
90
100
106
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 118.
Lakeview
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 3 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.7386x + 11.762
R2 = 0.8959
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Canopy Volume (m³)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree height for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 119.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 16.337x - 36.851
R2 = 0.3058
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
Tree Height (m)
10
12
14
107
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree basal diameter for the Lakeview site.
Appendix 120.
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 3.2992x - 57.203
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.5065
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Appendix 121.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree age for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 1.7544x - 35.06
R2 = 0.4222
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
Tree Age (yr)
80
100
120
108
Appendix 122.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy area for the Lakeview site.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 2.0936x + 19.638
R2 = 0.5175
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 123.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy volume for the Lakeview site.
Lakeview
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 4 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.3913x + 16.937
R2 = 0.3794
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
Canopy Volume (m³)
200
250
109
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree height for both sites combined.
Appendix 124.
Tree Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 74.706x - 260.08
R2 = 0.6399
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Tree Height (m)
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree basal diameter for both sites combined.
Appendix 125.
Tree Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter
y = 11.503x - 173.2
R2 = 0.7655
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
110
Appendix 126.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree age for both sites combined.
Tree Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 6.4927x - 185.99
R2 = 0.4924
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 127.
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree canopy area for both sites combined.
Total Tree Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 9.7164x + 37.506
R2 = 0.8554
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
70
80
90
100
111
Scatterplot and correlation between total tree weight and
tree canopy volume for both sites combined.
Appendix 128.
Combined Sites
Total Tree Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Tree Weight (kg)
y = 0.517x - 30.452
R2 = 0.7964
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Canopy Volume (m³)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree height for both sites combined.
Appendix 129.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 21.986x - 65.733
R2 = 0.6255
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
Tree Canopy Height (m)
10
12
14
112
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree basal diameter for both sites combined.
Appendix 130.
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 3.2783x - 36.468
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.7017
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Appendix 131.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree age for both sites combined.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 1.7445x - 33.431
R2 = 0.4012
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
Tree Age (yr)
80
100
120
113
Appendix 132.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy area for both sites combined.
Size Class 1 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 2.741x + 24.118
R2 = 0.7683
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 133.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 1 weights and
tree canopy volume for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 1 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 1 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.6588x - 41.909
R2 = 0.7263
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
Canopy Volume (m³)
200
250
300
114
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree height for both sites combined.
Appendix 134.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 9.7091x - 29.635
R2 = 0.5126
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Tree Height (m)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree basal diameter for both sites combined.
Appendix 135.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter
y = 1.5891x - 21.591
R2 = 0.6928
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
115
Appendix 136.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree age for both sites combined.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 0.8697x - 21.644
R2 = 0.4191
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 137.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy area for both sites combined.
Size Class 2 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 1.3313x + 7.725
R2 = 0.7617
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
70
80
90
100
116
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 2 weights and
tree canopy volume for both sites combined.
Appendix 138.
Combined Sites
Size Class 2 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 2 Weight
(kg)
y = 3.3703x - 26.79
R2 = 0.7135
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Canopy Volume (m³)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree height for both sites combined.
Appendix 139.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 22.809x - 96.979
R2 = 0.5444
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
Tree Height (m)
10
12
14
117
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree basal diameter for both sites combined.
Appendix 140.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter
350
y = 3.4029x - 66.683
R2 = 0.6115
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
Appendix 141.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree age for both sites combined.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 1.9142x - 70.061
R2 = 0.3907
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
Tree Age (yr)
80
100
120
118
Appendix 142.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy area for both sites combined.
Size Class 3 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
y = 3.1553x - 9.7455
R2 = 0.8234
80
90
100
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
Appendix 143.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 3 weights and
tree canopy volume for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 3 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 3 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.6052x + 3.7972
R2 = 0.8409
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
Canopy Volume (m³)
250
300
350
119
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree height for both sites combined.
Appendix 144.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Height
y = 19.784x - 65.149
R2 = 0.4782
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Tree Height (m)
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree basal diameter for both sites combined.
Appendix 145.
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Basal Diameter y = 3.2143x - 47.939
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
R2 = 0.6369
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
Tree Basal Diameter (cm)
50
60
70
120
Appendix 146.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree age for both sites combined.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Age
y = 1.9571x - 60.534
R2 = 0.4767
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Tree Age (yr)
Appendix 147.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy area for both sites combined.
Size Class 4 Weight (kg)
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs Tree Canopy Area
y = 2.4241x + 16.519
R2 = 0.5674
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tree Canopy Area (m²)
70
80
90
100
121
Appendix 148.
Scatterplot and correlation between size class 4 weights and
tree canopy volume for both sites combined.
Combined Sites
Size Class 4 Weight vs. Tree Canopy Volume
Size Class 4 Weight
(kg)
y = 1.2579x + 6.0581
R2 = 0.4423
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Canopy Volume (m³)
Appendix 149.
R-squares for correlations between individual tree weight
and individual independent variables (canopy area, canopy
volume, age, height, and basal diameter) for the Fort Rock
site.
Weight
Weight
Canopy
Area
Canopy
Volume
Age
Height
.8711
.8485
.6431 .7067
.8116
.9145
.6635 .8170
.7868
.7560 .9114
.7538
.7288
.6538
Canopy
Area
.7792
Canopy
Volume
.8485
.9624
Age
.6431
.6677
.7560
Height
.7067
.7253
.9114
.7288
Basal
Diameter
.8116
.7725
.7538
.6538 .6226
Basal
Diameter
.6226
122
Appendix 150.
R-squares for correlations between individual tree weight
and individual independent variables (canopy area, canopy
volume, age, height, and basal diameter) for the Lakeview
site .
Weight
Weight
Canopy
Area
Canopy
Volume
Age
Height
.9468
.8740
.4665 .5731
.7655
.9499
.3973 .6227
.6978
.3076 .6930
.5681
.2318
.4609
Canopy
Area
.9455
Canopy
Volume
.8740
.9499
Age
.4665
.3973
.3076
Height
.5731
.6227
.6930
.2318
Basal
Diameter
.7655
.6978
.5681
.4609 .4993
Basal
Diameter
.4993
123
Appendix 151.
R-squares for correlations between individual tree weight
and individual independent variables (canopy area, canopy
volume, age, height, and basal diameter) for both sites
combined.
Weight
Weight
Canopy
Area
Canopy
Volume
Age
Height
.8554
.7963
.4965 .6396
.7704
.9449
.3460 .5849
.6960
.2895 .6211
.5620
.3940
.4379
Canopy
Area
.8554
Canopy
Volume
.7963
.9499
Age
.4965
.3460
.2895
Height
.6396
.5849
.6211
.3940
Basal
Diameter
.7704
.6960
.5620
.4379 .5372
Appendix 152.
Basal
Diameter
.5372
R-squares for correlations between independent variables
(canopy area, canopy volume, age, height, and basal
diameter) and size class weights (1,2,3, and 4) for the Fort
Rock site.
Height
Age
Basal Diameter
Canopy Area
Canopy Volume
Size
Class 1
Size
Class 2
Size
Class 3
Size
Class 4
.7687
.6983
.6972
.8447
.8282
.5975
.5281
.7100
.6966
.6701
.6032
.5418
.7908
.8346
.8144
.6610
.6158
.8285
.8526
.8281
124
Appendix 153.
R-squares for correlations between independent variables
(canopy area, canopy volume, age, height, and basal
diameter) and size class weights (1,2,3, and 4) for the
Lakeview site.
Height
Age
Basal Diameter
Canopy Area
Canopy Volume
Appendix 154.
Size
Class 1
Size
Class 2
Size
Class 3
Size
Class 4
.5341
.3132
.6790
.7841
.7460
.4651
.4026
.7589
.8556
.7748
.5194
.3635
.5702
.8832
.8959
.3060
.4222
.5066
.5175
.3795
R-squares for correlations between independent variables
(total tree weight, canopy area, canopy volume, age, height,
and basal diameter) and fuel class weights (1, 2, 3, and 4)
for both sites combined.
Height
Age
Basal Diameter
Canopy Area
Canopy Volume
Size
Class 1
Size
Class 2
Size
Class 3
Size
Class 4
.6346
.4058
.6899
.7683
.7261
.5161
.4214
.6910
.7616
.7134
.5428
.3897
.6117
.8234
.8409
.4679
.4712
.6433
.5673
.4424
125
Appendix 155.
Weight prediction equations for individual tree dry weight
for Fort Rock, Lakeview, and both sites combined.
Site
Weight Prediction Equations
Fort Rock
Dry Weight = A + B*(canopy area) +
C*(basal diameter)
Lakeview
Dry Weight = A + B*(canopy area)
+C*(basal diameter)
Both Sites
Dry Weight = A + B*(canopy volume) +
C*(basal diameter) + D*(age)
Appendix 156.
Site
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE),
sample sizes (n) and r-squared values for the models
associated in appendix 155.
Coef. A
Coef. B
Coef. C
Coef. D
MSE
R²
Fort Rock -56.7634 10.0341
3.9281
49.72
.8542
Lakeview
-72.1944 7.8121
3.2802
39.76
.9575
Both
Sites
-123.51
4.8455
49.75
.9085
.7473
1.7171
126
Appendix 157.
Size class weight prediction equations for the Fort Rock
site.
Weight Prediction Equations
Size Class 1
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight) + C* (height)
Size Class 2
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight)
Size Class 3
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight) + C* (height)
+ D* (canopy volume)
Size Class 4
Dry Weight = A + B* (weight)
Appendix 158.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE), and
r-squared values for the models in appendix 157, for the
Fort Rock site.
Size
Class
One
Coef. A
Coef. B
Coef. C
-2.8922
.2374
3.8170
Two
6.2162
.1222
Three
13.5099
.2656
Four
-8.0289
.3246
-5.7292
Coef. D
.2067
MSE
R²
7.705
.9584
6.4245
.8613
6.3093 .9728
7.7502
.9678
127
Appendix 159.
Size class weight prediction equations for the Lakeview
site.
Weight Prediction Equations
Size Class 1
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight)
Size Class 2
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight)
Size Class 3
Dry Weight = A + B* (weight) + C* (height)
+ D*(canopy volume)
Size Class 4
Dry Weight = A + B* (weight) + C* (canopy
volume)
Appendix 160.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE), and
r-squared values for the models in appendix 159, for the
Lakeview site.
Size
Class
One
Coef. A
Coef. B
16.9048
Two
Coef. C
Coef. D
MSE
R²
.2761
24.83
.8148
-4.1386
.1610
10.27
.8973
Three
30.1620
.1060
-7.3127
18.59
.9330
Four
-9.0574
.5141
-0.3842
26.25
.7826
.3942
128
Appendix 161.
Size class weight prediction equations for both sites
combined.
Weight Prediction Equations
Size Class 1
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight)
Size Class 2
Dry Weight = A + B*(weight)
Size Class 3
Dry Weight = A + B*(canopy volume) +
C*(canopy area) + D*(weight)
Size Class 4
Dry Weight = A + B* (canopy volume) + C*
(canopy volume) + D* (weight)
Appendix 162.
Coefficient estimates, root mean squared errors (MSE), and
r-squared values for the models in appendix 161, for both
sites combined.
Size
Class
One
Coef. A
Coef. B
13.1375
Two
Coef. C
Coef. D
MSE
R²
.2820
17.77
.8677
2.5696
.1369
8.25
.8774
Three
-3.0422
.4406
-2.3485
.2535
13.83
.9360
Four
-15.349
-0.5093
2.4640
.3590
18.45
.8649
129