FOREST SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION
507- 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401
USDA Forest Service
Research Note INT-227
August 1977
SUMMARY OF NUTRIENT AND BIOMASS
DATA FROM TWO ASPEN SITES IN WESTERN UNITED STATES
Robert S. Johnston and Dale L. Bartos 1
ABSTRACT
SummaPy tables aPe ppesented fop abovegPound biomass and
nutrient concentPations foP 20 aspen tPees (Populus tremuloides
Mich:c.) that WePe sampled at two study sites in Utah and Wyorrring.
TPees wePe divided into seven components--leaves~ cUPPent twigs~
old twigs~ deadwood (hPanches)~ hPanches~ haPk~ and hole wood.
Samples fPom each component WePe analyzed foP nitPogen~ phosphorus~
potassium~ calcium~ sodium~ magnesium~ zinc~ iron~ and percent ash.
KEYWORDS:
nutrient concentration, biomass, aspen, Populus
tPemu loi des
This paper presents a compilation of aboveground biomass measurements and nutrient
concentrations of three c'lones of aspen (Populus tPemuloides Michx.) sampled at two
study sites in Utah and Wyoming. The study is part of a comprehensive research program to investigate the dynamics and functioning of the aspen ecosystem.
Aspen has been studied extensively in the eastern United States and other parts of
the world, but little work has been done on the aspen of the western United States. The
current research program includes the development of a predictive model of ecosystem
dynamics (Bartos 1973). Because of the lack of data, many relationships were developed
by using records from other areas. The data reported in this paper were collected to
validate and improve the model to make it more applicable to this region.
1 The authors are, respectively, Research Hydrologist and Range Scientist,
located at the Intermountain Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Logan, Utah.
Use of trade or firm names is for reader information only, and does not
constitute endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any commercial
product or service.
1
This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Aboveground biomass, biomass distribution within each tree, and major nutrients in
the various tree components were determined for 20 trees of varying size and age. The
trees sampled were selected from three clones located at two sites where multidisciplinary studies of aspen ecology,and management are being conducted.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND METHODS
The Chicken Creek site is located at 21 400m elevation on the Davis County Experimental Watershed, approximately 24 km northeast of Salt Lake City, Utah. The other
site, Gros Ventre, is located at 2,300 m elevation on the Bridger-Teton National Forest,
approximately 48 km northeast of Jackson, Wyoming. Vegetation, soils, and topography
of the Chicken Creek site were described by Johnston and Doty (1972). Vegetation and
topography of the Gros Ventre site were discussed by Krebill (1972) and the soils by
Bare (1972).
Individual clones at each site were identified by their phenotypic characteristics.
The tree samples represented the variation in size classes within the three clones.
Fourteen trees from two Chicken Creek clones were sampled in 1973. These clones
are designated Chicken Creek 3 and 4. Trees ranged in age from 16 to 91 years; the
mean age of trees in each clone was about 48 years. Tree heights ranged from about
4 to 18 m and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) from 3 to 27 em.
The six trees sampled at the Gros Ventre site in 1974 were older, ranging in age
from 94 to 151 years (average age, 116 years). Tree height ranged from 6 to 20m and
d.b.h. from 14 to 36 em.
A total tree harvest method was used to arrive at aboveground biomass. Trees
were harvested in August to make certain that maximum growth had been attained.
Diameter at breast height, age, and height of each tree were recorded. If the bole was
divided into manageable sections, additional diameter measurements were taken at the
midpoint of each section.
Trees were felled and divided into seven components (within-tree biomass)--leaves,
current twigs, old twigs, branches, deadwood, bark, and bole. A "current ·twig" was
considered to be one with leaves and an "old twig" was defined as that portion from the
bud scale scars of current growth back to the previous twig. All components were
weighed in the field to determine the green weight. Each part was then subsampled to
determine percent dry matter for conversion to dry weights. These subsamples were
ovendried at 70° C for at least 48 hours for leaves and twigs and 336 hours, or until
a constant weight occurred, for wood and bark.
Initially, 100 percent of the leaves, current twigs, and old twigs from several
trees were separated in the field. After this, a small portion of the total twig and
leaf components was sampled to conserve time. The calculated percentages were used to
convert the total weight into appropriate parts.
Two hundred leaves were randomly selected from each tree to determine leaf area
using a Lambda portable area meter. The total tree leaf area was then obtained by
multiplying the mean leaf area by the calculated number of leaves per tree (total leaf
weight divided by the average leaf weight).
All dried samples from the various tree parts were ground to pass through a 20-mesh
screen and then subsampled for nutrient determinations. Each sample was analyzed for
total nitrogen by the Kjeldahl method, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sodium, magnesium, zinc, iron, and percent ash on a dry weight basis. Metals were analyzed by atomic
absorption techniques, but other elements were analyzed according to Chapman and Pratt
(1961). All determinations were made in the Soils Laboratory at Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
2
RESULTS
Biomass Distribution
Appendix table 1 summarizes individual tree characteristics, and related biomass
measurements.
Graphical presentation of the distribution of aspen tree biomass among the seven
components for each of the clones is shown in figure 1. These data are expressed as a
CHICKEN CREEK 3
GROS VENTRE
CHICKEN CREEK 4
Figure I.--Distribution of aspen tree biomass among seven components expressed as a
percentage of the total weight.
3
percentage of total weight. The major portion of aboveground biomass is contained in
the bole, the next largest portion in the bark, and the third largest in the branches.
Leaves and current growth average 4 percent of the biomass.
Equations were developed to show the relationship between d.b.h. and total aboveground biomass for each of the study areas (fig. 2). The R2 values were 0.997 for each
curve. A single equation was developed for the Chicken Creek area by using pooled data
from the two clones.
400
350
300
250
Ci
CHICKEN CREEK
~
-l~ 0b.h.-1 3.2 ~
C/)
C/)
<(
~
0
200
iii
z
w
a..
669.2985 * e
0.57
1
~
="""'
- 1.5902
Where 0 <d. b. h. (em) S30
C/)
<(
150
~GROSVENTRE
d.b.h.- 113.5
- 70
I0.555
755.3436 " e
-0.2938
100
Where Q< d.b.h. (em)< 35
50
5
10
15
20
25
D.B.H. (em)
Figure 2.--0riginal
data~
predictive equation~ and fitted curve for total aspen biomass
for Chicken Creek and Gras Ventre Study sites.
4
Nutrient Analyses
All nutrient analyses for the 20 trees are summarized in appendix tables 2-8. Each
table lists nutrient concentrations of each tree for a single component part. Nutrient
concentrations in the bark and bole components of small trees are listed as a single
entry. In large trees, these components were divided into several sections and the
nutrient concentration of each section is presented.
Total content of each element per tree or component can be derived by multiplying
the elemental concentration by the corresponding dry weight of the component to provide
a weighted value.
PUBLICATIONS CITED
Bare, H. H.
1972. Soils report; proposed breakneck burn area - Teton National Forest - Gros
Ventre District. 4 p. USDA For. Serv., Intermt. Reg. Ogden, Utah.
Bartos, D. L.
1973. A dynamic model of aspen succession,
Univ. Maine Press, Orono. 532 p.
In: IUFRO biomass studies, p. 11-25.
Chapman, H. D., and P. F. Pratt.
1961. Methods of analysis for soils, plants, and waters.
Div. Agric. Sci.
509 p.
Univ. Calif.-Davis,
Johnston, R. S., and R. D. Doty.
1972. Description and hydrologic analysis of two small watersheds in Utah's Wasatch
Mountains. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-127, 53 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp.
Stn., Ogden, Utah.
Krebill, R. C.
1972. Mortality of aspen on the Gros Ventre elk winter range. USDA For. Serv .. Res.
Pap. INT-129, 16 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.
5
APPENDIX
7
Table I.--Summary of individual tree characteristics and related biomass measurements
Tree
No. :D.B.H.
Age
Height : at d.b.h. : Leaf area
am
..
: Current : Old
twigs : twigs : Branch
am 2
m
Dead
wood
Bark
Bole
Weight
total
0.150
.202
.007
.073
5.088
.564
.846
3.503
7.056
.468
.371
61.627
25.690
39.882
8.555
14.319
1.146
.957
157.028
68.719
111.846
14.224
27.352
1. 749
1.671
269.645
105.371
178.521
.624
.058
.260
.053
55.220 35.250
16.128 6.080
5.170 2.280
6.985 2.426
.217
.133
1. 925
.079
.053
.560
46.262
19.130
8.827
8.613
.609
1. 982
.787
99.!73
38.546
18.316
20.524
1. 390
5.589
1. 514
242.03
82.24
36.60
40.77
2.59
10.72
3.22
.758
1. 732
.235
1.392
.266
.104
25.264 5.202
26.827 5.090
4.104 2.108
72.620 18.295
3.440 2.858
1.651 1. 220
22.490
39.650
8.828
64.647
4.168
4.849
51.033
151.507
29.364
238.365
19.134
9.526
107.39
228.46
45.44
399.74
30.50
17.84
Leaves :
- - - - kg Chicken Creek 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
11
7.9
10.9
3.3
3.0
27.4
18.3
22.3
8.6
10.4
4.0
4.8
17.1
16.0
17.7
27
30
25
16
91
71
71
53,116
132,096
6,277
19,608
344,802
89,308
330,476
0.416
1.197
.048
.129
4.466
1.170
3.662
0.034
. 078
.003
.031
.330
.113
.264
0.162
.260
.019
.015
1.266
.235
~)
1.404
3.240
.058
.095
39.840
8.880
22.021
Chicken Creek 4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
25.4
17.3
12.7
12.2
3.8
6.9
4.3
11
8.5
8.6
8.7
3.8
5.8
3.8
88
60
50
51
29
31
29
196,803
.507
.198
4.494
1.641
1.120
.516
~--------2.001--------~
188,729
23,820
51,615
29,463
1.425
.168
.782
.240
.174
.015
.103
.017
Gros Ventre
1
2
3
4
5
6
23.6
28.7
16.8
36.0
14.0
13.5
10.4
16.0
11.7
20.4
12.0
6.3
1167 (200)
104
99
143
71 (100)
30 (80)
332,866
329,140
92,418
459,178
82,398
54,007
2.440
3.158
.741
3.547
.568
.449
.200
.501
.063
.876
.070
.046
1 Age to heartrot - estimated age in parentheses.
2 Old twigs included with branches on tree 11.
Table 2.--Nutrient concentration for the leaf component for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
N
p
Na
- - - - -
Ca
K
Mg
Fe
Zn
- - )J.g/g - -
Ash
%
Chicken Creek 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
11
25,250
23,850
25,000
27,750
23,400
21,250
23,050
1,500
1,700
1,650
2,500
1,400
1,350
1,550
36
37.5
44.5
38.5
49
42
43.5
9,850
9,750
9,350
10,100
7,900
9,700
9,050
10,750
13,050
14,800
14,500
10,550
10,300
10,800
2,700
2,500
3,200
2,950
2,250
2,100
2,400
77.5
62.5
80
90
100
165
157.5
180
148.5
99.5
165
122.5
89
97
5.58
5. 78
5.99
6.45
5.00
5.41
5.27
Chicken Creek 4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
23,700
1,650
1,550
46
46.5
10,600
23,400
9,900
11,650
11,950
2,100
2,300
100
65
60
71.5
5.76
5.57
23,900
22,300
23,900
20,500
1,500
1,500
1,700
1,700
45.5
65.5
49.5
60
11,200
9,600
10,050
15,450
11,400
13,000
13,250
11,400
2,150
3,150
2,450
1,950
107.5
125
172.5
115
60.5
63.5
65
66
5.74
6.15
6.47
6.86
3,300
1,750
2,950
2,500
3,250
2,050
51.5
68.5
52
72.5
66
71.5
90.5
77.5
80.5
115
141
101
5.10
5.67
5. 74
7.43
8.31
5.79
Gros Ventre
1
2
3
4
5
6
24,650
26,250
26,850
29,000
30,250
26,000
1,950
2,200
2,200
2,300
2,450
2,100
26
27
23
23.5
39
21
9,200
15,250
13,450
18,500
18,850
15,350
9,850
8,050
9,250
12,550
13,300
9,350
9
.
·'
:
Table 3.--Nutrient concentration for the current twig component for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
N
p
Na
Ca
K
Mg
Fe
Zn
llg/g -
Ash
%
Chicken Creek 3
3*
4*
5
6
11
11,900
11,450
11,150
11,150
11,350
12,100
11,400
1,650
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,500
1,550
1,700
50.5
54.5
41.5
41.5
53
52
42
6,650
5,600
6,900
6,900
5,650
5,850
5,400
12,050
13,700
10,050
10,050
12,950
12,350
13,700
2,450
1,900
1,800
1,800
2,050
1,900
2,150
34.5
33
37.5
37.5
44.5
78
47
156.5
121.5
96
96
129.5
85.5
95
5.07
5.15
4.26
4.26
4.50
4.90
5.18
Chicken Creek 4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
10,700
10,900
2,050
1,850
60
53
6,400
6,400
11,950
11,750
2,100
2,250
53.5
48.5
82
94
4.89
4.67
10,750
11,100
9,950
11,300
1,750
2,350
1,850
2,350
61
68.5
55.5
66
6,800
6,850
6,050
7,750
13,350
11,150
12,150
13,750
2,350
3,100
2,300
2,500
46
48
63.5
55
85.5
88
83
96
5.17
4. 72
1,900
1,050
2,200
1,200
1,550
1,450
29.5
38
30.5
37.5
28.5
60.5
4.7~
4.75
Gros Ventre
1
2
3
4
5
6
10,300
9,900
11,800
10,650
13,400
9,350
1,800
2,000
2,150
2,000
2,600
2,000
34
44
43
24
28
39
5,400
6,450
6,600
8,450
9,400
7,950
10,050
9,100
9,650
8,700
10,400
10,650
92
73
91
73
90
108
3.93
4.04
4.15
4.15
4.92
4.70
* Trees 3 and 4 were combined for nutrient analysis.
Table 4.--Nutrient concentration for the old twig component for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
N
p
Na
Ca
K
Mg
Fe
- )Jg/g - -
Zn
Ash
- - - - -
%
Chicken Creek 3
1
2
3*
4*
5
6
11
7,000
6,950
6,600
6,600
7,250
8,050
750
900
800
800
800
900
75
75.5
64
64
84
72
4,750
4,150
3,800
3,800
4,650
4,750
14,600
18,450
16,250
16,250
15,000
14,650
1,450
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,250
1,300
35
27.5
35
35
47
51
135.5
112
97.5
97.5
110
77
5.00
5.94
5.24
5.24
5.03
5.23
Chicken Creek 4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
8,100
7,700
1,300
1,250
52
46
5,150
4,900
10,850
11,150
1,350
1,700
36
39.5
66
65.5
4.17
4.26
7,600
7,550
7,050
7,750
1,050
1,250
1,300
1,400
56
58
43
47
5,000
5,100
4,450
5,500
12,950
10,350
11,600
10,800
1,700
2,150
1,700
1,550
35.5
30.5
34.5
55
61
55.5
53
66.5
4.78
3.58
4.07
3.54
1,350
750
1,250
900
1,200
1,100
42.5
54
49
31
42
46
92.5
78.5
89.5
76.5
87.5
83
3.78
4.27
3.75
3.79
4.16
4.28
Gros Ventre
1
2
3
4
5
6
5,700
5,900
6,600
7,000
7,600
6,850
1,000
900
1,250
1,300
1,350
1,250
37
45.5
40
40
60
48
4,700
5,750
6,000
6,750
6,750
7,200
9,950
11,450
9,150
8,450
9,850
10,400
* Trees 3 and 4 were combined for nutrient analysis.
10
Table 5.--Nutrient concentration for the branch component for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
N
p
Na
Ca
K
- llg
- -
Mg
Fe
Zn
- - -
Ash
%
Chicken Creek 3
2
3*
4*
5
6
11
5,050
5,150
6,050
6,050
5,150
5,600
5,100
600
650
850
850
550
500
550
51
46.5
66
66
55
54.5
55.5
3,050
2,650
3,250
3,250
3,000
3,000
2,600
14,850
16,050
16,100
16,100
16,650
20,300
17,150
1,150
1,050
1,350
1,350
1,000
1,000
1,000
34
32.5
30.5
30.5
28
30.5
21.5
119
122.5
94.5
94.5
115
84
85
4.72
4.97
5.10
5.10
4.04
6.17
5.33
Chicken Creek 4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
5,900
5,700
700
700
77
99
3,050
3,200
13,000
17,450
1,100
1,450
15
29.5
76.5
78
4.31
4.78
5,900
5,700
5,050
5,950
700
700
650
750
64
67
58.5
75.5
3,650
3,000
2,650
3,300
14,500
13,900
16,800
15,950
1,400
1,700
1,500
1,400
22
17
54
27.5
63
55
69.5
68
4.65
4.41
5.17
4.98
1,050
650
1,050
800
1,150
900
42.5
19
38.5
21
20.5
30
78
75.5
80
78.5
86
84
3.50
3.63
3.30
2.98
3.58
3.77
Gros Ventre
1
2
3
4
5
6
3,700
4,850
3,950
4,600
3,750
4,350
700
650
750
800
600
650
26
22
27
26
22.5
37
2,650
3,700
2,800
3,700
2,800
3,650
9,900
10,950
8,800
8,450
11,450
11 '000
* Trees 3 and 4 were combined for nutrient analysis.
Table 6.--Nutrient concentration for the dead wood component for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
N
p
Na
Ca
K
Bg
Fe
Zn
Ash
%
]lg
Chicken Creek 3
3*
4*
5
6
11
4,600
4,300
4,400
4,400
3,700
3,850
3,400
200
550
200
200
150
200
100
134
96.5
68.5
68.5
132.5
84
79.5
15,450
20,700
11,800
11,800
16,400
11,950
19,300
1,400
2,650
1,900
1,900
950
1,750
1,500
850
1,200
900
900
700
500
750
114.5
113
75.5
75.5
93.5
86
74
4.89
6.54
3. 70
3.70
4.77
2.68
4.76
178
193
64
62.5
4.25
3.50
154
55
30.5
30.5
78
36.5
36
Chicken Creek 4
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
4,300
4,300
150
200
4,100
4,600
6,100
4,550
100
200
400
100
86
80
81
92
153.5
71.5
750
750
13,850
11,450
700
650
500
1,050
2,200
450
10,250
13,900
16,400
9,750
500
1,000
1,100
450
195
129.5
46
106
60
55
50
45.5
3.17
3.29
4.96
2.84
850
500
450
550
550
500
85
139
314
192.5
116.5
147
89
65.5
47
57.5
54
64
3.96
2.74
2.10
2.35
2.13
2.60
Gros Ventre
1
2
3
4
5
6
3,100
2,950
3,000
2,900
2,600
3,050
200
250
250
200
200
200
57
49
57
45.5
64.5
64
12,700
8,450
4,850
6,800
5,800
7,600
950
1,000
500
700
600
1,100
* Trees 3 and 4 were combined for nutrient analysis.
11
Table ?.--Nutrient concentration for the bole component by section for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
Section
N
p
Na
Ca
K
em
Mg
-
Jlg/g -
Fe
- - - -
Zn
- -
--
Ash
-
%
Chicken Creek 3
2.8
6.4
9.1
26
30.5
25
27
0.49
.32
l. 58
.80
21
21
14.5
14.5
.25
.25
200
200
19
19
14.5
14.5
. 35
.35
600
600
200
200
65.5
65.5
18.5
18.5
.32
.32
1,000
900
1,850
750
500
1,000
1,400
1,200
2,400
900
1,500
1,480
300
250
500
250
200
300
70
23
24
21.5
24
33
31
17.5
24
14.5
17.5
21
.64
.45
.84
.28
.37
.52
73.5
34.5
20.5
43
1,750
1,550
650
1,317
850
1,750
1,100
1,233
300
400
200
300
36
20
18
25
14
13.5
12.5
13
.58
.71
.49
.59
17
11
33.5
21
800
600
450
617
1,050
1,050
450
850
200
200
150
183
30
15.5
17.5
21
12.5
9.5
9
10
. 51
.36
.18
.35
1,600
1,200
1,100
1,30()
200
100
100
133
50.5
50
44
48
1,400
850
3,350
1,867
850
800
3,250
1,633
300
300
750
450
X
-
1,100
1,100
100
100
29.5
29.5
700
700
600
600
200
200
3
x
1,250
1,250
100
100
38.5
38.5
750
750
850
850
4
x
1,400
1,400
200
200
24
24
950
950
1,750
1,200
1,150
1,050
1,000
1,230
200
100
100
100
65
113
36
24
15.5
28.5
11.0
23
1,450
1,100
900
1,150
150
100
45
98
1,200
1,000
800
1,000
150
100
100
117
X
5
2.5
7.9
15.5
20.3
27.4
X
6
6.1
15.8
19.3
X
11
8.8
14.4
23.4
X
19
137.5
14.5
57
Chicken Creek 4
3.3
8.8
18.2
26.0
3,250
1,600
1,250
1,200
1,825
550
200
100
100
238
35
15.5
14
14
20
1,500
900
1,400
950
1,188
3,950
1,300
1,100
1,450
1,950
400
200
300
250
313
41.5
26.5
28
16.5
28
32.5
11
11
12
17
l. 50
4.1
6.7
13.0
18.2
1,850
1,500
1,300
1,350
1,500
450
200
200
100
238
110.5
70.5
32.5
44.5
65
1,150
1,000
1,700
1,450
1,325
1,550
1,050
2,050
1,800
1,613
400
300
450
400
388
27.5
25
20
23
24
15
11.5
15
14.5
14
.53
.53
. 74
.77
.64
3.6
10.0
14.9
1,550
1,350
1,250
1,383
300
150
100
183
20.5
18.5
14.5
18
1,000
850
1,000
950
1,100
1,400
1,150
1,217
300
250
250
267
30.5
21.5
21.5
25
27
13.5
12
18
.50
.41
.49
.47
5.7
9.1
14.0
1,500
1,400
1,200
1,367
300
200
100
200
31.5
33
21.5
29
1,100
1,350
600
1' 017
1,000
1,000
550
850
300
300
150
250
50
29
27.5
36
13.5
14
9.5
12
.45
.55
.27
.42
1,100
1,400
1,250
1,250
300
300
200
267
41.5
36.5
29.5
36
1,050
950
600
867
1,200
1,000
450
883
400
300
200
300
107.5
77.5
40.5
75
17
11
17.5
15
.90
.54
.22
.55
1,550
1,300
1,250
1,367
450
200
200
283
102
38.5
76
72
1,100
700
750
850
650
700
350
567
300
250
200
250
30
41.5
42.5
38
15.5
11.0
10
12
0.41
.44
.26
.37
2,300
1,200
1,650
1' 717
400
250
200
283
20.5
17
18.5
19
1,450
900
750
1' 033
500
950
700
717
350
250
150
250
71
70
59
67
17.5
11.5
11.5
14
.55
.41
.40
.45
x
X
9
x
10
X
12
2.1
3.4
5.7
X
13
3.2
5.7
7.8
X
14
2.7
3.6
5.8
X
.50
.54
.43
. 74
(con.)
12
Table 7.--(con.)
Tree
No. : Section
N
p
Na
Ca
K
em
Mg
Fe
Zn
------
IJ.g/fj -
Ash
%
Gros Ventre
4.3
6.4
13.2
17.5
17.5
18.8
25.7
X
8.4
17.3
21.6
26.4
31.2
X
3
7.1
9.4
11.7
13.2
16.5
X
4
11.2
20.8
26.7
27.7
30.2
38.9
X
5
4.1
8.6
10.7
13.2
X
6
9.8
14.5
X
1,650
1,250
1,100
1,150
900
1,200
1,000
1,179
150
<100
100
<100
150
<100
<100
ll4
28
30
50
24
44
19
22
31
950
400
500
350
500
750
350
543
1,450
1,100
950
1,150
1,150
1,250
750
1' ll4
350
200
300
300
300
350
200
286
llO
<4
10.5
10.5
20.5
8.5
4.5
24
18.5
10
9.5
10.5
10
10.5
9.5
ll
0.66
.40
. 39
.41
. 37
.45
.31
.43
1,150
1,000
750
700
1,000
920
100
<100
<100
<100
<100
100
28
17
25
23
38
26
600
500
400
300
450
450
1,050
1,200
1,000
1,000
750
1,000
250
200
200
200
100
190
4.5
18.5
7.5
6.5
15.5
ll
15
12
12.5
ll. 5
12.5
13
.46
.46
. 38
.38
.33
.40
1,300
1,150
1,000
850
950
1,050
100
<100
<100
<100
<100
100
43
26
40
18
13
28
750
500
350
450
950
600
1,150
1,050
1,150
1,000
1,000
1,070
300
300
300
300
250
290
16
5.5
17.5
4.5
4
10
12.5
11.5
9
10
7
10
.52
.45
.42
.40
.31
.42
1,250
1,000
900
850
800
900
950
200
<100
100
<100
<100
<100
117
23
51
10
24
15
33
26
850
550
650
450
650
750
650
1,150
1,150
1,250
1,300
1,450
1,150
1,242
300
200
300
300
300
300
283
17.5
8
9
24.5
23
10
15
11
12.5
10
12
14.5
11
12
.55
.47
.40
.54
.53
.44
.49
1,100
850
900
1,300
1,038
200
100
<100
150
138
20
21
58
22
30
700
400
500
1,250
713
1,300
1,300
1,350
1,850
1,450
250
300
350
500
350
11.5
4.5
16.5
10
11
18
14
12.5
15.5
15
0.40
.48
.52
. 78
.55
1,650
1,200
1,425
200
<100
150
27
14
21
1,450
1,750
1,600
4,900
4,150
4,525
900
850
875
18.5
7.5
13
26
21
24
1.72
l. 49
l. 61
* All sections combined.
13
Table B.--Nutrient concentration for the bark component by section for 20 aspen trees
Tree
No.
Section
N
p
Na
-
em
Ca
K
- - - -
Mg
Fe
Zn
Ash
%
IJg/g -
Chicken Creek 3
X
7,050
5,100
4,150
5,433
900
650
300
617
31
39
33
34
4,150
3,150
2,150
3,150
16,100
17,300
16,100
16,500
1,300
1,100
700
1,033
x
5,150
5,150
650
650
32.5
32.5
3,350
3,350
13,000
13,000
3
x
4,650
4,650
350
350
46.5
46.5
2,500
2,500
4
x
5,400
5,400
750
750
29.5
29.5
5,700
5,400
4,950
4,650
3,900
4,920
550
450
400
350
300
410
4,450
4,400
4,000
4,283
5,150
4,950
4,000
4,700
2.8
6.4
9.1
5
2.5
7.9
15.5
20.3
27.4
X
6
6.1
15.8
19.3
X
11
8.8
14.4
23.4
X
24
23
18
22
149.5
167
152
156
4.92
5.40
4. 75
5.02
800
800
27.5
27.5
130.5
130.5
3.74
3.74
21,300
21,300
900
900
28.5
28.5
115.5
115.5
6.52
6.52
3,550
3,550
14,000
14,000
800
800
30
30
119
119
3.49
3.49
44.5
43.5
17.0
21.5
59.5
37
3,600
2,450
2,100
2,150
2,000
2,460
19,850
21,100
21,300
20,700
17,700
20,130
1,000
1,050
900
850
600
880
19
14
18
14.5
17.5
17
167.5
164.5
165
171
140.5
162
6.27
5.36
4.64
6.10
5.25
5.52
300
300
300
300
37
52.5
37
42
3,400
2,550
2,050
2,667
20,800
20,550
17,000
19,450
950
750
600
767
18
22
31.5
24
120.5
129.5
106.5
119
6.39
6.35
5.18
5.97
450
450
300
400
27.5
27.5
33
29
2,350
2,450
2,500
2,433
17,100
17,400
16,650
17,050
1,050
900
600
850
25.5
84
24
45
133
132."5
121
129
4.96
5.23
4.35
4.85
Chicken Creek 4
3.3
8.8
18.2
26.0
750
550
500
450
563
37
34.5
38.5
40
3,800
2,450
2,350
2,500
2,775
13,650
15,850
15,600
16,100
15,300
1,100
1,300
1,250
1,200
1,213
33
14.5
20.5
16
21
107
121
124
137
122
4.41
4.55
4.74
5.01
4.68
6,100
5,800
4,800
4,250
5,238
850
600
400
350
550
49
39
42
42.5
43
3,200
2,650
1,950
2,400
2,550
19,600
18,800
18,750
17,050
18,550
1,800
1,700
1,400
1,050
1,488
13
23
28
13.5
19
149
142
121
109.5
130
6.39
5,83
5.59
5.16
5.47
3.6
10.0
14.9
6,350
4,950
4,550
5,283
800
500
400
567
42
74.5
47
55
4,100
2,200
2,650
2,983
13,950
15,300
14,950
14,733
1,500
1,200
1,100
1,267
29.5
22
13
22
139
126.5
104.5
123
4.66
4.59
4.55
4.60
5.7
9.1
14.0
5,600
6,350
4,450
5,467
500
750
300
517
26.5
38.5
55.5
40
2,400
3,150
2,400
2,650
15,300
14,050
15,500
14,950
1,600
1,450
1,000
1,350
24
16.5
14
18
106.5
126.5
97
110
4.79
4.63
4.53
4.65
9,100
5,700
4,850
6,550
950
650
500
700
125
57
46
76
3,400
3,200
2,400
3, 000
18,250
16,950
16,250
17,150
2,000
1,600
1,150
1,583
24
22
39
106
113.5
100.5
107
5.85
5.56
5.03
5.48
7,600
6,600
4,100
6,100
700
700
400
600
162.5
87
42
97
3,650
2,900
2,450
3,000
15,000
15,000
15,200
15,067
1,700
1,450
900
1,350
24.5
78
13
39
121.5
373
101.5
199
4.79
4.56
4.48
4.61
11,000
7,000
5,000
7,667
950
650
500
700
91
64
45
57
4,200
3,300
2,400
3,300
17,250
19,050
16,450
17,583
1,650
1,600
1,100
1,450
78
80
58.5
143
135
109
129
4.40
4.48
4.84
4.57
X
8
4.1
6.7
13.0
18.2
X
9
x
10
X
12
2.1
3.4
5.7
X
13
3.2
5.7
7.8
X
14
so
6,550
5,850
5,350
5,350
5, 775
2.7
3.6
5.8
x
72
72
(con.)
14
•'
Table 8.--(con.)
Tree
No. : Section
em
N
p
Na
K
- - - - 11g/g-
Ca
Mg
Fe
Zn
-------
Ash
%
Gros Ventre
4.3
6.4
13.2
17.5
17.5
18.8
25.7
X
8.4
17.3
21.6
26.4
31.2
X
3
7.1
9.4
11.7
13.2
16.5
X
4
11.2
20.8
26.7
27.7
30.2
38.9
X
5
4.1
8.6
10.7
13.2
X
6
9.8
14.5
X
4,300
4,050
3,750
3,900
3,850
3,400
3,800
3,864
700
450
500
500
500
450
800
557
26
26.5
21.5
25
23.5
17
20.5
23
2,650
2,200
2,250
2,350
2,150
3,000
4,800
2, 771
20,850
23,750
15,950
14,100
17,250
19,300
12' 050
17,607
1,500
1,300
1,400
1,400
1,350
1,250
1,400
1,371
20.5
14
19
9.5
22.5
24.5
28.5
20
168.5
158.5
130.5
141
160
130
108.5
142
6.31
6.95
5.03
5.17
5.44
6. 73
5.16
5.83
5,950
5,850
4,900
4,050
4,300
5,010
700
650
550
600
750
650
26.5
19
21
24
29
24
3,400
2,950
2,900
3,150
5,350
3,550
8,450
10,500
11,300
12,450
13,150
11' 170
900
1,050
1,050
900
900
960
17
21
16
26
38.5
24
131
143.4
140
136.5
124
135
2.90
3.63
3.85
4.06
4.78
3.84
4,600
3,950
3,650
3,300
3,200
3,740
600
500
500
350
600
510
18
36
23
22
36
27
3,000
2,150
2,200
1,750
2,650
2,350
16,650
14,850
15,950
20,500
13,550
16,300
1,500
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,400
1,420
14.5
34
13.5
13
16
18
134.5
139.5
147.5
146.5
115
137
5.51
5.56
5.73
6.05
5.15
5.60
5,700
5,550
5,600
4,650
4,700
4,550
5,125
750
750
750
650
600
750
708
19
123.5
20.5
106
28
31
55
3,350
3,250
3,450
3,300
2,850
5,000
3,533
10,250
10,550
12,950
12,350
13,050
11,700
11,808
900
1,250
1,550
1,400
1,650
1,900
1,442
20
14
15
32
16
23
20
117.5
131
144
138
145.5
121
133
3.51
3. 77
4.64
4.34
4.35
4.94
4.26
5,000
4,750
4,150
5,000
4, 725
1,000
800
600
750
788
27
26
22.5
23
25
3,650
3,000
2,650
3,250
3,178
17,550
17,100
16,800
16,700
17,038
1,600
2,200
1,950
4,150
2,475
56
36
33.5
36.5
41
158
183
177.5
140
165
5. 72
5.47
5.60
5.75
5.64
5,000
4,100
4,550
500
500
500
19.5
25
22
3,050
3,850
3,450
13,900
17,050
15,475
1,100
1,000
1,050
16
22
19
181.5
167.5
175
4.89
5.39
5.14
* All sections combined.
15
Headquarters for the Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station are in Ogden, Utah.
Field programs and research work units are
maintained in:
Billings, Montana
Boise, Idaho
Bozeman, Montana (in cooperation with
Montana State University)
Logan, Utah (in cooperation with Utah State
University)
Missoula, Montana (in cooperation with
University of Montana)
Moscow, Idaho (in cooperation with the
University of Idaho)
Provo, Utah (in cooperation with Brigham
Young University)
Reno, Nevada (in cooperation with the
University of Nevada)
1}u.s.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-0-7 77 - 023 • 17