United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Pacific Northwest
Research Station
Research Paper
PNW-RP-580
August 2009
Levels-of-Growing-Stock
Cooperative Study in Douglasfir: Report No. 19—The Iron
Creek Study, 1966–2006
Robert O. Curtis and David D. Marshall
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the
principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry
research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by
Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 7953272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
Authors
Robert O. Curtis is an emeritus scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625
rd
93 Avenue SE, Olympia, WA 98512; David D. Marshall is a biometrician,
Weyerhaeuser Co., Federal Way, WA 98001.
Abstract
Curtis, Robert O.; Marshall, David D. 2009. Levels­of­growing­stock coopera­
tive study in Douglas­fir: report no. 19—The Iron Creek study, 1966–2006.
Res. Pap. PNW­RP­580. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 78 p.
This report documents the history and results of the Iron Creek installation of the
cooperative Levels­of­Growing­Stock (LOGS) study in Douglas­fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), over the period 1966–2006 (ages 19 to 59). This is a
1949 plantation on an excellent site, and is one of nine installations in the study.
Results are generally consistent with those from other LOGS installations. Volume
production of thinned stands increased with increased growing stock. Current
volume growth shows no sign of decreasing, and is still about twice mean annual
increment. On similar public lands, rotations considerably longer than indicated by
conventional economic analyses could reduce land use conflicts and increase carbon
sequestration while maintaining or increasing long­term timber outputs. Small plot
size prevents further thinning, which would otherwise be desirable in some treat­
ments. The principal future value of the data is for use (in combination with other
data) in development of growth models.
Keywords: Thinning, growing stock, growth and yield, stand density, Douglas­
fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii series, Douglas­fir LOGS
Summary
This report documents the history and results of the Iron Creek installation of the
cooperative Levels­of­Growing­Stock (LOGS) study in Douglas­fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, over the period 1966–2006 (ages 19 to 59). This 1949
plantation on an excellent site is one of nine installations in the study.
Site index is quite uniform across treatments and plots, and major damage has
been limited to loss of one plot from Phellinus weirii. Results are generally consis­
tent with those from other LOGS installations. Volume production of thinned stands
increased with increased growing stock. Thinning treatments have produced mark­
edly different diameter distributions. Thinned plots have developed an understory of
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and redcedar (Thuja plicata
Donn ex D. Don.). Data now include 17 years after the last thinning. Current
volume growth shows no sign of decreasing, and is still about twice mean annual
increment. On similar public lands, rotations considerably longer than indicated by
conventional economic analyses could reduce land use conflicts and increase carbon
sequestration while maintaining or increasing long­term timber outputs. At age 59,
stands are in excellent condition and should respond well to thinning. Such an
extension of the experiment is judged to be impractical because of the small plot
size. The principal future value of the data is for use (in combination with other
data) in development of growth models.
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Introduction
TheIronCreeklevels­of­growing­stock(LOGS)installationisoneofnineinstalla­
tionsinaregionalstudyestablishedinyoungeven­agedDouglas­fir(Pseudotsuga
1
menziesii(Mirb.)Franco)standsaccordingtoacommonworkplan (seereportNo.
1,WilliamsonandStaebler1971inappendix1inthisreport(fig.1).Thisstudyis
acooperativeeffortbetweentheBritishColumbiaMinistryofForests,Canadian
ForestService,OregonStateUniversity,USDAForestService,WashingtonDe­
partmentofNaturalResources,andWeyerhaueserCompany.Theobjectiveisto
comparegrowth­growingstockrelations,cumulativewoodproduction,andtree
sizedevelopmentundereightdensitycontrolregimesbegunbeforetheonsetof
severecompetition.TheoriginalstudyplanwasdevelopedatWeyerhaeuserCom­
pany,Centralia,Washington.ProceduraldetailsweredevelopedbythePacific
NorthwestResearchStation,USDAForestService,Portland,Oregon.ThePacific
NorthwestResearchStationservedasthecoordinatingagencyinstudyinstallation
andanalyses.
Detailedprogressreportsonindividualinstallationsarecontainedintheseries
ofLOGSpublicationslistedinappendix1.Eightofthenineinstallationshave
completedthefullcourseoftheexperimentasoriginallyplanned.
TheIronCreekinstallationwasestablishedin1966bythePacificNorthwest
ResearchStationandthePacificNorthwestRegion(Region6)oftheUSDAFor­
estService.Attheendofthe1989growingseason,IronCreekhadcompletedthe
fifthandfinaltreatmentperiodoftheexperimentasoriginallyplanned.Resultsas
ofthatdatehavebeengiveninCurtisandClendenen(1994).Nostandtreatments
havebeenappliedsincethe1984thinning.However,remeasurementsin1994,
1999,and2006providearecordof17yearsofdevelopmentsubsequenttothat
giveninthe1994report,tostandage59.
Thisreportincludestheinformationfromthe1994reportandupdatesthatre­
porttoprovideinonepublicationinformationonstanddevelopmentoverthefull
periodofrecordnowavailable.Wehaveincludedintheappendixalargenumber
ofdetailedtablesgivingvaluesbyplotandbytreatment.Mostreaderswillnot
wantthisamountofdetail,but—becausethiswillprobablybethelastreporton
theinstallation—wewishedtoincludeasmuchaspossibleoftheinformationthat
mightbewantedbyanyoneinterestedinmakingtheirowncomparisons.Wealso
1
Staebler, G.R.; Williamson, R.L. 1962. Plan for a level­of­growing­stock sudy in
Douglas­fir. Unpublished study plan. On file with: Forestry Sciences Laboratory,
rd
3625 93 Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512.
1
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 1—Location of Levels­of­Growing­
Stock study installations.
giveinformationbytreatmentinthestandardstanddevelopmenttableformat
(inbothEnglishandmetricunits)thathasbeenusedinotherrecentreportsin
theLOGSseries,althoughthisinvolvessomeduplicationofinformationinother
tables.
Objectives
TheLOGScooperativestudiesevolvedfromworkinthelate1950sbyGeorge
Staebler(1959,1960).Staeblerhypothesizedthatthinningwouldtransferincre­
menttotheremainingfastergrowingtreesandincreasegrowthpercentagethrough
reductioningrowingstock,whilelargelyeliminatingmortalitylosses.Healso
recognizedthattheimpliedassumptionofnear­constantgrossincrementovera
widerangeofstockinghadnotbeentested.TheobjectivesoftheLOGSstudies,
asstatedinthe1962plan,were“todeterminehowtheamountofgrowingstock
2
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
retainedinrepeatedlythinnedstandsofDouglas­firaffectscumulativewoodpro­
duction,treesize,andgrowth­growingstockratios.”Treatmentsweredesigned
toincludeawiderangeofgrowingstocksothattheresultswouldshow“howto
produceanycombinationofgrowingstockdeemedoptimumfromamanagement
standpoint.”Thestudywasnotdesignedasatestofspecificoperationalthinning
regimes,butwasintendedtodefinethequantitativerelationsbetweengrowthand
growingstockforacloselycontrolledinitialstandconditionandkindofthinning.
Methods
The study was
intended to define
the quantitative
relations between
growth and growing
stock for a closely
controlled initial
stand condition and
kind of thinning.
Description of Study Area
TheIronCreekinstallationwasestablishedin1966inaDouglas­firplantation
located in section 30,T. 11 N., R. 7 E., Randle Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot
o
o
NationalForest,latitude46 57’ 5“N,longitude122 57’ 36“ W.Standagewas
17yearssinceplantingin1949;19yearsfromseed.Compositionattimeof
establishmentwasrecordedasnearlypureDouglas­fir;however,thereevidently
wasabundantnaturalseedingofwesternhemlock(Tsuga heterophylla(Raf.)Sarg.)
andredcedar(Thuja plicataDonnex.D.Donn)thathadnotyetreachedsufficient
sizetoberetainedinthecalibrationcut,asshownbylargenumbersnowpresentin
anunderstorypositionontheunthinnedplots.
Thestandisinamidslopepositionatanelevationofabout2,500feet.Aspect
iseasterly,withslopesaveragingabout25percent.ItisintheTsuga heterophylla
zoneoftheWesternCascadesProvinceofFranklinandDyrness(1973).Theplant
association(Topikandothers1986)iswesternhemlock/swordfern(TSHE/POMU,
Tsuga heterophylla/Polystichum munitum).
Estimatedsiteindex(King1966)is131feet(baseage50yearsatbreast
height), a high site II.
Thedeepwell­drainedsoil(seriesundetermined)isderivedfromvolcanicash
andlapillioverlyingaresidualsoildevelopedonfracturedvolcanicrock.Surface
soilsrangefromsandyloamtoloam,withinterbeddedpumice.
Atthetimethestudywasestablished,manytreeshadbeendamagedbybear.
About25percentofthetreesremainingafterthecalibrationthinninghadsome
injury.Theareawasthenfenced,andfurtherinjurywaslimitedtooneepisode
afterdamagetothefencein1975.Fewoftheremainingtreesnowshownoticeable
evidenceofbeardamage,althoughsomebuttscarscanstillbefound.
TheMay1980eruptionofMountSt.Helensdepositedabout1inchofashon
thestudyarea.FoliagewasstillashcoveredthefollowingSeptember.
3
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Severalplotshavehadsubstantialdamagefromrootrot.Oneplot(plot51in
treatment1)hasbeenvirtuallydestroyedbyPhellinus weiriiandhasbeenexcluded
fromanalyses.Redcedarandhemlockreproductionisnowabundantintheopen­
ingscreatedbyrootrotandasadevelopingunderstoryinthemoreheavilythinned
treatments.
Experimental Design
Theexperimentisacompletelyrandomizeddesignhavingthreereplicationsof
eightdensitycontroltreatments,plusunthinned.The27plotsareone­fifthacre,
Treatments were
rigidly controlled
to provide compatibility among installations on different
sites.
square,andwithoutbuffersexceptthata30­footisolationstripwasprovided
aroundtheoutermarginsoftheexperimentalarea.Physicalarrangementisshown
infigure2.Detailedcriteria(seefootnote1)forareaandplotselectionprovideda
high degree of uniformity in initial conditions.
Stand
treatments—
Treatmentswererigidlycontrolledtoprovidecompatibilityamonginstallationson
differentsites.
Selection of crop trees—
Croptreeswereselectedattherateof16perplot(80peracre),distributedtopro­
videfourwell­spacedcroptreesineachquarterofaplot.Croptreeswereidentified
withwhitepaintbands.
Figure 2—Arrangement of fifth­acre plots in the Iron Creek Levels­of­Growing­Stock study
installation.
4
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Calibration thinning—
Aninitialcalibrationthinningwasmadeonthe24plotsassignedtothinningtreat­
ments,andwasintendedtoreducealltoasnearlycomparableconditionaspossible.
Alltreeslessthanone­halftheinitialquadraticmeandiameter(QMD)ofthecrop
treeswerecut.Additionalnoncroptreeswerecutasneededtomeetthestudyplan
specifications,whichcalledforthestandtobethinnedtoaninitialspacingbased
ontheequation,
S =0.6167xQMD + 8,
whereSistheaveragespacinginfeetandQMDisquadraticmeandiameterofthe
leavetrees.MarkingwascontrolledbythespecificationsthatQMDoftheleave
treesshouldbewithin15percentoftheinstallationmean,andleave­treebasal
areasshouldbewithin3percent.Allleavetreesonthinnedplotswereidentified
withpermanentnumberedtags.Trees1.6inchesdiameteratbreastheight(d.b.h.)
andlargerweretaggedontheunthinnedplots.
Treatment thinnings—
Treatmentthinningsweremadein1970,1973,1977,1980,and1984(ages23,26,
30,33,and37),whichcorrespondedtoapproximate10­footincrementsincroptree
height.Thinningintensitywasdeterminedaspercentagesofgrossbasalareagrowth
ontheunthinnedplots,asdefinedintable1.Plotswererandomlyassignedto
Table
1—Treatments
defined
by
percentage
of
gross
basal
area
increment
of
control
retained
after
thinning
(calibration
thinning
excluded)
Thinning
Treatment
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Percent retention
Fixed:
1
3
5
7
Increasing:
2
4
Decreasing:
6
8
Unthinned
10
30
50
70
10
30
50
70
10
30
50
70
10
30
50
70
10
30
50
70
10
30
20
40
30
50
40
60
50
70
50
70
100 40
60
100 30
50
100 20
40
100 10
30
100 5
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
treatments(table2).Grossbasalareagrowthoftheunthinnedplotswasassumed
torepresenttheproductivepotentialofthesiteatfullstocking.Basalareasafter
thinningwerecalculatedfromtheequation,
BAn=BA(n­1)+pxGBAG,
where
BAn=basalarearetainedafterthinning,
BA(n­1)=basalareaatbeginningofprecedingtreatmentperiod,
p=prespecifiedpercentageofgrossbasalareagrowthofunthinnedplotstobe
retained,and
GBAG=averagegrossbasalareagrowthonunthinnedplots.
Theexpectedtrendsinbasalareacreatedbythesespecificationareshownin
figure 3.
Kindofthinningwasfurtherspecifiedbythefollowingrequirements:
• Croptreeswerenottobecutuntilafterallnoncroptreeshadbeenremoved.
2
• Averagediameteroftreesremovedinthinningshouldapproximatetheaverage
diameteroftreesavailableforthinning(thatis,excludingcroptreesuntilafter
allnoncroptreeshadbeenremoved).
• Treesremovedinthinningweretobedistributedacrosstherangeofdiameters
oftreesavailableforcutting.
Thethinningspecificationsofthestudyplanwereexpectedtoresultinacrown
thinning.Thed/Dratioswerecalculatedforeachofthefivetreatmentthinnings.
Overallmeanswereabout0.90withnocleartrendsovertimeortreatment.
Treescutinthinningswereleftonthesite.
Data Collection and Summarization
Immediatelyafterthecalibrationthinning,andatallsubsequentmeasurementdates
(1966, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2006), diameters of all tagged
treesweremeasuredtothenearest0.1inch.Heightsweremeasuredonasample
oftrees;samplesizedifferedatdifferentmeasurementdates,butwasneverless
than12treesperplot,andusuallymore,distributedacrosstherangeofdiameters.
Beginningwiththe1973measurement,heightstobaseoflivecrownwerealso
measured.
2
Theoriginalintentwasthattheinitiallyselectedcroptreeswouldberetaineduntilall
other trees had been removed. However, damage and decline in vigor of some trees made
some substitutions necessary.
6
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Table
2—Assignment
of
treatments
a
by
plot
numbers
Treatment
Plot
numbers
Fixed:
1
21, 33
3
31, 42, 52
5
12, 41, 72
7
11, 23, 63
Increasing:
2
82, 91, 101
4
13, 62, 111
Decreasing:
6
15, 43, 81
8
14, 53, 73
Unthinned
22, 25, 71
a
Plot 51 in treatment 1 has been eliminated
because of extensive root disease mortality.
Figure 3—Idealized trends in basal area for the eight thinning regimes in the Levels­
of­Growing­Stock study.
7
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Onunthinnedplotsonly,thefewingrowth(1.6inchesandlarger)treespresent
weretaggedandmeasured.
Althoughconsiderablenumbersofingrowthtrees(principallyredcedarand
hemlock)becameestablishedonthinnedplotsoversubsequentyears,thesewere
notrecordedovermostofthecourseoftheexperiment.Inclusionofingrowth
wouldaffectnumberoftreesandquadraticmeandiameterbut,becauseofthe
smallsizeofthesetrees,wouldmakeanegligiblecontributiontobasalareaand
volumeandtobasalareaandvolumeincrements.Supplementarydiameterclass
talliesofingrowthtreesweremadeatanumberofthemorerecentmeasurement
dates.
Theplotandtreatmentstatisticsanddiscussiongivenbelowexcludeingrowth
trees,exceptwherespecificallystatedotherwise.
Thedatahavebeencompletelyreworked,incorporatingheight­diametercurves
fitbyaslightlydifferentprocedurethanthatusedinthe1994report(whichaffects
volumecomputations).Therefore,notallcalculatedvalueswillbeidenticalwith
thosegiveninthe1994report,althoughdifferencesaresmall.
Constrainedheight­diametercurveswerefittoeachmeasurementoneachplot
(FlewellinganddeJong1994).Treetotalstemvolumesinsidebark(CVTS)were
calculatedbytheBruceandDeMars(1974)equation,fromactualmeasuredheights
whenavailableandfrompredictedheightsfortreesnothavingmeasuredheights.
Thesewereconvertedtomerchantablecubicfeettoa6­inchtop(CV6)withno
minimumloglength,usingequationsfromBrackett(1973).Scribnervolumesfor
32­footlogs(SV6),withaminimumtoplogof16feet,werecalculatedusing
3
diameterestimatesfromFlewelling’s(unpublished )taperequations.
Standheightswerecharacterizedasaverageheight(H40)ofthelargest40trees
(byd.b.h.)peracreforeachplot,andwerecalculatedasthemeansofthemeasured
Analyses follow the
general pattern
orestimatedheightsofalltreesinthiscategory.
established by
previous LOGS
Analyses
reports.
Theoriginalstudyplanspecifiedanalysisofvarianceastheprimarymethodof
analysis.Theresultsofsuchananalysisattheendofthelasttreatmentperiod
(1989)havebeengivenbyCurtisandClendenen(1994),andwillnotberepeated
here.Manyaspectsoftheexperimentaremoremeaningfullypresentedandinter­
pretedthroughsimplegraphiccomparisons,andthisisthemethodemployedinthis
3
Using the methodology of Flewelling and Raynes 1993.
8
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
report.Theunderlyingnumericalvaluesaresummarizedinaseriesoftablesgiven
inanappendix.
Results
Trends in Live-Stand Statistics
Unlessotherwisespecified,theplotstatisticsanddiscussionbelowexcludein­
growthtrees(whicharediscussedinalatersection).
Height
of
largest
40
trees
per
acre
(H40)
and
site
index
(S50)—
H40(definedabove)isausefulmeasureofheightdevelopment.Thiscanbecalcu­
latedobjectivelyforallplotsfromthedataavailable,islittleaffectedbythinning,
andisnowquitecommonlyusedasthebasisforsiteestimatesintheregion.
Excludingplot51(severelydamagedbyrootdisease),therangein2006values
ofH40wasfrom130to142feet(tables3aandb).
Siteindex(S50)valuesbasedonKing(1966)wereestimatedfromplotand
treatmentmeansofH40atbreast­highage50,assumingthatbreast­highage=total
age­7.Overallmeansiteindexwas131.Standarddeviationofplotsiteindexwas
3.6feet;thatoftreatmentmeansiteindexeswas2.6feet.Thereisnoindicationof
treatment­relateddifferences,andtheinstallationappearstoberemarkablyuniform
insite.
Figure4comparestheobservedtrendofmeanH40withthatpredictedforS50
=131byKing’s(1966)siteindexcurves.TheobservedtrendofH40ismore
nearlylinearalthoughthedifferencesarerelativelysmall.
Number
of
trees—
Trendsovertimeintreesperacre(TPA)bythinningtreatments(excludingin­
growth)areshowninappendixfigures5aandb.Correspondingnumericalvalues,
includingthosefortheunthinnedtreatment(omittedinfig.5),aregiveninappen­
dixtables4aandb.
Basal
area—
Correspondingvaluesofbasalareaovertimeareshowninappendixfigures6aand
bandtables5aandb.
Quadratic
mean
diameter
(QMD)—
Trendsinquadraticmeandiameter(excludingingrowth)areshowninappendix
figures7aandbandtables6aandb.Theshiftsinpositionatsuccessiveagesare
causedbyacombinationofactualgrowthonsurvivingtreesandprogressive
removalinthinningsoftreessomewhatsmallerthanoverallstandQMD.
9
10
49.3
50.4
47.5
49.1
38.6
38.7
37.9
Mean 38.4
50.7
Mean 39.0
11
23
63
51.6
50.7
49.8
39.7
39.1
38.3
49.6
Mean 37.4
b
48.8
49.0
50.7
49.0
12
41
72
1970
(23)
b
49.1
49.3
50.4
47.5
50.7
51.6
50.7
49.8
49.8
49.0
50.9
49.5
48.8
57.5
57.3
59.3
56.0
59.1
60.5
58.4
58.2
56.5
56.5
57.7
55.4
56.8
57.1
56.5
1973
(26)
Period
1
37.6
48.2
48.9
38.1
49.3
48.7
Deleted­rootdisease
1970
(23)
a
37.7
38.2
36.2
31
42
52
Before cut.
After cut.
a
7
5
3
21
33
51
1
1966
(19)
Mean 37.8
Plot
Treatment
Calibration
Period
57.5
57.3
59.3
56.0
58.9
60.5
58.1
58.2
56.6
56.7
57.7
55.4
56.9
57.1
56.8
1973
(26)
69.0
69.0
71.0
67.2
69.5
70.5
68.4
69.5
67.5
67.0
68.4
67.3
65.6
67.0
64.3
1977
(30)
Period
2
69.0
69.0
71.0
67.2
69.5
70.5
68.4
69.5
67.0
66.8
68.4
65.9
65.5
66.7
65.3
1977
(30)
78.0
79.1
77.6
77.3
78.2
79.1
76.9
78.4
75.5
76.5
76.4
73.6
74.0
75.1
73.0
Feet
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
78.0
79.1
77.6
77.3
78.2
79.1
76.9
78.4
75.5
76.5
76.4
73.6
73.8
74.2
73.4
1980
(33)
87.1
86.8
87.1
87.5
88.6
88.0
87.1
90.6
84.6
84.7
86.0
83.0
82.4
84.6
80.1
1984
(37)
Period
4
87.1
86.7
87.1
87.5
88.6
88.0
87.1
90.6
84.4
84.3
86.0
83.0
83.2
84.2
82.1
1984
(37)
100.6
99.5
102.4
99.9
102.0
103.0
101.0
102.0
97.5
97.0
99.6
96.0
96.0
97.3
94.6
1989
(42)
Period
5
100.6
99.5
102.4
99.9
102.0
103.0
101.0
102.0
97.5
97.0
99.6
96.0
96.0
97.3
94.6
1989
(42)
112.2
111.6
111.2
113.8
113.7
117.0
109.9
114.2
107.2
107.8
107.6
106.4
106.4
108.4
104.3
1994
(47)
Period
6
112.2
111.6
111.2
113.8
113.7
117.0
109.9
114.2
107.2
107.8
107.6
106.4
106.4
108.4
104.3
1994
(47)
121.4
119.3
122.7
122.1
123.0
126.4
118.2
124.6
117.9
118.7
117.8
117.2
115.0
115.6
114.4
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
121.4
119.3
122.7
122.1
123.0
126.4
118.2
124.6
117.9
118.7
117.8
117.2
115.0
115.6
114.4
138.6
136.0
140.1
139.6
139.1
142.3
133.8
141.3
132.9
132.9
133.0
132.9
132.2
131.8
132.6
2006
(59)
Period
8
1999
(52)
Table
3a—Mean
heights
of
40
largest
(by
diameter)
trees
per
acre
(H40)
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
11
52.9
Mean 40.4
b
a
Before cut.
After cut.
48.9
49.1
47.7
48.6
Mean 36.6
50.3
Mean 39.6
37.2
37.0
35.5
50.7
48.5
51.8
40.2
37.6
40.9
48.1
Mean 36.9
14
53
73
47.9
47.7
48.7
37.4
36.5
36.8
15
43
81
54.1
51.2
53.5
42.0
38.7
40.5
13
62
111
49.5
Mean 39.1
1970
a
(23)
49.9
47.2
51.5
1966
(19)
39.2
37.6
40.3
82
91
101
Plot
Unthinned 22
25
71
8
6
Decreasing:
4
2
Increasing:
Treatment
Calibration
Period
48.6
48.9
49.1
47.7
50.3
50.7
48.5
51.8
48.0
47.9
47.5
48.7
52.6
53.5
51.2
53.1
49.1
49.4
46.8
51.1
1970
b
(23)
57.0
57.3
57.3
56.4
58.8
59.2
57.7
59.6
55.3
55.3
54.5
56.1
59.0
59.7
57.3
59.9
56.7
57.4
54.1
58.7
1973
(26)
Period
1
57.0
57.3
57.3
56.4
58.8
59.2
57.7
59.6
54.9
55.1
54.5
55.2
58.9
59.1
57.3
60.3
56.8
57.4
54.1
58.8
1973
(26)
67.7
68.8
68.6
65.8
68.5
69.3
65.2
71.0
66.3
66.0
66.7
66.2
68.4
68.4
65.8
70.9
66.9
68.8
62.3
69.7
1977
(30)
Period
2
67.7
68.8
68.6
65.8
68.5
69.3
65.2
71.0
65.9
64.6
66.8
66.2
68.0
68.4
64.6
70.9
66.9
68.8
62.2
69.7
1977
(30)
76.2
78.2
75.3
75.0
76.6
76.9
74.2
78.7
74.8
73.6
75.2
75.5
77.3
77.7
73.5
80.6
75.3
75.6
71.9
78.4
Feet
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
76.2
78.2
75.3
75.0
76.6
76.9
74.2
78.7
74.9
73.6
75.6
75.5
77.3
77.7
73.5
80.6
75.3
75.6
71.9
78.4
1980
(33)
85.6
86.7
86.8
83.3
85.9
86.5
83.8
87.4
83.8
82.5
84.5
84.5
87.0
85.9
82.5
92.7
85.4
86.3
81.8
88.1
1984
(37)
Period
4
85.6
86.7
86.8
83.3
85.9
86.5
83.6
87.4
83.4
82.0
83.8
84.5
87.2
86.3
82.5
92.7
85.4
86.3
81.8
88.1
1984
(37)
97.9
99.0
98.7
95.9
99.5
99.6
97.0
101.8
97.0
94.7
98.8
97.6
99.7
98.7
96.0
104.4
99.2
101.0
95.4
101.3
1989
(42)
Period
5
97.9
99.0
98.7
95.9
99.5
99.6
97.0
101.8
97.0
94.7
98.8
97.6
99.7
98.7
96.0
104.4
99.2
101.0
95.4
101.3
1989
(42)
107.9
108.5
108.5
106.5
110.3
110.8
107.6
112.4
107.4
106.4
109.4
106.4
112.6
110.6
108.3
118.9
111.0
113.9
107.7
111.3
1994
(47)
Period
6
107.9
108.5
108.5
106.5
110.3
110.8
107.6
112.4
107.4
106.4
109.4
106.4
112.6
110.6
108.3
118.9
111.0
113.9
107.7
111.3
1994
(47)
118.3
119.3
119.3
116.2
119.9
122.3
116.6
120.8
118.4
116.3
120.9
117.9
122.6
120.6
118.7
128.3
121.4
125.5
116.4
122.2
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
118.3
119.3
119.3
116.2
119.9
122.3
116.6
120.8
118.4
116.3
120.9
117.9
122.6
120.6
118.7
128.3
121.4
125.5
116.4
122.2
1999
(52)
131.5
131.7
132.9
130.0
135.6
138.0
132.2
136.4
134.5
132.5
137.9
133.3
138.4
138.8
134.2
142.3
136.2
140.1
132.5
136.1
2006
(59)
Period
8
Table
3b—Mean
heights
of
40
largest
(by
diameter)
trees
per
acre
(H40)
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
treatments
and
unthinned
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 4—Trend of mean H40 (height of largest 40 trees per acre, averaged over all plots) over time
compared with the trend predicted by King (1966) for site 131.
Diameter
of
largest
40
trees
per
acre
(D40)—
Theoriginalstudyplancalledforaninitialselectionof80croptreesperacre,
basedonacombinationofvigorandspacing,withthesetreestobefavoredduring
thinningandretainedtotheendoftheexperiment.Averagediameterofthesecrop
treeswouldbecomeequaltoQMDoncethenumberofstems(sometreatments
only)hadbeenreducedto80peracre.
Substitutionofnewcroptreesfordamagedandlow­vigortreeshasmadedia­
metersoftheinitiallyselectedcroptreesofquestionableusefulness,andweadopt
asasubstitutethemeandiameterofthelargest40treesperacre,thesametrees
usedincomputationofH40.Inmostcases,thesearethesametreesatsuccessive
measurements,andthevaluesofD40arethereforelittleinfluencedbythinning.
TheD40trendsovertimeareshowninfigures8aandbandinthestand
developmenttables(app.2).Clearly,D40growthhasbeenacceleratedbythinning,
althoughtoalesserextentthanthatofQMDofalltrees.ThemeanD40increment
overthe40yearsofobservationforallthinnedplotswas14.67inches,vs.11.33
inchesfortheunthinnedplots;asignificantdifference(t=5.61).
12
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Standing
volume—
Trendsinlivecubic­footvolumeoftotalstem(CVTS)areshowninfigures9aand
b,withnumericalvaluesgivenintables7aandb.Correspondingtrendsinlive
merchantablecubic­footvolumetoa6­inchtopdiameterinsidebark(CV6)are
showninfigures10aandbwithnumericalvaluesintables8aandb.Distributionof
liveCV6volumein2006bylogsizesisgiveninappendixtable9andfigure11.
Scribnerboard­footvolumetoa6­inchtop(SV6)trendsresemblethosefor
CV6,andaregivenintables10aandb.
Cut—
Number,basalarea,QMD,andvolumeoftreescutaregiveninappendixtables11
and12,bytreatmentandgrowthperiod.DistributionofcutCV6bylogsizeis
shownintable13.
Mortality—
Mortalityinnumberoftrees,basalarea,QMD,andvolumeissummarizedintables
14and15,bytreatmentandgrowthperiod.Mortalitylosseshavebeenslightinthe
thinnedtreatments,butsevereintheunthinned.
Cumulative Yields
Gross
CVTS
yields—
CumulativegrossyieldsinCVTS(livestandatage59+thinnings,including
calibrationcut,+mortality)areshowninfigure12andstanddevelopmenttables16
through24.Thegraphsincludeanestimatedaveragecalibrationcutremovalof457
3
ft /ac,notincludedinthetables.Thevaluesshownrepresenttotalbiologicalpro­
ductionofbolewood,includingmaterialtoosmalltobeusable.Cumulativegross
productionincreasedwithstockinglevel,beinghighestandapproximatelyequalfor
treatment7andtheunthinnedtreatment.
Net
CV6
yields—
Cumulativenetyieldsinmerchantablecubic­footvolume(CV6)—amoremeaning­
fulmeasurefromamanagementstandpoint—areshowninfigure13andstand
developmenttables16through24.Valuesexcludetheverysmallvolumeremoved
inthecalibrationcut.Netproduction(livestandatage59+thinnings)increased
withstockinglevelinthethinnedtreatments,withtreatments5,7,and8exceeding
theunthinned,andtreatment4beingapproximatelythesameasunthinned.
13
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Thewidedifferencebetweenthevaluesforthinnedvs.theunthinnedtreat­
ment,comparedtodifferencesinthegrossCVTSyieldsshownabove,arethe
resultofmortality(primarilysuppression)intheunthinnedtreatment.
Periodic
annual
increment
(PAI)
in
basal
area—
TrendsinbasalareagrossandnetPAIoverageareshowninfigures14and15,
forfixedtreatmentsonly.Grossincrementisgreateratthehigherstockinglevels,
butisnotgreatlydifferentamongtreatments,otherthantreatment1,wherethelow
stockinglevelhasresultedinmarkedlylowerincrement.
TrendsinnetbasalareaPAIaresimilarforthinnedtreatments,butthe
unthinnedtreatmentismarkedlydifferentbecauseofwindfalllossesintheperiod
age42through47,concentratedinplot71.
The hypothesis
of near-constant
volume increment
over a wide range
of stocking is clearly
disproven for young
Douglas-fir.
Periodic
annual
increment
(PAI)
and
mean
annual
increment
(MAI)
in
CV6
and
CVTS—
Trendsingrosscubic­footvolume(CVTS)andnetmerchantablecubic­footvolume
(CV6)MAIandPAIoverageareshowninfigures16and17forfixedtreatments,
usingnumericalvaluesfromtables16through24.Althoughnotshown,board­foot
MAIandPAItrendsresemblethoseforCV6.
Bothgrossandnetvolumeincrementsarestronglyrelatedtostockinglevel,
andincreasewithstockinginthinnedstands.Therelativeincreaseinvolume
incrementwithincreaseinstockinglevelismuchgreaterthanthatforbasalarea
increment.Thehypothesisofnear­constantvolumeincrementoverawiderangeof
stockingisclearlydisprovenforyoungDouglas­fir.
ThePAIsinbothgrossCVTSandnetCV6havebeennear­constantforthe
unthinnedtreatment,andhavebeenincreasingforthethinnedtreatments.Atage
59,PAIisstillapproximatelytwiceMAIatthesameage.
Fixed and Variable Treatments
Figure3illustratestheanticipatedrelationsofvariabletreatments2and6tofixed
treatment3,andofvariabletreatments4and8tofixedtreatment5.Actualob­
serveddevelopmentofbasalarea(figs.6aandb)resembledtheanticipatedpattern
(fig.3)throughtheendoftheplannedtreatmentsatage42.Treatment2(increas­
ing,loweststockinglevel)divergedsharplythereafter,inpartbecauseofheavy
mortalityintheperiodage42through47andconsequentlowerstocking.
14
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Amongvariabletreatments,treatment2hadthegreatestQMDatage59
(fig.7b)andtreatment8hadtheleast,whereas4and6werevirtuallythesame.
Conversely,treatment8hadthehighestgrossCVTSvolumeyieldandtreatment2
thelowest,while4and6wereintermediate(fig.12).NetCV6yieldswereconsid­
erably lower for treatment 2 (fig.13) than for the other variable treatments, which
differed only slightly.
Theseresultssuggestthatthereislittlepracticaldifferenceinproductionof
fixedvs.variabletreatmentshavingsimilaraveragestockinglevels.
Growth Percentage
Theargumentthatoneshouldseekmaximumreturn(measuredasstandgrowth)
ongrowingstock,oneexpressionofwhichisgrowthpercentage,wasapartofthe
thinkingthatledtotheLOGSstudy.Growthpercentagesusedherearecalculated
as,
Growth percent = 100 {PAI/[(X1 + X2)/2]},
whereX1andX2aregrowingstocksatthebeginningandendofthegrowth
period,andPAIisnetperiodicannualincrement.
Trendsfornetmerchantablevolume(CV6)andtotalstemvolume(CVTS)
growthpercentagesforfixedandunthinnedtreatmentsareshowninfigures18a
andb.AlthoughthereislittledifferenceamongtheCV6curves,therearelarger
differencesamongthecorrespondingCVTScurves,withtreatment1havingthe
highestgrowthpercentage.ThedifferentpatternsofCV6andCVTSgrowth
percentagesareassociatedwithdifferencesintheratioofCV6toCVTSamong
treatments (fig. 19).
Relative Stand Density
Valuesoftwocommonlyusedrelativedensitymeasures,RD(Curtis1982)and
standdensityindex(SDI)(Reineke1933),areshowninfigures20and21.In­
growthhasbeenexcludedfromthecalculation.
Thesimplecorrelationcoefficientbetweenthetwomeasureswasr=0.99,
showingthatforthesedata,thereisnopracticaldifferencebetweenthesemeasures
otherthanascalefactor,althoughthereisaslightandprobablyinconsequential
differenceintheassumedpowerofQMD.(RDcanbewrittenintheformRD=
1.5
0.00545415xTPAx(QMD) ,whereasinSDItheexponentofQMDis1.6.)
15
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Valuesfortheunthinnedtreatmentseemconsistentwiththecommonlyac­
ceptedmaximaofaboutRD85andSDI500forDouglas­fir.The“wobbles”in
valuesfortheunthinnedconditionreflectsporadicandincreasingmortality.
Crown Development
Forthe2006data,aregressionoflivecrownratio(LCR)ondiameterwasfit
separatelyforeachtreatment.Theresultingequationswerethenenteredwiththe
treatmentvaluesofD40andQMD,toestimatethecorrespondingLCRs.Results,
showninfigure22forthefixedtreatmentsandunthinned,showcleartrendsfor
LCRscorrespondingtobothD40andQMD.
WhenthedataareorderedbyRDvalues,thereisacleartrendofdecreasing
LCRswithincreasingRD.ThesameistrueforSDI.AplotofLCRoverbasal
areashowedasimilartrendforthethinnedtreatments,butdifferedradicallyfor
theunthinned(fig.23)reflectingthefactthatQMDandD40aremuchsmaller
andtheobservedbasalarearepresentsmuchmoreintensecompetitioninthe
unthinnedstandthanthesamebasalareainathinnedstandofmuchlargerQMD.
Thus,althoughbasalareasoftreatment7andtheunthinnedtreatmentin2006
wereequal,thecorrespondingRDvalueswere72fortreatment7and86forthe
unthinned.Themoreintensecompetitionhasproducedbothamarkedlysmaller
LCRandextensivesuppression­relatedmortalityintheunthinnedconditionin
recentgrowthperiods.
Understory Development
Inthinnedplots,allstemslessthanone­halftheinitialQMDofcroptreeswere
removedaspartofthecalibrationcut.Subsequentregenerationwasnottaggedor
recordedovermostofthelifeoftheexperiment.
Overtime,sometreatmentsdevelopedabundantunderstoriesofsmallhemlock
andredcedar.Althoughirrelevanttotheoriginaltimberproductionobjectives,
presentinterestinwildlifehabitatanddevelopmentofcomplexstandstructures
madeitdesirabletocollectinformationontheunderstory.Accordingly,in1994,
1999,and2006,wetalliedalluntagged(ingrowth)trees1.6­inchandlargerby
diameterandspecies,oneachthinnedplot.Thecountsforthefixedtreatmentsin
1994(theendoftheplanned60feetofheightgrowth)areshowninfigure24,and
includeroughlysimilarnumbersofwesternhemlockandredcedar.
Obviously,thenumberofunderstorytreesandtheirrateofdevelopmentare
stronglyrelatedtostockinglevel.Thelowerdensitytreatmentsareprobablyheaded
towardaneventualmultilayerstandstructure.
16
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Discussion
Inmostinstances,resultsforvariabletreatmentsarelittledifferentfromthosefor
Results for variable
treatments are little
fixedtreatments,withtreatments2and4bracketingfixedtreatment3,and6and8
bracketingfixedtreatment5.Intheinterestofbrevity,wehavethereforeinmany
different from those
for fixed treatments.
instancesshowngraphsforfixedtreatmentsandunthinnedonly.
Thesefifth­acreplotsareunbuffered,andthereisapossibilityofedgeeffects
thatmighthavesomeinfluenceoncomparisons.Inmostcases,thinnedplotsare
adjacenttootherthinnedplots,andwethinkedgeeffectsareprobablysmall.
Unthinnedplotsareoftenadjacenttothinnedplotsofmuchlowerdensity,and
theremaywellbeasmallupwardbiasingrowthandyieldestimatesforthe
unthinnedcondition.
ThegraphsofPAIandMAIforgrossCVTSandnetCV6(figs.16and17)
haveanumberofinterestingfeatures:
•
TheabruptdropinPAIimmediatelyafterthepeakcoincideswiththeMount
St.Helensvolcaniceruption.Fieldnotesfromavisit5monthssubsequentto
theeruptionindicatethattherewasthenabout1inchofashonthegroundand
•
extensiveashcoverageonfoliage.
Thereafter,PAIvaluesareapproximatelytwicethecorrespondingMAIvalues.
Thesestandsarewellshortofageofculmination(maximummeanannual
•
volumeincrement).
TherearewidedifferencesinPAIamongstockinglevels,withPAIandMAIof
•
thinnedstandsincreasingwithstocking.
Fromage33on,PAIvalueshavebeenincreasingonthinnedplots,whereas
valueshavebeennearlyconstantontheunthinned.Weregardthisasprimarily
adelayedresponsetothinning,possiblyassociatedwithrecoveryfrominitial
ash­falldamagetofoliageandpossiblesubsequentfertilizationeffectsof
volcanicash.
•
ThisincreaseinPAIisassociatedwithincreaseinbasalareaandRDovertime.
ThepatternofPAIvaluesisconsistentwiththebeliefthatthinningwilltendto
increasetheageofculmination.AgeofculminationatIronCreekisunknown,but
isobviouslyseveraldecadesinthefuture.
Management Implications
ResultsfromIronCreekandthosefromtheotherLOGSinstallationsclearly
demonstratethattheso­called“Langsaeterhypothesis”ofnear­constantgrowth
overawiderangeofstocking,widelycitedatthetimetheLOGSstudieswere
17
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
designed,issimplywrongforyoungDouglas­firstillmakingrapidheightgrowth.
Onthecontrary,volumeincrementisstronglyrelatedtostocking.
AtthetimetheLOGSstudywasdesigned,itwasbelievedthatlowgrowing
stockwouldprovidegreatergrowthpercentagesandhencewouldbefinancially
attractive.ThisincreaseingrowthpercentageforCVTSisshownbyfigure18b.
However,thecorrespondingrelationshipformerchantablevolume(CV6)shown
Reduction in increment associated
with low growing
stock has largely
offset the increase
in growth percentage from reduced
volume that was
expected at the
time the study
was designed.
infigure18aismarkedlydifferent.Notonlyareinitialgrowthpercentagesmuch
higher(becauseofthesmallCV6volumeinthedenominator),butthereislittle
differenceamongtreatments.WeattributethedifferencestothelesserCVTS
growthatlowstockingandthedifferencesinCV6/CVTSratiosthatresultfrom
thelargertreesizesassociatedwithlowergrowingstock(fig.19).Thereduction
inincrementassociatedwithlowgrowingstockhaslargelyoffsettheincreasein
growthpercentagefromreducedvolumeinthedenominatorthatwasexpectedat
thetimethestudywasdesigned.
AlthoughLOGSisoftenreferredtoasathinningstudy,itwasnotintended
asacomparisonofoperationalregimes.Rather,itwasdesignedtodeterminethe
relationbetweenlevelofgrowingstockandincrement.Thelightandfrequent
thinningsusedtomaintainclosecontrolofgrowingstockwouldnotbefeasible
onanoperationalbasis.However,webelievethatsimilarresultscouldbeachieved
withaconsiderablylongerthinningcycledesignedtoproduceapproximately
similaraveragestockingovertime.
ItisclearfromLOGSandotherstudiesthatthinningintheseinitiallywell­
stockeduniformyoungDouglas­firstandshasproducedlittleornogainintotal
cubic­footvolumeproductiontodate,andonlymodestgainsinmerchantable
volume,comparedtotheunthinnedcondition.(Although,thecomparisonwith
unthinnedissomewhatsuspectbecauseofpossiblebiasassociatedwithedge
effects.)TheincreasingPAIsinrecentyearssuggestthatnetvolumeproduction
relativetotheunthinnedconditionmightincreaseconsiderablyoveralonger
timespan.
Theprincipalgainsfromthinningarenotenhancedvolumeproductionbut
(1)largertreesatagivenage,(2)enhancedstandstabilityandvigorassociated
withlowerheight/diameterratiosandlargercrowns,(3)reducedmortalityand
salvageofmortalitythatdoesoccur(whichbecomesmoreimportantasstandsage),
and(4)insomeregimes,establishmentofayoungercohortwherethisisdesirable
forwildlifehabitat.And,provisionofintermediateincomefromthinningscanbe
importanttoownersthathaveforestswithunbalancedagedistributions.
18
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Therearetradeoffsinvolvedbetweenpossiblestockinglevels.Relativelyhigh
stockinginthelatterhalfoftherotation(withstandsnotallowedtoexceedabout
RD65orSDI400)isdesirablefortheobjectivesoftimberproductionandcarbon
sequestration.Muchlowerstockingwouldbepreferrediftheprimaryobjectives
wereearlydevelopmentoflargetrees,longcrowns,andlayeredstandstructurefor
wildlifehabitatandbiodiversity.
ThetrendsinnetvolumePAIandMAIshownarepertinenttothequestion
ofappropriaterotations.ThefactthatPAIisstillnearconstantorincreasingas
stockingbuildsupandisstillroughlytwiceMAIatage59showsthatlengthening
rotationsbeyondthe40to50yearsnowcommononprivatelandscouldproduce
substantiallong­termincreasesinbothtotalstemwoodandmerchantabletimber
production.ThetrendsshownaregenerallyconsistentwiththosefromotherLOGS
installationsandfromotherolderstudies(Curtis1995,2006).Thelargergrowing
stocksassociatedwithlongerrotationswouldprovideincreasedcarbonsequestra­
tionandlargertrees,andlongerrotationswoulddecreasetheareaintheunsightly
earlyregenerationstage.Conflictswithscenic,wildlife,andrecreationalvalues
wouldbereduced.
Privateownerswhoseprimaryobjectiveisinvestmentincomefromtimberare
Larger growing
stocks associated
with longer rotations
would provide
increased carbon
sequestration, and
conflicts with scenic, wildlife, and
recreational values
would be reduced.
notlikelytoextendrotationsintheabsenceofsomeformofsubsidy(assuggested
byLippkeandothers1996)orofamarketforcarbonsequestrationcredits.Owners
withmultipleobjectivesmayfindlengthenedrotationsadvantageous.
Objectivesofpublicownerscommonlyincludeenhancementofwildlifehabitat
andbiodiversity,scenicvalues,andrecreationalvalues,andtheseobjectivesoften
takepriorityoverthetraditionalobjectiveofmaximizingnetpresentvaluebased
ondiscountedvaluesoffuturetimberyields.Carbonsequestrationseemslikelyto
beanimportantadditionalobjectiveinthefuture.Long­rotationmanagement
seemswellsuitedtothesepublicobjectives.
Future of the Iron Creek Study
TheIronCreekinstallationoftheLOGSstudyisnow17yearspastcompletionof
the60feetofheightgrowthoriginallyplannedasthedurationofthestudy.Devel­
opmentfollowingcessationofthethinningprogramhasshowntrendsofmuch
interest,asdiscussedabove.
Theprincipalpresentvalueofthestudy,beyondtheresultsdiscussedabove,is
inthebodyofhigh­qualitydatathatithasproducedontreeandstanddevelopment
underawiderangeofgrowing­stocklevels.Thisshouldhavecontinuingvalueasa
partofthedataneededfordevelopmentandimprovementofgrowthmodels.
19
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Theinstallationprovidesavisuallystrikingexampleoftheeffectsofdiffer­
encesingrowing­stocklevelsonstanddevelopmentandstandcharacteristics(figs.
25,26).Ithascontinuingvalueasademonstrationarea,althoughitssomewhat
remotelocationconsiderablyreducesitsusefulness.
Withthesmallplotsizeandthesmallnumberoftreesremainingonsome
treatments,furtherthinningisnotfeasible.Withincreasingtreesize,edgeeffects
canbeexpectedtobecomemoreimportant.Therefore,fromaresearchstandpoint,
weseelittlepointincontinuingmeasurementofthestudy.
Acknowledgments
HelpfulreviewswereprovidedbyPerterGouldofPacificNorthwestResearch
Station,DouglasMaguireofOregonStateUniversity,andLouisedeMontigny
oftheBritishColumbiaMinistryofForests.GraceHaightandJoeKraftprovided
assistanceinmanuscriptpreparation.
Metric Equivalents
When
you
know:
Multiply
by:
To
find:
Inches(in)
Feet (ft)
2.54
0.3048
Centimeters
Meters
Miles(mi)
2
Square feet (ft )
1.609
0.929
Kilometers
Squaremeters
Acres(ac)
Treesperacre
0.405
2.471
Hectares
Treesperhectare
0.229
0.070
Squaremetersperhectare
Cubicmetersperhectare
2
Squarefeetperacre (ft /ac)
3
Cubicfeetperacre(ft /ac)
Literature Cited
Brackett,
M.
1973.
Notesontarifftreevolumecomputation.Res.Mgmt.Rep.24.
Olympia,WA:WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources.26p.
Bruce,
D.;
DeMars,
D.J.
1974.
Volumeequationsforsecond­growthDouglas­fir.
Res. Note PNW­239.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,Forest
Service,PacificNorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation.5p.
Curtis,
R.O.
1982.
AsimpleindexofstanddensityforDouglas­fir.ForestScience.
28: 92–94.
20
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Curtis,
R.O.
1995.ExtendedrotationsandculminationageofcoastDouglas­fir:
oldstudiesspeaktocurrentissues.Res.Pap.PNW­RP­485.Portland,OR:U.S.
DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.
49 p.
Curtis,
R.O.
2006.
VolumegrowthtrendsinaDouglas­firlevels­of­growing­stock
study.WesternJournalofAppliedForestry.21(2):79–86.
Curtis,
R.O.;
Clendenen,
G.W.
1994.
Levels­of­growing­stock cooperative study
inDouglas­fir:reportNo.12—theIronCreekstudy:1966–89.Portland,OR:
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearch
Station. 67 p.
Flewelling,
J.A.;
de
Jong,
R.
1994.
Considerationsinsimultaneouscurvefitting
forrepeatedheight­diametermeasurements.CanadianJournalofForestRe­
search.24:1408–1414.
Flewelling,
J.W.;
Raynes,
L.M.
1993.Variable­shape stem­profile predictions for
westernhemlock.Part1:PredictionsfromDBHandtotalheight.Canadian
JournalofForestResearch.23:520–536.
Franklin,
J.F.;
Dyrness,
C.T.
1973.
NaturalvegetationofOregonandWashington.
Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW­8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest
Service,PacificNorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation.417p.
King,
J.E.
1966.
Site index curves for Douglas­firinthePacificNorthwest.
Paper8.Centralia,WA:WeyerhaeuserForestryResearchCenter.49p.
Lippke,
B.R.;
Sessions,
J.;
Carey,
A.B.
1996.
Economicanalysisofforestland­
scapemanagementalternatives.CINTRAFORSpecialPaper21.Seattle,WA:
CollegeofForestResources,UniversityofWashington.157p.
Reineke,
L.H.
1933.
Perfectingastand­densityindexforeven­agedforests.Journal
ofAgriculturalResearch.46:627–638.
Staebler,
G.R.
1959.
Optimumlevelsofgrowingstockformanagedstands.
Washington,DC:Proceedings,SocietyofAmericanForesters:110–113.
Staebler,
G.R.
1960.
Theoreticalderivationofnumericalthinningschedulesfor
Douglas­fir. Forest Science. 6(20): 98–109.
Topik,
C.;
Halverson,
N.M.;
Brockway,
D.G.
1986.
Plantassociationandman­
agementguideforthewesternhemlockzone—GiffordPinchotNationalForest.
R6­ECOL­230A­1986. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest
Service,PacificNorthwestRegion.132p.
21
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
APPENDIX 1: Other Levels-of-Growing-Stock
Reports
Williamson,
R.L.;
Staebler,
G.R.
1965.
A cooperative level­of­growing­stock
study in Douglas­fir. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest
Service,PacificNorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation.12p.
Describespurposeandscopeofacooperativestudyinvestigatingtherelativemerits
ofeightthinningregimes.Mainfeaturesofsixstudyareasinstalledsince1961in
youngstandsaresummarized.
Williamson,
R.L.;
Staebler,
G.R.
1971.
Levels­of­growing­stock cooperative
studyonDouglas­fir:reportNo.1—descriptionofstudyandexistingstudy
areas. Res. Pap. PNW­111. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture,
ForestService,PacificNorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation.12p.
ThethinningregimesinyoungDouglas­firstandsandsomecharacteristicsof
individualstudyareasestablishedbycooperatingpublicandprivateagenciesare
described.
Bell,
J.F.;
Berg,
A.B.
1972.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyonDou­
glas­fir:reportNo.2—theHoskinsstudy,1963–70.Res.Pap.PNW­130.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific North­
westForestandRangeExperimentStation.19p.
Describesthecalibrationthinningandfirsttreatmentthinningina20­year­old
Douglas­firstandatHoskins,Oregon.Growthforthefirst7yearsafterthinning
wasgreaterthanexpected.
Diggle,
P.K.
1972.
Thelevels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyinDouglas­firin
British Columbia. (report No. 3—cooperative L.O.G.S. study series). Inf. Rep.
BC­X­66.Victoria,BC:CanadianForestryService,PacificForestResearch
Centre. 46 p.
DescribesestablishmentandinstallationofthetwoLOGSstudiesestablishedon
VancouverIslandatShawniganLakeandSaywardForest.
Williamson,
R.L.
1976.Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:
reportNo.4—RockyBrook,StampedeCreek,andIronCreek.Res.Pap.PNW­
210. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
NorthwestForestandRangeExperimentStation.39p.
Theeffectsofcalibrationthinningsaredescribedforthethreeinstallationsmain­
tainedbytheUSDAForestServiceinthecooperativeLOGSstudy.Resultsoffirst
treatmentthinningaredescribedforonearea.
22
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Berg,
A.B.;
Bell,
J.F.
1979.Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyon
Douglas­fir:reportNo.5—theHoskinsstudy,1963–75.Res.Pap.PNW­257.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific North­
westForestandRangeExperimentStation.29p.
Presentsgrowthdataforthefirst12yearsofmanagementofyoungDouglas­fir
growingateightlevelsofgrowingstock.
Arnott,
J.T.;
Beddows,
D.
1981.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyin
Douglas­fir: report No. 6—Sayward Forest, Shawnigan Lake. Inf. Rep.
BC­X­223.Victoria,BC:CanadianForestryService,PacificForestResearch
Centre. 54 p.
Dataarepresentedforthefirst8and6yearsatSaywardForestandShawnigan
Lake,respectively.Theeffectsofthecalibrationthinningsaredescribedforthese
twoinstallationsonVancouverIsland,BritishColumbia.Resultsofthefirsttreat­
mentthinningatSaywardForestfora4­yearresponseperiodalsoareincluded.
Tappeiner,
J.C.;
Bell,
J.F.;
Brodie,
J.D.
1982.
Response of young Douglas­fir to
16yearsofintensivethinning.Res.Bull.38.Corvallis,OR:ForestResearch
Laboratory, School of Forestry, Oregon State University. 17 p.
Williamson,
R.L.;
Curtis,
R.O.
1984.
Levels­of­growing­stock cooperative study
inDouglas­fir:reportNo.7—preliminaryresults:StampedeCreek,andsome
comparisonswithIronCreekandHoskins.Res.Pap.PNW­323.Portland,OR:
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestForestand
RangeExperimentStation.42p.
ResultsoftheStampedeCreekLOGSstudyinsouthwestOregonaresummarized
throughthefirsttreatmentperiod.Resultsaregenerallysimilartothoseoftwo
moreadvancedLOGSstudies.
Curtis,
R.O.;
Marshall,
D.D.
1986.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyin
Douglas­fir:reportNo.8—theLOGSstudy:twenty­yearresults.Res.Pap.
PNW­356. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service,
PacificNorthwestResearchStation.113p.
ReviewshistoryandstatusofLOGSstudyandprovidesanalysesofdata,primarily
fromthesiteIIinstallations.Growthisstronglyrelatedtogrowingstock.Thinning
treatmentshaveproducedmarkeddifferencesinvolumedistributionbytreesize.
Atthefourthtreatmentperiod,currentannualincrementisstillaboutdoublemean
annualincrement.Differencesamongtreatmentsareincreasingrapidly.Thereare
23
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
considerabledifferencesinproductivityamonginstallationsbeyondthose
accountedforbysiteindexdifferences.TheLOGSstudydesignisevaluated.
Curtis,
R.O.
1987.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:
reportNo.9—somecomparisonsofDFSIMestimateswithgrowthinthelevels­
of­growing­stock study. Res. Pap. PNW­RP­376. Portland, OR: U.S. Depart­
mentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.34p.
InitialstandstatisticsfortheLOGSstudyinstallationswereprojectedbythe
DFSIMsimulationprogramovertheavailableperiodsofobservation.Estimates
werecomparedwithobservedvolumeandbasalareagrowth,diameterchange,and
mortality.Overallagreementwasreasonablygood,althoughresultsindicatesome
biasesandaneedforrevisionsintheDFSIMprogram.
Marshall,
D.D.;
Bell,
J.F.;
Tappeiner,
J.C.
1992.
Levels­of­growing­stock
cooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:reportNo.10—theHoskinsstudy,1963–83.
Res. Pap. PNW­RP­448. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest
Service,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.65p.
ResultsoftheHoskinsstudyaresummarizedthroughthefifthandfinalplanned
treatmentperiod.Toage40,thinningsinthislowsite­Istandresultedinlarge
increasesindiametergrowthwithreductionsinbasalareaandvolumegrowthand
yield.Growthwasstronglyrelatedtolevelofgrowingstock.Alltreatmentsarestill
farfromculminationofmeanannualincrementincubicfeet.
Curtis,
R.
O.
1992.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:
reportNo.11—StampedeCreek:a20­yearprogressreport.Res.Pap.PNW­
RP­442. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
NorthwestResearchStation.47p.
Presentsresultsofthefirst20yearsoftheStampedeCreekstudyinsouthwest
Oregon.Toage53,growthinthissite­IIIDouglas­firstandhasbeenstrongly
relatedtolevelofgrowingstock.Markeddifferencesinvolumedistributionbytree
sizesaredevelopingasaresultofthinning.Periodicannualincrementisabout
twicemeanannualincrementinalltreatments,indicatingthatthestandisstillfar
from culmination.
Curtis,
R.O.
1994.Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:
reportNo.12—theIronCreekstudy:1966–89.Res.Pap.PNW­RP­475.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific North­
westResearchStation.67p.
24
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
ResultsoftheIronCreekstudyintheGiffordPinchotNationalForestinsouthern
Washingtonaresummarizedthroughage42(completionofthe60feetofheight
growthplanned fortheexperiment).Volumegrowth of this mid­site­II plantation
hasbeenstronglyrelatedtogrowingstock,basalareagrowthmuchlessso.Differ­
entgrowingstocklevelshaveproducedmarkeddifferencesinsizedistributionsand
incrowndimensions.Periodicannualvolumeincrementatage42istwotothree
timesmeanannualincrementinalltreatments.
Hoyer,
G.E.;
Andersen,
N.A.;
Marshall,
D.D.
1996.
Levels­of­growing­stock
cooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:reportNo.13—theFrancisstudy:1963–90.
Res. Pap. PNW­RP­488. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest
Service,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.91p.
ResultsoftheFrancisstudy,begunatage15,aresummarizedtogetherwithresults
fromadditionalfirst­thinningtreatmentsstartedatage25.Toage42,totalvolume
growthonthismid­site­IIplantationhasbeenstronglyrelatedtolevelofgrowing
stock.Closedollarvaluesamongseveralalternativessuggestthatdiversestand
structureobjectivescanbeattainedatage42withlittledifferenceinwood­product
valueperacre.
Curtis,
R.O.;
Marshall,
D.D.;
Bell,
J.F.
1997.
LOGS: a pioneering example of
silviculturalresearchincoastDouglas­fir.JournalofForestry.95(7):19–25.
ProvidesageneraloverviewoftheLOGScooperativeandpresentsthemajor
resultstodate.
Curtis,
R.O.;
Marshall,
D.D.
2001.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyin
Douglas­fir: report No. 14—Stampede Creek. Res. Pap. PNW­RP­543. Port­
land,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwest
ResearchStation.77p.
SummarizesresultsoftheStampedeCreekstudyfromestablishmentatage33
throughthefinalplannedtreatmentperiodatage63inasite­IIIstandinsouthwest
Oregon.ResultsaregenerallysimilartothehighersiteLOGSinstallations,al­
thoughdevelopmentisslower.Volumegrowthisstronglyrelatedtogrowingstock,
basalareagrowthlessso.Thinninghasproducedmarkeddifferencesintreesize
distribution,andperiodicannualincrementisstilltwotothreetimesmeanannual
increment.
25
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Marshall,
D.D.;
Curtis,
R.O.
2002.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyin
Douglas­fir:reportNo.15—Hoskins:1963–1998.Res.Pap.PNW­RP­537.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific North­
westResearchStation.80p.
ThisreportsummarizesresultsfromtheHoskinsinstallationthroughage55.
Growingstockhasbeenallowedtoaccumulatefor19yearssincethelasttreatment
thinningwasappliedinthishighsite­IInaturalstand.Volumeanddiametergrowth
werestronglyrelatedtogrowingstock,basalareagrowthlessso.Culminationof
meanannualincrementhasnotoccurredinanyofthethinnedtreatments;the
unthinnedcontrolhasculminatedfortotalcubic­footvolumeandisnearculmina­
tionformerchantablecubic­footvolume.Differencesingrowthpercentages
betweenthinningtreatmentsweresmall.Resultsdemonstratepotentialflexibilityin
managingDouglas­firtoreacharangeofobjectives.
Beddows,
D.
2002.
Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyinDouglas­fir:
reportNo.16—SaywardForestandShawniganLake.Victoria,BC:Canadian
Forest Service,PacificForestryCentre.67p.
PresentsresultsfromtheSaywardForestandShawniganLakeinstallations.Volume
growthatboththesite­IIISaywardForestinstallationtoage51andthesite­IV
ShawniganLakeinstallationtoage52hasbeenstronglyrelatedtolevelofgrow­
ingstock.Basalareagrowthfollowedasimilarbutweakertrend.Periodicannual
volumeincrementsatbothinstallationsarestilltwotothreetimesmeanannual
volumeincrements,indicatingthepotentialforproductivitygainsastreatedstands
age.ResultsaresimilartothosefromotherLOGSinstallations,differingfromthe
moreproductivesitesonlyinrateanddegreeofresponseassociatedwithlowersite
quality.
King,
J.E.;
Marshall,
D.D.;
Bell,
J.F.
2002. Levels­of­growing­stock cooperative
studyinDouglas­fir:reportNo.17.—theSkykomishstudy,1961–93;the
Clemonsstudy,1963–94.Res.Pap.PNW­RP­548.Portland,OR:U.S.Depart­
mentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.120p.
ReportpresentsresultsoftheSkykomishandClemonsstudies,whicharegenerally
similartothosefromotherinstallations.Someinterpretationsoftheapplicability
ofLOGSresultstooperationalthinningregimes,andahistoryoftheoriginsand
earlyestablishmentoftheLOGScooperativearegiven.
26
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Curtis,
R.O.
2006.
VolumegrowthtrendsinaDouglas­firlevels­of­growing­stock
study.WesternJournalofAppliedForestry.21(2):79–86.
Meancurvesofincrementandyieldingrosstotalvolumeandnetmerchantable
volumewerederivedfromseveninstallationsofthecooperativeLOGSstudy.To
atopheightof100ftandcorrespondingaverageageof45years,currentannual
incrementisstillfargreaterthanMAI.Volumegrowthandyieldarestrongly
relatedtostockinglevel.Thinninghasaccelerateddiametergrowthofthelargest
40treesperacreaswellasofthestandaverage.Maximumvolumeproduction
wouldbeobtainedatstanddensitiesapproachingthezoneofcompetition­related
mortality,althoughinpractice,effectsondiametergrowth,feasibilityoffrequent
entries,andwildlifeandamenityconsiderationswouldmakesomewhatlower
averagelevelsnecessary.
Curtis,
R.O.;
Marshall,
D.D.
2009.Levels­of­growing­stockcooperativestudyin
Douglas­fir:reportNo.18—RockyBrook:1963–2006.Res.Pap.PNW­RP­
578. Portland, OR: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
NorthwestResearchStation.90p.
DocumentshistoryandresultsoftheRockyBrookinstallationoverthe41­year
period1965–2006.This1938plantationisoneoftwointheseriesonpoorsites
(IV).ResultsaregenerallyconsistentinkindwiththosefromotherLOGSinstalla­
tionsalthoughgrowthhasbeenmuchslower.Volumeproductionincreasedwith
growingstock.Periodicannualincrementisstillconsiderablygreaterthanmean
annualincrement.Theprincipalfuturevalueofthedataisforuseindevelopment
ofgrowthmodels.
27
28
345
355
380
360
Mean
347
Mean
11
23
63
345
335
360
348
Mean
12
41
72
355
335
355
31
42
52
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
7
5
3
347
340
345
355
338
335
330
350
340
350
335
335
333
305
340
355
277
275
255
300
248
275
215
255
218
358
Mean
352
355
350
210
360
355
225
Deleted­rootdisease
21
33
51
1
1970
(23)
b
Plot
1970
(23)
a
317
305
335
310
273
275
255
290
237
270
210
230
212
210
215
1973
(26)
Period
1
Treatment
1966
(19)
Calibration
period
305
280
325
310
242
230
220
275
193
225
165
190
148
145
150
1973
(26)
297
280
310
300
237
230
220
260
188
220
165
180
148
145
150
1977
(30)
Period
2
297
280
310
300
227
215
205
260
162
185
145
155
105
100
110
1977
(30)
293
280
310
290
227
215
205
260
160
185
145
150
105
100
110
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
1984
(37)
287
265
305
290
210
195
185
250
145
283
265
300
285
207
195
185
240
145
160
125
150
80
80
160
125
150
80
80
80
80
Number per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
260
235
270
275
178
165
160
210
115
135
100
110
62
60
65
1984
(37)
255
230
270
265
178
165
160
210
113
135
100
105
62
60
65
1989
(42)
Period
5
255
230
270
265
178
165
160
210
113
135
100
105
62
60
65
1989
(42)
240
225
240
255
173
165
160
195
107
125
100
95
62
60
65
1994
(47)
Period
6
240
225
240
255
173
165
160
195
107
125
100
95
62
60
65
1994
(47)
230
220
230
240
167
160
160
180
107
125
100
95
62
60
65
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
230
220
230
240
167
160
160
180
107
125
100
95
62
60
65
1999
(52)
207
210
210
200
163
155
155
180
107
125
100
95
62
60
65
2006
(59)
Period
8
Table
4a—Number
of
live
trees
per
acre
(excluding
ingrowth),
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
Appendix 2: Data tables
29
1,252
Mean 1,277
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
345
1,325
1,375
1,055
352
Mean
330
350
355
343
335
350
345
355
330
390
345
347
355
350
335
1970
a
(23)
1,340
1,385
1,105
340
360
355
360
Mean
14
53
73
350
370
360
363
Mean
15
43
81
335
400
355
362
Mean
13
62
111
360
375
350
1966
(19)
82
91
101
Plot
Unthinned 22
25
71
8
6
Decreasing:
4
2
Increasing:
Treatment
Calibration
Period
1,252
1,325
1,375
1,055
313
290
345
305
307
290
315
315
243
200
285
245
198
200
215
180
1970
b
(23)
1,208
1,240
1,355
1,030
292
290
315
270
295
285
290
310
228
190
265
230
188
195
190
180
1973
(26)
Period
1
1,208
1,240
1,355
1,030
275
245
310
270
252
240
255
260
197
155
235
200
155
150
175
140
1973
(26)
1,123
1,145
1,270
955
273
245
305
270
247
235
250
255
192
155
230
190
153
150
175
135
1977
(30)
Period
2
1,123
1,145
1,270
955
257
225
285
260
203
205
195
210
180
150
215
175
127
125
135
120
1977
(30)
1980
(33)
1984
(37)
Period
4
1,015
1,055
1,125
865
250
220
275
255
202
200
195
210
178
145
215
175
125
125
130
120
1,015
1,055
1,125
865
225
195
270
210
172
170
170
175
165
140
190
165
115
110
130
105
907
990
985
745
222
190
265
210
170
165
170
175
165
140
190
165
113
110
130
100
Number per acre
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
907
990
985
745
187
150
230
180
128
130
130
125
153
130
180
150
97
95
110
85
1984
(37)
755
810
790
665
185
150
225
180
128
130
130
125
152
130
175
150
97
95
110
85
1989
(42)
Period
5
755
810
790
665
185
150
225
180
128
130
130
125
152
130
175
150
97
95
110
85
1989
(42)
588
660
655
450
180
150
215
175
127
130
130
120
147
130
170
140
83
75
105
70
1994
(47)
Period
6
588
650
655
450
180
150
215
175
127
130
130
120
147
130
170
140
83
75
105
70
1994
(47)
498
555
570
390
165
145
190
160
125
125
130
120
143
130
165
135
82
75
100
70
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
498
550
570
370
165
145
190
160
125
125
130
120
143
130
165
135
82
75
100
70
1999
(52)
412
440
480
315
157
130
185
155
122
125
125
115
138
125
160
130
78
75
100
60
2006
(59)
Period
8
Table
4b—Number
of
live
trees
per
acre
(excluding
ingrowth),
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
and
unthinned
treatments
30
b
a
52.2
46.8
48.7
49.2
Mean
48.6
Mean
11
23
63
48.2
51.1
46.5
46.3
Mean
12
41
72
43.9
51.0
44.0
31
42
52
Before cut.
After cut.
7
5
3
83.7
88.5
81.3
81.4
82.6
82.5
85.8
79.4
79.9
75.0
88.7
75.9
80.7
81.3
79.5
81.4
71.3
71.4
71.3
71.3
61.9
61.9
62.2
61.6
53.6
44.8
Mean
79.3
45.7
79.2
54.0
44.0
79.5
53.1
Deleted­rootdisease
21
33
51
1
1970
(23)
Plot
1970
(23)
b
108.9
114.6
109.6
102.7
99.7
101.6
102.3
95.3
86.0
87.1
86.8
84.2
75.0
79.1
76.9
1973
(26)
Period
1
Treatment
1966
(19)
a
Calibration
Period
105.9
107.6
107.5
102.7
91.3
92.3
91.0
90.6
72.0
73.9
69.3
72.8
57.6
59.3
56.0
1973
(26)
142.6
147.3
144.0
136.4
125.3
129.1
128.7
118.1
102.1
105.8
100.7
100.0
86.2
87.4
84.9
1977
(30)
Period
2
142.6
147.3
144.0
136.4
120.7
122.1
121.9
118.1
90.7
92.6
92.9
86.7
64.5
64.5
64.5
1977
(30)
1980
(33)
1984
(37)
Period
4
64.8
66.6
63.0
101.9
134.9
167.2
165.4
173.1 169.1
170.5 169.1
158.1 158.1
145.3
147.5 134.2
148.3 135.1
140.2 135.4
111.5
115.2 100.4
114.5 100.6
104.7 104.7
81.6
81.2
82.0
192.6
198.9
195.1
183.8
159.5
160.0
161.5
157.0
125.8
125.3
121.9
130.2
83.4
85.7
81.0
Square feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
85.9
85.2
86.6
1989
(42)
131.1
169.6
179.2
207.9
179.5 209.1
179.5 208.6
178.6 206.0
141.7
141.1 169.1
142.2 171.1
141.8 168.6
106.5
110.5 136.4
104.7 129.5
104.4 127.6
68.2
68.3
68.0
1984
(37)
Period
5
207.9
209.1
208.6
206.0
169.6
169.1
171.1
168.6
131.1
136.4
129.5
127.6
85.9
85.2
86.6
1989
(42)
234.0
239.7
225.0
237.5
197.8
201.2
207.2
185.1
157.1
161.2
160.1
150.1
107.4
107.2
107.5
1994
(47)
Period
6
234.0
239.7
225.0
237.5
197.8
201.2
207.2
185.1
157.1
161.2
160.1
150.1
107.4
107.2
107.5
1994
(47)
260.1
268.3
252.1
260.0
221.8
227.2
234.4
203.9
181.0
187.9
181.6
173.5
126.2
127.2
125.3
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
Table
5a—Live
basal
area
per
acre
(excluding
ingrowth)
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
2006
(59)
153.2
215.3
258.9
260.1
287.4
268.3 305.2
252.1 278.6
260.0 278.5
221.8
227.2 264.9
234.4 272.8
203.9 238.8
181.0
187.9 224.1
181.6 213.3
173.5 208.6
126.2
127.2 154.2
125.3 152.3
1999
(52)
Period
8
31
49.2
Mean
Mean
b
Before cut
After cut
a
86.4
97.3
90.7
71.0
51.7
46.4
49.5
45.4
Mean
14
53
73
46.3
45.9
43.9
49.7
Mean
15
43
81
51.8
47.3
50.1
48.8
Mean
13
62
111
49.3
45.0
52.1
1966
a
(19)
82
91
101
Plot
Unthinned 22
25
71
8
6
Decreasing:
4
2
Increasing:
Treatment
133.7
146.0
141.1
113.9
86.7
89.7
82.9
87.6
79.0
80.6
79.1
77.5
86.5
90.6
83.5
85.3
84.4
88.1
77.2
88.0
1970
b
(23)
Calibration
period
133.7
146.0
141.1
113.9
80.9
80.8
81.6
80.4
71.9
72.0
71.5
72.1
63.5
61.8
64.8
64.0
51.6
52.5
51.2
51.1
1970
(23)
170.2
180.7
181.2
148.6
107.0
115.7
103.0
102.3
100.0
102.3
96.1
101.7
87.1
85.4
90.0
85.9
72.2
74.5
67.1
75.0
1973
(26)
Period
1
170.2
180.7
181.2
148.6
102.6
104.0
101.7
102.3
87.2
86.8
87.9
86.8
77.7
74.6
82.1
76.3
60.8
60.0
61.7
60.7
1973
(26)
208.5
220.6
225.4
179.5
140.9
144.4
137.2
141.1
123.1
121.7
125.4
122.3
111.1
108.5
115.9
109.0
89.9
89.1
92.8
87.7
1977
(30)
Period
2
208.5
220.6
225.4
179.5
133.9
135.9
127.8
137.9
103.3
105.6
99.6
104.7
105.4
106.0
107.2
102.9
77.5
77.9
74.6
80.2
1977
(30)
120.8
123.0
118.6
120.7
88.9
88.3
89.2
89.2
111.0
227.6
241.8
241.9
199.1
156.5
227.6
241.8
241.9
199.1
144.8
159.6 144.9
148.4 144.8
161.4 144.5
125.9
1984
(37)
246.2
263.8
260.4
214.3
168.3
171.0
167.5
166.6
134.6
131.7
134.6
137.6
146.7
147.3
144.6
148.2
109.7
109.7
112.4
107.1
Square feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
126.1 110.8
122.9 109.5
128.9 112.5
127.6
125.5
130.6
126.7
95.1
97.2
89.2
98.9
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
164.8
163.6
166.7
164.2
121.6
123.3
123.4
118.1
1989
(42)
135.4
246.2
263.8
260.4
214.3
146.8
257.4
268.1
272.4
231.6
174.1
146.9 176.9
146.5 171.9
146.8 173.4
109.7
110.3 135.5
109.5 136.0
109.4 134.8
137.1
135.9
138.4
137.0
97.9
99.3
98.7
95.8
1984
(37)
Period
5
257.4
268.1
272.4
231.6
174.1
176.9
171.9
173.4
135.4
135.5
136.0
134.8
164.8
163.6
166.7
164.2
121.6
123.3
123.4
118.1
1989
(42)
256.5
277.5
286.5
205.6
204.1
209.5
201.8
200.9
166.7
166.8
170.4
162.8
193.1
193.6
198.0
187.8
129.1
118.9
146.6
121.9
1994
(47)
Period
6
256.5
277.5
286.5
205.6
204.1
209.5
201.8
200.9
166.7
166.8
170.4
162.8
193.1
193.6
198.0
187.8
129.1
118.9
146.6
121.9
1994
(47)
270.6
288.8
302.7
220.4
219.1
235.2
212.4
209.7
191.4
189.5
195.6
189.2
216.1
218.8
220.5
208.9
147.3
137.5
164.0
140.4
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
246.2
244.6
255.9
238.0
167.8
167.9
197.1
138.4
2006
(59)
223.3
270.6
288.8
302.7
220.4
219.1
288.0
300.0
324.6
239.4
249.8
235.2 266.9
212.4 241.4
209.7 240.9
191.4
189.5 224.5
195.6 228.6
189.2 216.7
216.1
218.8
220.5
208.9
147.3
137.5
164.0
140.4
1999
(52)
Period
8
Table
5b—Live
basal
area
per
acre
(excluding
ingrowth)
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
and
unthinned
treatments
32
b
a
After cut.
Before cut.
7
5
3
21
33
51
1
1970
(23)
a
1970
(23)
b
5.3
4.9
4.8
5.0
Mean
5.1
Mean
11
23
63
5.1
5.3
4.9
4.9
Mean
12
41
72
4.8
5.3
4.8
4.8
6.7
6.9
6.6
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.5
6.6
6.3
7.0
6.4
6.4
6.7
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.9
7.2
6.6
6.8
6.4
7.3
6.7
6.8
7.9
8.3
7.7
7.8
8.2
8.2
8.6
7.8
8.2
7.7
8.7
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.1
1973
(26)
Period
1
4.9
6.4
6.9
4.7
6.4
6.6
Deleted­rootdisease
1966
(19)
31
42
52
Mean
Plot
Treatment
Calibration
period
8.0
8.4
7.8
7.8
8.4
8.6
8.7
7.8
8.3
7.8
8.8
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.3
1973
(26)
9.4
9.8
9.2
9.1
9.9
10.1
10.4
9.1
10.0
9.4
10.6
10.1
10.4
10.5
10.2
1977
(30)
Period
2
9.4
9.8
9.2
9.1
9.9
10.2
10.4
9.1
10.2
9.6
10.8
10.1
10.6
10.9
10.4
1977
(30)
10.2
10.6
10.0
10.0
10.9
11.2
11.5
9.9
11.3
10.7
12.0
11.3
12.0
12.2
11.7
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
10.3
10.8
10.1
10.0
10.9
11.2
11.6
10.0
11.4
10.7
12.1
11.3
12.2
12.4
12.0
1984
(37)
11.2
11.7
10.9
10.9
12.0
12.3
12.7
11.0
12.7
12.0
13.4
12.6
13.8
14.0
13.6
Inches
1980
(33)
Period
4
11.3
11.8
11.0
10.9
12.1
12.5
12.8
11.1
13.1
12.3
13.9
13.2
14.2
14.5
13.9
1984
(37)
12.3
12.9
11.9
11.9
13.3
13.7
14.0
12.1
14.6
13.6
15.4
14.9
15.8
16.1
15.6
1989
(42)
Period
5
12.3
12.9
11.9
11.9
13.3
13.7
14.0
12.1
14.6
13.6
15.4
14.9
15.8
16.1
15.6
1989
(42)
13.4
14.0
13.1
13.1
14.5
15.0
15.4
13.2
16.5
15.4
17.1
17.0
17.8
18.1
17.4
1994
(47)
Period
6
13.4
14.0
13.1
13.1
14.5
15.0
15.4
13.2
16.5
15.4
17.1
17.0
17.8
18.1
17.4
1994
(47)
14.4
15.0
14.2
14.1
15.6
16.1
16.4
14.4
17.7
16.6
18.2
18.3
19.2
19.7
18.8
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
14.4
15.0
14.2
14.1
15.6
16.1
16.4
14.4
17.7
16.6
18.2
18.3
19.2
19.7
18.8
1999
(52)
16.0
16.3
15.6
16.0
17.1
17.7
18.0
15.6
19.3
18.1
19.8
20.1
21.2
21.7
20.7
2006
(59)
Period
8
Table
6a—Quadratic
mean
diameter
(QMD)
of
live
trees
(excluding
ingrowth)
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
33
b
a
Before cut.
After cut.
Unthinned
8
6
Decreasing:
4
2
Increasing:
Treatment
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.5
Mean
5.1
Mean
22
25
71
5.3
4.9
5.1
4.8
Mean
14
53
73
4.9
4.8
4.7
5.0
Mean
15
43
81
5.3
4.7
5.1
5.0
Mean
13
62
111
5.0
4.7
5.2
1966
(19)
82
91
101
Plot
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
6.8
7.1
6.6
6.7
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.7
7.1
6.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.4
6.9
1970
a
(23)
Calibration
period
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
6.9
7.1
6.6
7.0
6.6
6.7
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.6
7.2
1970
b
(23)
5.1
5.2
4.9
5.1
8.2
8.6
7.7
8.3
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.8
8.4
9.1
7.9
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.0
8.7
1973
(26)
Period
1
5.1
5.2
4.9
5.1
8.3
8.8
7.8
8.3
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.8
8.6
9.4
8.0
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.0
8.9
1973
(26)
5.8
5.9
5.7
5.8
9.8
10.4
9.1
9.8
9.6
9.7
9.6
9.4
10.4
11.3
9.6
10.3
10.4
10.4
9.9
10.9
1977
(30)
Period
2
5.8
5.9
5.7
5.8
9.8
10.5
9.1
9.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
10.4
11.4
9.6
10.4
10.6
10.7
10.1
11.1
1977
(30)
6.4
6.5
6.3
6.5
10.8
11.5
9.9
10.8
10.7
10.8
10.7
10.6
11.6
12.6
10.6
11.5
11.8
11.9
11.2
12.3
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
6.4
6.5
6.3
6.5
10.9
11.7
9.9
11.2
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
11.7
12.7
10.7
11.6
11.9
12.1
11.2
12.5
1984
(37)
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.2
11.9
12.8
10.8
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.0
12.0
12.8
13.9
11.8
12.8
13.4
13.5
12.6
14.0
Inches
1980
(33)
Period
4
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.2
12.1
13.4
10.8
12.2
12.5
12.5
12.4
12.7
12.9
13.8
11.9
12.9
13.7
13.8
12.8
14.4
1984
(37)
7.9
7.8
7.9
8.0
13.3
14.7
11.8
13.3
13.9
13.8
13.9
14.1
14.2
15.2
13.2
14.2
15.2
15.4
14.3
16.0
1989
(42)
Period
5
7.9
7.8
7.9
8.0
13.3
14.7
11.8
13.3
13.9
13.8
13.9
14.1
14.2
15.2
13.2
14.2
15.2
15.4
14.3
16.0
1989
(42)
9.0
8.8
9.0
9.1
14.5
16.0
13.1
14.5
15.5
15.3
15.5
15.8
15.6
16.5
14.6
15.7
17.0
17.0
16.0
17.9
1994
(47)
Period
6
9.0
8.8
9.0
9.1
14.5
16.0
13.1
14.5
15.5
15.3
15.5
15.8
15.6
16.5
14.6
15.7
17.0
17.0
16.0
17.9
1994
(47)
10.0
9.8
9.9
10.4
15.7
17.2
14.3
15.5
16.8
16.7
16.6
17.0
16.7
17.6
15.7
16.8
18.3
18.3
17.3
19.2
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
9.9
9.8
9.9
10.2
15.7
17.2
14.3
15.5
16.8
16.7
16.6
17.0
16.7
17.6
15.7
16.8
18.3
18.3
17.3
19.2
1999
(52)
11.4
11.2
11.1
11.8
17.3
19.4
15.5
16.9
18.3
18.1
18.3
18.6
18.1
18.9
17.1
18.3
19.9
20.3
19.0
20.6
2006
(59)
Period
8
Table
6b—Quadratic
mean
diameter
of
live
trees
(excluding
ingrowth)
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
and
unthinned
treatments
34
787
705
733
742
Mean
738
Mean
11
23
63
735
778
702
653
Mean
12
41
72
615
741
604
31
42
52
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
7
5
3
1,598
1,692
1,550
1,552
1,598
1,609
1,659
1,525
1,489
1,374
1,696
1,395
1,541
1,556
1,515
1,552
1,391
1,404
1,389
1,379
1,165
1,145
1,208
1,142
2,417
2,543
2,424
2,285
2,241
2,308
2,301
2,114
1,849
1,853
1,914
1,782
1,636
990
1,446
Mean
631
1,658
1,615
645
1,439
998
617
1,454
982
Deleted­rootdisease
21
33
51
1973
(26)
1
1970
(23)
b
Plot
1970
(23)a
Period
1
Treatment
1966
(19)
Calibration
Period
2,352
2,391
2,381
2,285
2,061
2,119
2,052
2,011
1,551
1,578
1,532
1,544
1,227
1,262
1,192
1973
(26)
3,765
3,889
3,807
3,598
3,310
3,467
3,383
3,081
2,600
2,669
2,616
2,514
2,144
2,191
2,097
1977
(30)
Period
2
3,765
3,889
3,807
3,598
3,191
3,283
3,208
3,081
2,310
2,343
2,419
2,169
1,624
1,630
1,618
1977
(30)
1,838
2,912
3,994
4,980
4,931
5,173 5,065
5,064 5,024
4,703 4,703
4,304
4,440 4,040
4,385 3,993
4,087 3,950
3,187
3,296 2,880
3,332 2,922
2,933 2,933
2,304
1984
(37)
6,347
6,546
6,400
6,095
5,292
5,347
5,327
5,201
3,994
3,980
3,939
4,064
2,590
2,674
2,506
Cubic feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
2,295 1,888
2,313 1,788
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
1989
(42)
3,074
4,788
6,434
5,905
7,828
5,910 7,869
5,886 7,842
5,919 7,772
4,715
4,732 6,466
4,692 6,453
4,721 6,383
3,398
3,529 4,971
3,390 4,837
3,273 4,557
2,136
2,149 3,065
2,123 3,083
1984
(37)
Period
5
7,828
7,869
7,842
7,772
6,434
6,466
6,453
6,383
4,788
4,971
4,837
4,557
3,074
3,065
3,083
1989
(42)
9,719
9,896
9,330
9,930
8,224
8,482
8,495
7,694
6,204
6,439
6,375
5,799
4,220
4,218
4,223
1994
(47)
Period
6
9,719
9,896
9,330
9,930
8,224
8,482
8,495
7,694
6,204
6,439
6,375
5,799
4,220
4,218
4,223
1994
(47)
11,606
11,879
11,225
11,713
9,955
10,312
10,347
9,207
7,804
8,214
7,888
7,311
5,333
5,331
5,335
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
2006
(59)
7,260
11,606 14,425
11,879 15,151
11,225 13,949
11,713 14,174
9,955 12,945
10,312 13,408
10,347 13,362
9,207 12,064
7,804 10,281
8,214 10,807
7,888 10,240
7,311 9,797
5,333
5,331 7,271
5,335 7,250
1999
(52)
Period
8
Table
7a—Live
cubic-foot
volume
of
total
stem
(CVTS)
per
acre,
ingrowth
excluded,
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
35
764
Mean
Mean
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
1,167
1,336
1,220
943
808
700
784
638
Mean
14
53
73
661
638
616
775
Mean
15
43
81
819
709
797
749
Mean
13
62
111
763
673
811
1966
(19)
82
91
101
Plot
Unthinned 22
25
71
8
6
Decreasing:
4
2
Increasing:
Treatment
2,388
2,641
2,509
2,013
1,688
1,747
1,588
1,730
1,448
1,484
1,437
1,423
1,721
1,824
1,611
1,727
1,651
1,735
1,485
1,734
1970
a
(23)
Calibration
period
2,388
2,641
2,509
2,013
1,583
1,582
1,562
1,605
1,321
1,331
1,302
1,328
1,280
1,263
1,266
1,312
1,019
1,045
996
1,016
1970
b
(23)
3,577
3,845
3,793
3,094
2,381
2,588
2,226
2,328
2,107
2,162
2,006
2,152
1,966
1,941
1,975
1,982
1,625
1,699
1,482
1,693
1973
(26)
Period
1
3,577
3,845
3,793
3,094
2,290
2,342
2,199
2,328
1,840
1,834
1,843
1,843
1,759
1,703
1,806
1,767
1,370
1,377
1,360
1,373
1973
(26)
5,229
5,606
5,640
4,441
3,649
3,754
3,444
3,749
3,082
3,046
3,128
3,073
2,935
2,852
2,985
2,969
2,351
2,391
2,352
2,309
1977
(30)
Period
2
5,229
5,606
5,640
4,441
3,472
3,540
3,208
3,667
2,585
2,634
2,481
2,640
2,782
2,789
2,748
2,809
2,038
2,117
1,874
2,123
1977
(30)
3,594
3,653
3,435
3,695
2,589
2,620
2,533
2,612
3,153
6,436
6,941
6,809
5,558
4,534
6,436
6,941
6,809
5,558
4,205
4,641 4,222
4,184 4,080
4,776 4,314
3,571
1984
(37)
7,810
8,433
8,245
6,751
5,446
5,560
5,271
5,508
4,260
4,140
4,238
4,401
4,856
4,832
4,678
5,058
3,587
3,686
3,584
3,490
Cubic feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
3,551 3,122
3,467 3,093
3,697 3,243
3,787
3,715
3,778
3,868
2,766
2,871
2,533
2,895
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
6,149
6,034
6,114
6,298
4,502
4,692
4,447
4,366
1989
(42)
4,932
7,810
8,433
8,245
6,751
4,758
9,297
9,745
9,847
8,299
6,502
4,801 6,635
4,605 6,260
4,870 6,611
3,497
3,481 4,895
3,485 4,961
3,526 4,941
4,538
4,459
4,478
4,678
3,208
3,351
3,149
3,124
1984
(37)
Period
5
9,297
9,745
9,847
8,299
6,502
6,635
6,260
6,611
4,932
4,895
4,961
4,941
6,149
6,034
6,114
6,298
4,502
4,692
4,447
4,366
1989
(42)
10,069
10,940
11,269
7,999
8,368
8,635
8,068
8,399
6,661
6,623
6,809
6,549
8,011
7,954
8,040
8,039
5,305
5,005
5,903
5,007
1994
(47)
Period
6
10,069
10,940
11,269
7,999
8,368
8,635
8,068
8,399
6,661
6,623
6,809
6,549
8,011
7,954
8,040
8,039
5,305
5,005
5,903
5,007
1994
(47)
11,634
12,427
12,962
9,515
9,778
10,570
9,321
9,442
8,318
8,171
8,537
8,247
9,708
9,756
9,740
9,627
6,537
6,294
7,082
6,234
1999
(52)
Period
7
Postreatment
8,178
8,388
9,374
6,773
2006
(59)
11,634 13,688
12,427 14,313
12,962 15,378
9,515 11,373
9,778 12,431
10,570 13,408
9,321 11,837
9,442 12,049
8,318 10,866
8,171 10,830
8,537 11,264
8,247 10,505
9,708 12,214
9,756 12,030
9,740 12,531
9,627 12,082
6,537
6,294
7,082
6,234
1999
(52)
Period
8
Table
7b—Live
cubic-foot
volume
of
total
stem
(CVTS)
per
acre,
ingrowth
excluded,
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
and
unthinned
treatments
36
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
7
5
3
21
33
51
1
1970
(23)
a
1970
(23)
b
61
42
19
41
Mean
47
Mean
11
23
63
58
68
16
32
Mean
12
41
72
24
50
23
26
513
655
492
391
539
578
618
421
470
383
614
414
400
498
629
474
391
505
546
555
415
411
346
511
377
317
1,331
1,564
1,266
1,163
1,316
1,304
1,492
1,259
1,163
1,237
1,342
1,323
1,047
931
1,087
1,405
1,450
1,093
852
1,009
933
760
814
707
1973
(26)
2,731
2,988
2,699
2,506
2,534
2,730
2,706
2,165
2,015
2,731
2,988
2,699
2,506
2,450
2,602
2,585
2,165
1,818
1,743
2,009
1,701
1,326
1,718
1,950
2,128
1,966
1,359
1,293
1977
(30)
3,937
4,250
3,926
3,635
3,575
3,773
3,781
3,170
2,716
2,713
2,935
2,499
2,018
2,032
2,004
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
1,781
1,654
1977
(30)
Period
2
988
1,243
1,031
958
995
920
1973
(26)
Period
1
24
412
345
28
388
289
Deleted­rootdisease
1966
(19)
31
42
52
Mean
Plot
Treatment
Calibration
period
1984
(37)
3,912
4,191
3,910
3,635
3,318
3,433
3,449
3,071
2,487
2,377
2,586
2,499
1,626
1,680
1,572
5,341
5,674
5,301
5,048
4,624
4,736
4,786
4,351
3,579
3,496
3,600
3,641
2,386
2,468
2,304
Cubic feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
4,992
5,148
4,913
4,914
4,149
4,226
4,228
3,993
3,083
3,135
3,135
2,980
1,978
1,997
1,959
1984
(37)
6,896
7,087
6,816
6,785
5,840
5,927
5,961
5,633
4,458
4,564
4,552
4,259
2,897
2,890
2,904
1989
(42)
Period
5
6,896
7,087
6,816
6,785
5,840
5,927
5,961
5,633
4,458
4,564
4,552
4,259
2,897
2,890
2,904
1989
(42)
8,834
9,103
8,432
8,966
7,619
7,902
7,970
6,983
5,867
6,047
6,056
5,498
4,014
4,011
4,016
1994
(47)
Period
6
8,834
9,103
8,432
8,966
7,619
7,902
7,970
6,983
5,867
6,047
6,056
5,498
4,014
4,011
4,016
1994
(47)
10,721
11,052
10,336
10,775
9,337
9,706
9,770
8,535
7,418
7,774
7,519
6,961
5,089
5,087
5,091
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
10,721
11,052
10,336
10,775
9,337
9,706
9,770
8,535
7,418
7,774
7,519
6,961
5,089
5,087
5,091
1999
(52)
13,552
14,251
13,057
13,348
12,245
12,715
12,711
11,308
9,810
10,283
9,789
9,359
6,946
6,955
6,938
2006
(59)
Period
8
Table
8a—Live
merchantable
cubic-foot
volume
to
6-inch
top
(CV6)
per
acre,
ingrowth
excluded,
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
37
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
Unthinned
8
6
Decreasing:
4
2
Increasing:
Treatment
25
37
24
29
Mean
48
Mean
22
25
71
80
18
47
22
Mean
14
53
73
45
12
9
42
Mean
15
43
81
97
3
26
32
Mean
13
62
111
31
19
47
1966
(19)
82
91
101
Plot
342
347
386
293
623
763
500
607
416
498
388
362
576
804
356
568
531
575
375
643
1970
(23)
a
Calibration
Period
342
347
386
293
594
692
493
597
393
474
357
348
477
628
333
472
356
371
279
417
1970
(23)
b
1,022
1,091
1,049
926
1,422
1,663
1,169
1,434
1,124
1,256
1,030
1,088
1,206
1,363
1,061
1,193
986
1,039
813
1,105
1973
(26)
Period
1
1,022
1,091
1,049
926
1,383
1,554
1,162
1,434
1,009
1,079
990
957
1,102
1,235
987
1,084
851
881
745
927
1973
(26)
2,285
2,489
2,374
1,991
2,758
3,009
2,398
2,866
2,285
2,307
2,325
2,222
2,346
2,439
2,235
2,363
1,888
1,941
1,793
1,930
1977
(30)
Period
2
2,285
2,489
2,374
1,991
2,640
2,867
2,223
2,829
1,936
1,990
1,866
1,953
2,233
2,393
2,044
2,262
1,668
1,754
1,459
1,791
1977
(30)
3,413
3,717
3,474
3,049
3,721
3,984
3,226
3,951
2,935
2,926
2,864
3,013
3,254
3,338
3,085
3,340
2,421
2,533
2,152
2,579
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
1984
(37)
3,413
3,717
3,474
3,049
3,484
3,647
3,136
3,670
2,625
2,606
2,579
2,690
3,109
3,292
2,837
3,200
2,275
2,328
2,152
2,343
4,817
5,152
4,963
4,338
4,728
4,990
4,339
4,855
3,745
3,637
3,740
3,857
4,376
4,462
4,094
4,573
3,282
3,390
3,219
3,235
Cubic feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
4,817
5,152
4,963
4,338
4,164
4,375
3,801
4,315
3,129
3,102
3,119
3,166
4,094
4,115
3,928
4,240
2,955
3,103
2,849
2,914
1984
(37)
6,621
6,940
6,885
6,038
5,875
6,164
5,444
6,016
4,545
4,489
4,580
4,565
5,691
5,659
5,576
5,837
4,228
4,421
4,136
4,128
1989
(42)
Period
5
6,621
6,940
6,885
6,038
5,875
6,164
5,444
6,016
4,545
4,489
4,580
4,565
5,691
5,659
5,576
5,837
4,228
4,421
4,136
4,128
1989
(42)
8,056
8,740
8,884
6,544
7,735
8,110
7,301
7,794
6,251
6,186
6,403
6,164
7,529
7,528
7,496
7,564
5,033
4,758
5,572
4,770
1994
(47)
Period
6
8,056
8,740
8,884
6,544
7,735
8,110
7,301
7,794
6,251
6,186
6,403
6,164
7,529
7,528
7,496
7,564
5,033
4,758
5,572
4,770
1994
(47)
9,870
10,571
10,890
8,150
9,160
9,999
8,625
8,855
7,868
7,707
8,079
7,817
9,189
9,272
9,169
9,127
6,229
6,005
6,726
5,956
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
9,870
10,571
10,890
8,150
9,160
9,999
8,625
8,855
7,868
7,707
8,079
7,817
9,189
9,272
9,169
9,127
6,229
6,005
6,726
5,956
1999
(52)
7,817
8,026
8,942
6,482
2006
(59)
12,176
12,844
13,535
10,149
11,759
12,792
11,094
11,391
10,339
10,280
10,727
10,009
11,624
11,472
11,893
11,508
Period
8
Table
8b—Live
merchantable
cubic-foot
volume
to
6-inch
top
(CV6)
per
acre,
ingrowth
excluded,
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
and
unthinned
treatments
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Table
9—Percentage
of
merchantable
cubic-foot
volume
(CV6)
in
material
larger
than
indicated
log-top
diameter,
for
live
trees
present
in
2006
Scaling
diameter
(inches)
Treatment
6
8
10
12
14
16
– – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – –
38
Total
live
CV6
3
Ft /ac
Fixed:
1
3
5
7
100 100 100 100 92.2
88.8
87.2 83.3 85.4
81.2
72.6 66.0 74.3
67.7
52.4 43.7 60.0
44.5
27.7 20.4 33.2
18.1
9.6 5.0 6,946
9,810
12,245 13,552 Increasing:
2
4
100 100 92.4
88.6
81.4
77.7
70.8
59.2
49.5
31.5
20.1
11.1
7,817
11,624
Decreasing:
6
8
100 100 88.9
86.5
79.3
71.6
64.4
52.7
37.8
29.3
10.8
8.0 10,339
11,759
Unthinned
100 68.8
42.2
19.0
2.8
0.7
12,176
39
b
Before cut.
After cut.
a
7
5
3
21
33
51
1
1970
(23)
a
1970
(23)
b
0
0
0
0
Mean
0
Mean
11
23
63
0
0
0
0
Mean
12
41
72
0
0
0
0
652
706
931
318
962
1,205
1,155
525
575
231
1,024
468
468
652
706
931
318
962
1,205
1,155
525
537
231
912
468
403
4,298
5,317
4,018
3,560
4,186
4,649
4,699
3,210
3,318
2,860
4,153
2,941
2,896
3,079
2,712
1973
(26)
Period
1
0
431
431
0
506
375
Deleted­rootdisease
1966
(19)
31
42
52
Mean
Plot
Treatment
Calibration
period
4,190
4,993
4,018
3,560
3,988
4,518
4,356
3,091
2,841
2,473
3,254
2,798
2,302
2,510
2,106
1973
(26)
9,581
10,107
9,674
8,963
8,964
9,611
9,451
7,831
6,700
6,601
6,919
6,580
5,459
5,624
5,294
1977
(30)
Period
2
9,581
10,107
9,674
8,963
8,649
9,197
8,919
7,831
6,068
5,969
6,544
5,691
4,154
4,286
4,023
1977
(30)
1984
(37)
8,484
8,693
8,194
8,262 13,341
8,195 12,923
8,227 13,601
8,365 13,499
5,400
5,448
5,353
Board feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
13,919 13,835 21,181
14,336 14,085 22,011
14,470 14,470 20,812
12,951 12,951 20,721
12,603 11,734 18,009
13,214 12,099 18,618
12,868 11,752 18,546
11,728 11,352 16,864
9,075
9,454
9,406
8,365
6,629
6,551
6,707
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
19,886
20,119
19,445
20,095
16,167
16,688
16,327
15,486
11,484
11,480
11,806
11,166
7,114
7,137
7,090
1984
(37)
30,072
30,188
29,999
30,029
24,848
25,168
25,082
24,293
17,980
19,013
18,267
16,659
11,268
11,259
11,278
1989
(42)
Period
5
30,072
30,188
29,999
30,029
24,848
25,168
25,082
24,293
17,980
19,013
18,267
16,659
11,268
11,259
11,278
1989
(42)
39,203
39,962
37,354
40,294
33,687
34,796
34,925
31,342
24,328
25,427
25,002
22,556
16,778
16,978
16,578
1994
(47)
Period
6
39,203
39,962
37,354
40,294
33,687
34,796
34,925
31,342
24,328
25,427
25,002
22,556
16,778
16,978
16,578
1994
(47)
49,195
50,381
47,950
49,255
42,897
45,346
44,586
38,758
33,718
35,137
34,076
31,940
23,004
22,985
23,022
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreament
49,195
50,381
47,950
49,255
42,897
45,346
44,586
38,758
33,718
35,137
34,076
31,940
23,004
22,985
23,022
2006
(59)
64,360
67,463
62,262
63,357
58,577
61,181
60,904
53,645
46,806
49,087
46,629
44,703
34,412
35,500
33,324
Period
8
1999
(52)
Table
10a—Live
Scribner
board-foot
volume
per
acre
to
6-inch
top
(SV6),
ingrowth
excluded,
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
fixed
treatments
40
b
a
Before cut.
After cut.
Unthinned
8
6
Decreasing:
4
Increasing:
2
Treatment
0
0
0
0
Mean
0
Mean
22
25
71
0
0
0
0
Mean
14
53
73
0
0
0
0
Mean
15
43
81
0
0
0
0
Mean
13
62
111
0
0
0
1966
(19)
82
91
101
Plot
406
306
649
262
1,107
1,911
450
962
404
693
200
318
968
2,080
125
699
681
899
219
924
1970
(23)
a
Calibration
Period
406
306
649
262
1,037
1,699
450
962
371
693
100
318
878
1,811
125
699
350
362
112
575
1970
(23)
b
2,436
2,348
2,985
1,973
4,677
5,530
3,528
4,974
3,264
3,934
3,079
2,779
3,878
4,351
3,436
3,848
3,305
3,855
2,735
3,324
1973
(26)
Period
1
2,436
2,348
2,985
1,973
4,575
5,224
3,528
4,974
3,037
3,510
3,079
2,523
3,601
3,943
3,299
3,561
2,917
3,342
2,510
2,899
1973
(26)
8,244
9,157
8,007
7,566
9,457
9,956
8,446
9,970
7,656
7,326
8,052
7,591
7,986
7,561
8,121
8,276
6,552
6,802
6,507
6,346
1977
(30)
Period
2
8,244
9,157
8,007
7,566
9,029
9,423
7,814
9,851
6,477
6,274
6,466
6,691
7,576
7,386
7,508
7,833
5,707
6,095
5,197
5,827
1977
(30)
1984
(37)
7,540 12,306
7,666 12,794
7,187 11,849
7,767 12,275
Board feet per acre
1980
(33)
Period
4
8,912 14,017
8,456 13,358
8,770 13,792
9,511 14,901
13,302 13,302 20,027
15,170 15,170 21,340
12,729 12,729 20,635
12,006 12,006 18,106
12,499 11,716 18,528
12,614 11,535 19,737
11,342 11,054 16,857
13,541 12,558 18,989
10,065
9,608
9,793
10,794
11,311 10,758 16,858
11,345 11,170 16,972
10,771 9,737 15,417
11,818 11,367 18,186
8,008
8,242
7,187
8,595
1980
(33)
Period
3
Treatment
20,027
21,340
20,635
18,106
16,290
17,206
14,587
17,078
11,640
11,280
11,449
12,190
15,807
15,604
14,841
16,977
11,056
11,671
10,433
11,064
1984
(37)
29,944
31,513
31,034
27,285
24,574
25,351
22,952
25,421
18,912
18,760
19,212
18,765
23,675
22,538
23,678
24,808
16,937
17,894
16,532
16,386
1989
(42)
Period
5
29,944
31,513
31,034
27,285
24,574
25,351
22,952
25,421
18,912
36,724
40,195
40,823
29,154
33,881
35,753
31,847
34,042
26,084
25,727
26,665
25,860
32,642
23,675
18,760
19,212
18,765
32,440
32,117
33,368
21,763
20,485
23,706
21,100
1994
(47)
22,538
23,678
24,808
16,937
17,894
16,532
16,386
1989
(42)
Period
6
36,724
40,195
40,823
29,154
33,881
35,753
31,847
34,042
26,084
25,727
26,665
25,860
32,642
32,440
32,117
33,368
21,763
20,485
23,706
21,100
1994
(47)
46,008
49,518
51,062
37,444
42,275
46,718
38,813
41,294
35,890
35,172
36,862
35,636
42,115
43,283
41,312
41,749
28,700
27,969
30,203
27,928
1999
(52)
Period
7
Posttreatment
46,008
49,518
51,062
37,444
42,275
46,718
38,813
41,294
35,890
35,172
36,862
35,636
42,115
43,283
41,312
41,749
28,700
27,969
30,203
27,928
2006
(59)
58,144
61,604
64,221
48,608
55,834
61,496
52,655
53,353
48,981
48,901
51,427
46,616
55,081
55,142
55,108
54,992
37,708
38,373
43,746
31,005
Period
8
1999
(52)
Table
10b—Live
Scribner
board-foot
volume
per
acre
to
6-inch
top
(SV6),
ingrowth
excluded,
by
treatment,
plot,
measurement
date,
and
age
(in
parentheses),
for
variable
and
unthinned
treaments
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Table
11—Number,
quadratic
mean
diameter,
and
basal
area
of
live
a
trees
cut,
by
treatment,
date,
and
age
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
1970
(23)
Year
(age)
1973
1977
1980
(26)
(30)
(33)
Trees per acre
135 65
43
25
148 33
27
10
92
43
27
15
112 32
12
13
62
32
10
17
37
43
43
30
13
12
0
7
32
17
17
25
0
0
0
0
Quadratic mean diameter (inches)
5.9 7.6 9.6 11.1 6.4 8.0 9.2 10.7 6.0 7.7 8.8 10.8 6.1
7.4
9.4
9.8
5.8 6.9 9.2 10.6 6.0
7.4
9.2
9.6
6.5
6.8
0
7.1
5.8
6.8
8.7
9.3
0
0
0
0
Basal area (square feet per acre)
25.8
20.4
21.7
16.8
32.8
11.5
12.3
6.2
18.0
14.0
11.4
9.6
22.9 9.4 5.7 6.8 11.2
8.4
4.6
10.5
7.2
12.9
19.8
15.0
3.0
3.0
0
1.8
5.8
4.3
7.0
11.7
0
0
0
0
1984
(42)
Total
18
17
30
12
28
42
23
35
0
286 235 207
181 149
195
55
126
0
12.4 11.3 10.9 12.3
10.8 10.4
10.3
10.6
0
8.0 7.6 8.0 7.4
8.0 8.7
8.4
8.6
0
15.2
11.8
19.3
9.6 17.8
24.9
13.4
21.6
0
99.8
74.6
72.3
54.5 52.5
79.7
21.2
50.4
0
a
Plot 51 excluded, ingrowth excluded.
41
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Table
12—Cubic-foot
volume
of
total
stem
(CVTS),
merchantable
cubic­
foot
(CV6),
and
Scribner
(SV6)
volumes
of
trees
cut,
by
treatment
and
a
age
(in
parentheses)
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1970
(23)
Year
(age)
1973
1977
1980
(26)
(30)
(33)
1984
(42)
CVTS (cubic feet per acre)
456 410 520 466 454 632 255 313 178 379 323 298 289 276 596 441 207 153 193 318 207 180 119 309 577 127 267 497 419 762 57
65
0
49
442
105 91 177 328 688 CV6 (cubic feet to 6-inch top, per acre)
83 197 391 392 408 175 135 220 146 327 59 156 197 229 496 98
104
112
145
282
34
79
83
257
475
23 115 348 310 616 15
26
0
24
349
29
39
118
237
564
Total
2,306 1,756 1,783 1,311 1,393 2,072 613 1,390 1,471 1,003 1,136 741
927
1,412 415
987
SV6 (Scribner board feet to 6-inch top, per acre)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a
66 331 37 90 0
33 0
71 587 387 477 277 198 227 108 102 Plot 51 excluded, ingrowth excluded.
42
1,305 845 632 410 315 1,179 0
428 1,228 468 813 553 869 1,153 84 783 1,331 1,250 1,857 1,051 1,842 2,377 1,295 2,237 4,516 3,281 3,816 2,381 3,224 4,970 1,487 3,621 Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Table
13—Percentage
of
merchantable
cubic-foot
volume
(CV6)
in
trees
removed
in
thinnings
in
material
larger
than
indicated
diameter
Scaling
diameter
(inches)
Treatment
Fixed:
1
3
5
7
Increasing:
2
4
Decreasing:
6
8
6
8
10
12
14
16
Total
CV6
3
– – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ft /ac
100 100 100 100 70.2
59.7
65.8
55.6
56.6
43.5
51.0
33.8
46.0
32.2
30.2
22.9
32.6
21.2
11.6
13.2
14.2
7.6
4.9
0.0
1,471
1,136
927 415 100 100 73.2
75.1
51.2
57.3
43.1
43.8
20.2
19.2
6.0
8.6
1,136
741 100 100 47.4
62.7
35.1
46.8
19.5
32.9
7.3
14.1
1.4
4.2
1,412
987 43
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Table
14—Number,
quadratic
mean
diameter,
and
basal
area
of
dead
trees
recorded
at
end
of
period,
by
a
treatment,
year,
and
age
Year
(age)
Treatment
1970
(23)
1973
(26)
1977
(30)
1980
(33)
1984
(37)
1989
(42)
1994
(47)
1999
(53)
2006
(59)
0
0
2
2
0
0
5
2
152 0
13
7
5
5
2
15
5
167 0
2
0
3
7
2
10
15
85
0
3
0
5
3
3
23
8
92
10
49
36
45
34
45
97
71
867 0
15.5
12.3
11.8 12.4
10.6 10.3 9.3
6.3
0
12.4
0
9.8 8.4
5.4 8.4 10.0
5.4
0
21.3
0
14.5 10.3
14.4 9.7 11.3
6.3
5.4
11.3
8.0
8.6 8.5
7.1 8.2 8.4
4.8
0
1.7
0
1.8 2.5
0.3 3.9
8.2 13.3
0
7.4
0
5.8 1.9
3.8 12.0
5.8 20.0
1.6
34.1
12.7
18.2 13.3
12.3 35.0
27.6 111.2
Total
Trees per acre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
5
15
8
8
8
17
13
7
27
5
10
12
15
3
12
17
22
43
0
2
5
5
5
5
8
2
85
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
7
108 0
2
0
0
3
2
3
3
108 Quadratic mean diameter (inches)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
3.4
5.0
4.5
4.9 4.9
4.2 4.8 4.4
2.5
6.8
7.7
6.5
6.9 8.2
6.3 6.6 7.7
2.9
0
5.8
8.4
5.5 7.5
6.6 7.5 5.9
3.2
0
10.3
8.7
10.0 0
8.3 8.9 6.5
3.5
0
10.1
0
0
6.7
11.4 6.2 8.0
3.8
0
0
10.5
5.6 0
0
6.3 7.6
4.7
Basal area (square feet per acre)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
a
0.3
2.1
0.9
1.0 1.0
1.7 1.6
0.7 0.9
1.3
3.2
2.8
3.9 1.2
2.6 4.1
7.0 2.9
0
0.3
1.9
0.8 1.6
1.2 2.5
0.3 4.8
0
1.2
0.7
0.9 0
0.6 1.4
1.5 7.1
Plot 51 excluded, ingrowth excluded, calibration period included.
44
0
1.1
0
0
0.8
1.2 0.7
1.2 8.7
0
0
1.0
0.3 0
0
1.1
0.5 18.4
0
17.1
5.5
3.8 4.2
1.0 8.6
2.4 36.0
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Table
15—Cubic-foot
total
stem
(CVTS),
merchantable
cubic-foot
(CV6),
and
Scribner
(SV6)
board-foot
a
volumes
per
acre
of
dead
trees
recorded
at
end
of
period,
by
treatment
Years
(age)
Treatment
1970
(23)
1973
(26)
1977
(30)
1980
(33)
1984
(37)
1989
(42)
1994
(47)
1999
(52)
2006
(59)
Total
0
0
0
702.1
34.2
206.9
7.4
146.5
0
174.8
0
32.4
31.1
330.5
16.3
85.7
545.1 1,244.0
0
57.5
0
66.8
89.4
4.8
120.6
320.2
415.7 0
325.4 0
266.8
77.0
153.6
478.3 254.4
763.2 29.4
1,265.5
373.8
630.3
446.8
344.8
1,197.8
917.5
3,480.8
0
53.1
0
51.0
56.1
0
75.4
252.9
134.2
0
311.4 0
248.8
61.5
142.2
360.3
217.4
197.4 7.0
1,118.0
271.7
486.6
310.6
227.8
792.0
639.8
1,215.4
0
205 0
265 286 0
361 1,171 657 0
1,464 0
1,124 313 661 1,753 1,045 2,130 0
4,842 1,100 2,168 1,412 962 3,629 2,904 5,867 CVTS (cubic feet per acre)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
4.7
36.5
13.5
17.3
18.0
26.4
26.8
11.6
13.3
24.7
68.7
57.0
83.5
27.6
52.2
89.0
155.2
33.6
0
6.0
43.6
16.8
38.0
26.8
61.8
6.4
98.9
0
34.7
18.6
25.1
0
16.6
41.7
35.4
153.2
0
34.6
0
0
21.8
32.0
18.0
32.1
214.5 CV6 (cubic feet to 6-inch top per acre)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
0
0.4
0
0
0.2
0
2.0
0
0
7.0
32.4
22.9
17.5
15.6
13.7
33.5
75.6
0
0
0
25.6
1.1
17.2
7.8
25.8
0
28.5
0
29.9
12.0
19.7
0
9.7
27.7
7.7
4.4
0
29.5
0
0
5.4
27.7
2.9
17.4
2.3
0
0
27.9
0
0
0
5.1
7.4
75.9
0
661.3
183.3
128.5
154.7
26.7
259.3
61.5
592.8
SV6 (Scribner board feet to 6-inch top, per acre)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Unthinned
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42 92 135 46 37
110 268 0
0
0
60 0
52 37
96 0
96
0
96 54 84 0
46
123 0
0
0
96 0
0
0
84
0
62 0
0 0
0
96 0
0
0
0
42 296 2,940 798
560 715 96 1,185 316 2,688 Plot 51 excluded, ingrowth excluded, calibration period included.
45
46
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
631
1,446
2,093
3,010
3,690
4,442
5,379
6,526
7,638
9,566
631
1,451
2,122
3,040
3,719
4,471
5,409
6,556
7,668
9,596
26
400
1,040
1,997
2,689
3,449
4,368
5,484
6,560
8,418
26
400
1,047
2,004
2,696
3,456
4,375
5,491
6,567
8,425
Gross
CV6
0
135
65
43
25
18
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.41
.49
.47
.44
.41
.35
.38
.30
.28
0
.40
.50
.47
.44
.41
.35
.38
.30
.28
– – – – in – – – –
Net
f
PAI
in
0
5.9
7.6
9.7
11.1
12.6
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
26
317
761
1,326
1,626
1,978
2,897
4,013
5,089
6,947
No.
Trees
QMD
0
456
410
520
466
454
0
0
0
0
2
Gross
PAI
0
8.6
8.2
7.1
5.7
4.6
3.5
4.3
3.8
3.9
0
8.7
8.6
7.1
5.7
4.6
3.5
4.3
3.8
3.9
– – – ft – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
1.4
3.4
9.1
15.7
22.7
0
0
0
0
CVTS
g
MAI
3
CV6
PAI
0
204
216
229
227
188
188
229
222
275
33
63
80
100
112
120
128
139
147
162
0
94
213
239
231
190
184
223
215
265
1
17
40
67
81
93
104
117
126
143
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.92
.92
.94
.93
.92
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
3.4
6.3
12.1
18.6
25.2
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
83
197
391
392
408
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
25.8
20.4
21.7
16.8
15.2
0
0
0
0
ft
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
0
.3
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
2
3
0
5
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
224
229
227
188
188
229
222
275
33
63
82
101
113
121
129
139
147
163
3
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
216
239
231
190
184
223
215
265
1
17
40
67
82
93
104
117
126
143
– – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
MAI
CV6
– – – ft – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
3.5
6.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 2,306 cubic
feet (24 percent of the total gross yield at at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 25 cubic feet (0 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period,
(and is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
3
Net
CV6
631
990
1,227
1,624
1,838
2,136
3,074
4,221
5,333
7,261
– – – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – – –
Gross
CVTS
3
– – – ft – – –
Years
e
44.8
53.5
57.7
64.5
64.8
68.2
85.9
107.4
126.2
153.2
ft
Net
CVTS
4.8
6.7
8.5
10.6
12.2
14.2
15.9
17.8
19.3
21.2
in
Cumulative
yield
358
218
148
105
80
63
63
63
63
63
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
6.5
8.5
10.2
12.2
13.5
15.2
17.0
19.0
20.7
22.9
in
Trees
QMDb
Year
38
49
57
66
74
82
96
106
115
132
ft
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largesta
Table
16a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
1
(plots
21
and
33),
per-acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
47
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
44.1
101.2
146.4
210.6
258.2
310.8
376.4
456.6
534.5
669.4
44.1
101.5
148.5
212.7
260.2
312.9
378.5
458.7
536.5
671.4
1.8
28.0
72.8
139.8
188.2
241.3
305.7
383.8
459.0
589.0
1.8
28.0
73.3
140.2
188.6
241.8
306.2
384.2
459.5
589.5
0
333
161
105
62
43
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
1.03
1.26
1.20
1.12
1.04
.88
.95
.76
.71
0
1.02
1.26
1.20
1.12
1.04
.88
.95
.76
.71
– – – – cm – – – –
Net
PAIf
cm
0
15.0
19.2
24.6
28.2
32.1
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
1.8
22.2
53.2
92.8
113.8
138.4
202.7
280.8
356.1
486.1
No.
Trees
QMD
0
31.9
28.7
36.4
32.6
31.8
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.1
.8
1.0
.9
.9
0
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.1
.8
1.0
.9
.9
– – – – m2 – – – –
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
0
.1
.3
.4
.7
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.92
.92
.93
.93
.91
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
0
.2
.3
.5
.7
0
0
0
0
d
d/D
0
.1
.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
m
area
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
.3
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
–––m –––
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
8.8
17.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cm
Basal
QMD
Mortality
0
14.3
15.1
16.0
15.9
13.2
13.1
16.0
15.6
19.3
2.3
4.4
5.6
7.0
7.8
8.4
9.0
9.7
10.3
11.3
0
6.5
14.9
16.7
16.1
13.3
12.9
15.6
15.1
18.6
0.1
1.2
2.8
4.7
5.7
6.5
7.3
8.2
8.8
10.0
0
14.3
15.7
16.0
15.9
13.2
13.1
16.0
15.6
19.3
2.3
4.4
5.7
7.1
7.9
8.5
9.0
9.8
10.3
11.4
0
6.5
15.1
16.7
16.1
13.3
12.9
15.6
15.1
18.6
0.1
1.2
2.8
4.7
5.7
6.5
7.3
8.2
8.8
10.0
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
5.8
13.8
27.4
27.4
28.5
0
0
0
0
–––––––––m –––––––––
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
5.9
4.7
5.0
3.9
3.5
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 161.4 cubic
meters (24 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 2.0 cubic meters (0 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Gross
CV6
44.1
69.3
85.9
113.7
128.6
149.5
215.1
295.3
373.2
508.0
– – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
CV6
–––m –––
Years
Gross
CVTS
10.3
12.3
13.2
14.8
14.9
15.7
19.7
24.7
29.0
35.2
m
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Net
CVTS
12.2
17.1
21.5
27.0
31.0
36.0
40.4
45.1
48.9
53.9
cm
Cumulative
yielde
883
537
364
259
198
154
154
154
154
154
No.
2
Stand
age
16.5
21.7
25.8
31.0
34.4
38.5
43.1
48.2
52.5
58.1
cm
b
Trees
QMD
Year
11.5
14.9
17.3
20.0
22.6
25.1
29.2
32.4
35.1
40.3
m
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
100
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
16b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
1
(plots
21,
and
33),
per-hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
48
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
749
1,651
2,257
3,238
3,966
4,964
6,258
7,061
8,293
9,934
749
1,688
2,362
3,349
4,112
5,145
6,438
7,944
9,233
11,200
32
531
1,161
2,198
2,951
3,958
5,231
6,036
7,232
8,819
32
531
1,194
2,231
3,014
4,050
5,323
6,789
8,038
9,937
Gross
CV6
0
148
33
27
10
17
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.43
.49
.48
.40
.36
.31
.35
.26
.24
0
.43
.51
.47
.41
.35
.31
.34
.26
.25
– – – – in – – – –
Net
PAI
f
in
0
6.4
7.9
9.2
10.7
11.4
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
32
356
851
1,668
2,275
2,955
4,228
5,033
6,229
7,817
No.
Trees
QMD
2
CVTS
0
632
255
313
178
379
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
8.9
6.9
7.3
5.9
5.2
4.7
1.5
3.6
2.9
0
9.4
7.9
7.4
6.2
5.5
4.7
4.9
4.0
4.0
– – – ft2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
Volume
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
2.3
4.2
8.1
14.6
19.2
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
15
10
2
2
2
0
13
2
3
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.95
.95
.89
.90
.86
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
4.3
7.7
11.6
17.8
22.3
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
2
0
2.1
3.2
.3
1.2
1.1
0
17.1
1.7
7.4
ft
3
CVTS
MAI
CV
0
36
69
6
35
35
0
702
57
325
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
32
0
30
29
0
661
53
311
– – – – ft – – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
5.0
7.7
5.8
11.3
11.1
0
15.3
13.6
20.2
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
226
202
245
243
250
259
161
246
235
39
72
87
108
120
134
149
150
159
168
0
125
210
259
251
252
255
161
239
227
2
23
45
73
89
107
125
128
139
149
0
235
225
247
254
258
259
301
258
281
39
73
91
112
125
139
153
169
178
190
0
125
221
259
261
259
255
293
250
271
2
23
46
74
91
109
127
144
155
168
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft3– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
175
135
220
146
327
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
Basal
area
growth
0
32.8
11.5
12.3
6.2
11.8
0
0
0
0
ft
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 1,757 cubic
feet (16 percent of the total gross yield at at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 1,230 cubic feet (11 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Net
CV6
749
1,019
1,370
2,038
2,589
3,208
4,502
5,305
6,537
8,178
– – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – –
Gross
CVTS
CV6
– – – ft – – –
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Years
2
48.8
51.6
60.8
77.5
88.9
97.9
121.6
129.1
147.3
167.8
ft
Net
CVTS
5.0
6.9
8.5
10.6
11.9
13.7
15.2
17.0
18.3
19.9
in
Cumulative
yielde
362
198
155
127
115
97
97
83
82
78
No.
Trees
QMD
Stand
age
6.5
8.5
9.9
11.9
13.2
14.7
16.5
18.3
19.8
21.7
in
D.b.h.
Year
39
50
57
67
75
85
99
111
121
136
ft
Basal
area
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Years
b
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largest
a
Table
17a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
2
(plots
82,
91,
and
101),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
49
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
52.4
115.5
157.9
226.6
277.5
347.4
437.9
494.1
580.3
695.1
52.4
118.1
165.3
234.3
287.7
360.0
450.5
555.8
646.0
783.7
2.2
37.1
81.2
153.8
206.5
276.9
366.0
422.3
506.0
617.1
52.4
71.3
95.8
142.6
181.1
224.5
315.0
371.2
457.4
572.3
2.2
37.2
83.5
156.1
210.9
283.4
372.5
475.1
562.5
695.3
0
366
82
66
25
41
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
1.08
1.24
1.21
1.03
.91
.79
.88
.67
.60
0
1.09
1.29
1.19
1.04
.90
.79
.86
.65
.62
– – – cm – – –
Net
PAI
f
cm
0
16.2
20.2
23.4
27.1
29.0
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
2.2
24.9
59.6
116.7
159.2
206.8
295.9
352.2
435.9
546.9
No.
Trees
QMD
0
44.2
17.8
21.9
12.4
26.5
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.1
.3
.8
.7
0
2.2
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.1
.9
.9
––– m 2 –––
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
.1
.1
.2
.4
.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
37
25
4
4
4
0
33
4
8
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
.95
.95
.89
.90
.86
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.2
.3
.5
.6
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.5
.7
.1
.3
.3
0
3.9
.4
1.7
m2
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
2.6
4.8
.4
2.4
2.4
0
49.1
4.0
22.8
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
2.3
0
2.1
2.1
0
46.3
3.7
21.8
– – – m3 – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
12.8
19.5
14.8
28.7
28.2
0
38.9
34.5
51.4
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
15.8
14.1
17.2
17.0
17.5
18.1
11.2
17.2
16.4
2.8
5.0
6.1
7.6
8.4
9.4
10.4
10.5
11.2
11.8
0
8.7
14.7
18.1
17.6
17.6
17.8
11.3
16.7
15.9
0.1
1.6
3.1
5.1
6.3
7.5
8.7
9.0
9.7
10.5
0
16.4
15.7
17.3
17.8
18.1
18.1
21.1
18.0
19.7
2.8
5.1
6.4
7.8
8.7
9.7
10.7
11.8
12.4
13.3
0
0.1
8.7 1.6
15.5 3.2
18.1 5.2
18.3 6.4
18.1 7.7
17.8 8.9
20.5 10.1
17.5 10.8
19.0 11.8
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
12.2
9.4
15.4
10.2
22.8
0
0
0
0
––––––––m ––––––––––
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
7.5
2.6
2.8
1.4
2.7
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 122.8 cubic
meters (19.9 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 87.7 cubic meters (14 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
– – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
CV6
–––m –––
Gross
CV6
Years
Gross
CVTS
11.2
11.9
14.0
17.8
20.4
22.5
27.9
29.6
33.8
38.5
m
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Net
CVTS
12.6
17.6
21.6
26.9
30.3
34.8
38.7
43.1
46.5
50.7
cm
Cumulative
yielde
893
490
383
313
284
239
239
206
202
193
No.
2
Stand
age
16.6
21.6
25.1
30.2
33.5
37.4
41.9
46.6
50.4
55.2
cm
Trees
QMDb
Year
11.9
15.1
17.3
20.4
23.0
26.0
30.2
33.8
37.0
41.5
m
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
100
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
17b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
2
(plots
82,
91,
and
101),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
50
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
653
1,489
2,173
3,221
4,098
5,180
6,571
7,987
9,587
12,063
653
1,502
2,243
3,335
4,231
5,313
6,738
8,361
9,960
12,437
32
470
1,146
2,229
3,127
4,219
5,594
7,003
8,554
10,946
CV6
32
470
1,169
2,278
3,188
4,279
5,682
7,275
8,825
11,218
0
92
43
27
15
30
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.41
.47
.43
.39
.32
.31
.37
.24
.23
0
.40
.47
.43
.38
.32
.30
.35
.24
.23
– – – – in – – – –
Net
PAIf
in
0
6.0
7.7
8.9
10.8
10.9
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
32
411
931
1,818
2,487
3,083
4,458
5,867
7,418
9,810
No.
Trees
QMD
2
CVTS
0
323
298
289
276
596
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
8.4
8.1
7.5
6.9
6.0
4.9
5.2
4.8
4.9
0
8.6
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.0
5.1
6.3
4.8
4.9
– – – ft2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
Volume
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
1.4
4.1
8.6
15.3
16.5
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
8
12
5
2
0
2
7
0
0
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.91
.94
.89
.96
.86
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
3.5
6.9
10.7
18.4
19.9
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
2
0
.9
2.7
1.9
.7
0
1.0
5.5
0
0
ft
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
14
57
44
19
0
34
207
0
0
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
23
26
12
0
28
183
0
0
– – – ft – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
4.4
6.6
8.4
8.7
0
10.5
12.3
0
0
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
209
228
262
292
271
278
283
320
354
34
65
84
107
124
140
156
170
184
204
0
109
225
271
299
273
275
282
310
342
2
20
44
74
95
114
133
149
164
186
0
212
247
273
298
271
285
325
320
354
34
65
86
111
128
144
160
178
192
211
0
109
233
277
303
273
281
318
310
342
2
20
45
76
97
116
135
155
170
190
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft 3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
59
156
197
229
496
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
Basal
area
growth
0
18.0
14.0
11.4
9.6
19.3
0
0
0
0
ft
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 1,782 cubic
feet (14 percent of the total gross yield at at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 375 cubic feet (3 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Net
CV6
Gross
CV6
– – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – –
Gross
CVTS
653
1,165
1,551
2,310
2,912
3,398
4,788
6,204
7,804
10,281
3
CVTS
Volume
c
– – – ft – – –
Years
2
46.3
61.9
72.0
90.7
101.9
106.5
131.1
157.1
181.0
215.3
ft
Net
CVTS
4.9
6.8
8.3
10.2
11.4
13.1
14.6
16.5
17.7
19.3
in
Cumulative
yielde
348
248
193
162
145
115
113
107
107
107
No.
Trees
QMD
Stand
age
6.6
8.6
10.1
12.0
13.3
14.8
16.5
18.5
19.9
21.9
in
D.b.h.
Year
37
50
57
68
76
85
98
107
118
133
ft
Basal
area
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Years
b
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
40
Largest
Stand
age
a
Table
18a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
3
(plots
31,
42,
and
52),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
51
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
12.5
17.2
21.1
25.9
29.0
33.3
37.2
41.9
45.0
49.1
cm
Gross
CVTS
Net
CV6
Cumulative
yielde
860
613
478
399
358
284
280
263
263
263
No.
Trees
QMDb
45.7
104.2
152.0
225.4
286.7
362.5
459.8
558.9
670.8
844.1
45.7
105.1
157.0
233.4
296.0
371.8
471.5
585.0
697.0
870.3
2.3
32.9
80.2
156.0
218.8
295.2
391.4
490.0
598.5
765.9
CV6
45.7
81.5
108.6
161.7
203.7
237.7
335.1
434.1
546.1
719.4
2.3
32.9
81.8
159.4
223.1
299.4
397.6
509.0
617.5
784.9
No.
0
1.03
1.19
1.09
.98
.80
.79
.95
.61
.58
Net
PAIf
cm
0
1.03
1.19
1.09
.97
.80
.77
.89
.61
.58
Survivor
PAI
QMD
growth
0
15.2
19.6
22.5
27.5
27.6
0
0
0
0
cm
Trees
QMD
2.3
0
28.8 226
65.2 107
127.2 66
174.0 37
215.7 74
312.0
0
410.5
0
519.1
0
686.4
0
–––m–––
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Gross
CV6
10.6
14.2
16.5
20.8
23.4
24.5
30.1
36.1
41.6
49.4
m
2
– – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – –
Net
CVTS
16.8
21.8
25.7
30.5
33.7
37.5
41.9
47.0
50.7
55.7
cm
D.b.h.
Basal
area
After
thinning
0
22.6
20.9
20.2
19.3
41.7
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
0
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.1
– – – m2 – – –
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
.0
.1
.2
.4
.5
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
21
29
12
4
0
4
16
0
0
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.91
.94
.89
.96
.86
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.2
.3
.5
.6
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.2
.6
.4
.2
0
.2
1.3
0
0
m2
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
.9
4.0
3.1
1.3
0
2.4
14.5
0
0
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
1.6
1.8
.8
0
2.0
12.8
0
0
– – – m3 – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
11.1
16.7
21.3
22.1
0
26.7
31.1
0
0
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
14.6
16.0
18.3
20.5
18.9
19.5
19.8
22.4
24.8
2.4
4.5
5.8
7.5
8.7
9.8
10.9
11.9
12.9
14.3
0
7.7
15.8
19.0
20.9
19.1
19.2
19.7
21.7
23.9
0.1
1.4
3.1
5.2
6.6
8.0
9.3
10.4
11.5
13.0
0
14.8
17.3
19.1
20.9
18.9
19.9
22.7
22.4
24.8
2.4
4.6
6.0
7.8
9.0
10.0
11.2
12.4
13.4
14.8
0
0.1
7.7 1.4
16.3 3.1
19.4 5.3
21.2 6.8
19.1 8.1
19.6 9.5
22.3 10.8
21.7 11.9
23.9 13.3
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
4.1
10.9
13.8
16.0
34.7
0
0
0
0
–––––––––m–––––––––
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
4.1
3.2
2.6
2.2
4.4
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 124.7 cubic
meters (14 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 26.2 cubic meters (3 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual aincrement (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Years
Stand
age
Year
11.4
15.1
17.2
20.6
23.0
25.8
29.7
32.7
35.9
40.5
m
Years
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
100
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
18b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
3
(plots
31,
42,
and
52),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
52
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
775
1,721
2,406
3,583
4,588
5,850
7,460
9,322
11,019
13,526
775
1,738
2,507
3,701
4,731
5,993
7,610
9,619
11,383
14,156
42
576
1,304
2,547
3,569
4,836
6,432
8,271
9,931
12,365
42
576
1,341
2,586
3,627
4,894
6,490
8,457
10,168
12,852
0
6.1
7.4
9.5
9.7
12.3
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.42
.48
.45
.37
.30
.26
.28
.22
.21
0
.42
.48
.44
.37
.30
.25
.27
.20
.20
– – – – in – – – –
Net
PAIf
in
0
441
207
153
193
318
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
9.2
7.9
8.4
7.4
6.5
5.5
5.7
4.6
4.3
0
9.5
9.2
8.6
7.7
6.5
5.6
6.4
4.9
5.1
– – – ft2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
2.2
4.7
9.3
11.2
23.5
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI g
CV6
PAI
0
8
15
5
2
0
2
5
3
5
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.92
.89
.92
.85
.96
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
3.9
6.5
12.8
14.8
26.5
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
1.0
3.9
.8
.9
0
.3 3.8
1.8 5.8
ft
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
17
84
17
25
0
7
147
67
267
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
37
1
20
0
0
129
51
249
– – – ft – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
4.8
6.9
5.5
10.0
0
5.6
11.8
9.8
14.5
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
236
229
294
335
315
322
372
339
358
41
75
93
119
139
158
178
198
212
229
0
133
243
311
340
317
319
368
332
348
2
25
50
85
108
131
153
176
191
210
0
241
256
298
343
315
324
402
353
396
41
76
96
123
143
162
181
205
219
240
0
133
255
311
347
317
319
393
342
383
2
25
52
86
110
132
155
180
196
218
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
98
104
112
145
282
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – –
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
22.9
9.4
5.7
6.8
9.6
0
0
0
0
ft
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 1,312 cubic
feet (9 percent of the total gross yield at at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 631 cubic feet (4 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net PAI is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and is thus unaffected by
mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Gross
CV6
– – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
0
112
32
12
13
12
0
0
0
0
No.
Trees
QMD
QMD
growth
775
42
1,280
477
1,759 1,102
2,782 2,233
3,594 3,109
4,538 4,094
6,149
5,691
8,011 7,529
9,708 9,189
12,214 11,624
3
– – – ft – – –
Years
Gross
CVTS
49.7
63.5
77.7
105.4
120.8
137.1
164.8
193.1
216.1
246.2
ft
Net
CVTS
5.0
7.0
8.6
10.4
11.7
12.9
14.2
15.6
16.7
18.1
in
Cumulative
yielde
363
243
197
180
165
153
152
147
143
138
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
6.5
8.5
10.1
12.1
13.3
14.7
16.2
17.8
19.1
20.9
in
Trees
QMDb
Year
40
53
59
68
77
87
100
113
123
138
ft
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largesta
Table
19a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
4
(plots
13,
62,
and
111),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
53
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
54.2
120.4
168.4
250.7
321.0
409.3
522.0
652.3
771.0
946.4
54.2
121.6
175.4
258.9
331.0
419.3
532.5
673.0
796.5
990.5
3.0
40.3
91.2
178.3
249.7
338.4
450.1
578.7
694.9
865.2
54.2
89.6
123.0
194.7
251.5
317.6
430.2
560.5
679.3
854.7
3.0
40.3
93.9
180.9
253.8
342.4
454.1
591.8
711.5
899.3
Survivor
PAI
0
1.07
1.22
1.15
.94
.75
.66
.72
.55
.52
0
1.06
1.23
1.11
.93
.75
.64
.69
.50
.50
– – – cm – – –
Net
PAIf
cm
0
15.6
18.8
24.1
24.6
31.2
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
3.0
0
33.4 276
77.1 78
156.3 29
217.6 33
286.5 29
398.2
0
526.8
0
643.0
0
813.4
0
No.
Trees
QMD
0
30.8
14.5
10.7
13.5
22.2
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.0
0
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.2
– – – m2 – – –
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
.1
.1
.3
.3
.7
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
21
37
12
4
0
4
12
8
12
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.92
.88
.92
.85
.96
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.2
.4
.4
.8
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.2
.9
.2
.2
0
.1
.9
.4
1.3
m2
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
1.2
5.8
1.2
1.8
0
.5
10.3
4.7
18.7
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
2.6
.1
1.4
0
0
9.0
3.6
17.4
– – – m3 – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
12.2
17.5
13.9
25.4
0
14.3
30.0
24.9
36.9
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
16.5
16.0
20.6
23.4
22.1
22.5
26.1
23.7
25.1
2.9
5.2
6.5
8.4
9.7
11.1
12.4
13.9
14.8
16.0
0
9.3
17.0
21.8
23.8
22.2
22.3
25.7
23.2
24.3
0.2
1.8
3.5
5.9
7.6
9.1
10.7
12.3
13.4
14.7
0
16.8
17.9
20.9
24.0
22.1
22.6
28.1
24.7
27.7
2.9
5.3
6.7
8.6
10.0
11.3
12.7
14.3
15.3
16.8
0
9.3
17.9
21.8
24.3
22.2
22.3
27.5
23.9
26.8
0.2
1.8
3.6
6.0
7.7
9.3
10.8
12.6
13.7
15.2
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
6.9
7.2
7.9
10.2
19.7
0
0
0
0
–––––––––m –––––––––
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
5.3
2.2
1.3
1.6
2.2
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 91.7 cubic
meters (9 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 44.2 cubic meters (4 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
– – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
CV6
–––m–––
Gross
CV6
Years
Gross
CVTS
11.4
14.6
17.8
24.2
27.7
31.5
37.8
44.3
49.6
56.5
m
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Net
CVTS
12.8
17.7
21.8
26.5
29.6
32.7
36.1
39.7
42.4
46.1
cm
Cumulative
yielde
897
601
486
445
408
379
375
362
354
342
No.
2
Stand
age
16.6
21.5
25.6
30.7
33.8
37.3
41.1
45.3
48.6
53.1
cm
QMDb
Year
12.3
16.1
18.0
20.8
23.6
26.5
30.4
34.3
37.4
42.2
m
Years
D.b.h.
Trees
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
100
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
19b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
4
(plots
13,
62,
and
111),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
54
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
738
1,598
2,448
3,697
4,811
6,108
7,827
9,617
11,348
14,338
738
1,616
2,493
3,781
4,894
6,213
7,932
9,897
11,718
14,785
47
539
1,349
2,646
3,770
5,076
6,768
8,546
10,264
13,172
47
539
1,365
2,679
3,803
5,115
6,806
8,739
10,514
13,483
0
5.8
7.0
9.2
10.7
10.7
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.41
.43
.38
.32
.26
.23
.25
.23
.21
0
.40
.44
.38
.32
.25
.23
.25
.19
.19
– – – in – – –
Net
PAI
f
in
0
207
180
119
309
577
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
8.5
9.5
8.5
8.2
6.2
5.6
5.6
4.8
5.3
0
8.8
9.9
8.9
8.2
6.4
5.6
6.5
5.3
5.6
– – – ft2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
1.5
4.0
8.3
15.1
17.6
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAIg
CV6
PAI
0
8
3
5
0
3
0
5
7
3
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.87
.85
.93
.99
.90
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
3.3
5.6
11.9
18.2
20.6
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
1.0
1.2
1.6
0
.8
0
4.2
2.5 1.9
ft
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
18
28
38
0
22
0
175
89
77
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
16
17
0
5
0
155
56
62
– – – ft – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
4.8
8.2
7.5
0
6.7
0
12.5
8.4
10.3
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
215
283
312
371
324
344
358
346
427
39
69
94
123
146
165
186
205
218
243
0
123
270
324
375
327
338
356
344
415
2
23
52
88
114
137
161
182
197
223
0
219
293
322
371
330
344
393
364
438
39
70
96
126
148
168
189
211
225
251
0
123
275
328
375
328
338
387
355
424
2
23
53
89
115
138
162
186
202
229
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
34
79
83
257
475
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – –ft – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
11.2
8.4
4.6
10.5
17.8
0
0
0
0
ft
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 1,392 cubic
feet (9 percent of the total gross yield at at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 447 cubic feet (3 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Gross
CV6
0
62
32
10
17
28
0
0
0
0
No.
Trees
QMD
QMD
growth
738
47
1,391
505
2,061 1,237
3,191 2,450
3,994 3,318
4,715 4,149
6,434
5,840
8,224 7,619
9,955 9,337
12,945 12,245
– – – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
3
– – – ft – – –
Years
Gross
CVTS
48.6
71.3
91.3
120.7
134.9
141.7
169.6
197.8
221.8
258.9
ft
Net
CVTS
5.1
6.9
8.4
9.9
10.9
12.1
13.3
14.5
15.6
17.1
in
Cumulative
yielde
347
277
242
227
210
178
178
173
167
163
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
6.8
8.8
10.3
12.1
13.3
14.6
16.1
17.8
19.1
21.1
in
Trees
QMDb
Year
39
51
59
69
78
89
102
114
123
139
ft
Years
D.b.h.
Basal
area
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Afterthinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largesta
Table
20a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
5
(plots
12,
41,
and
72),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
55
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
51.7
111.8
171.3
258.7
336.6
427.4
547.7
672.9
794.1
1,003.2
51.7
113.0
174.5
264.6
342.5
434.7
555.0
692.5
819.9
1,034.5
3.3
37.7
94.4
185.1
263.8
355.2
473.5
598.0
718.2
921.7
3.3
37.7
95.5
187.4
266.1
357.9
476.2
611.5
735.7
943.4
Survivor
PAI
0
1.03
1.10
.97
.82
.66
.58
.63
.57
.52
0
1.03
1.12
.96
.82
.63
.58
.63
.49
.49
– – – – cm – – – –
Net
f
PAI
cm
0
14.7
17.7
23.3
27.3
27.3
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
3.3
0
35.4 152
86.6 78
171.5 25
232.2 41
290.3 70
408.6
0
533.1
0
653.3
0
856.8
0
No.
Trees
QMD
0
14.5
12.6
8.4
21.6
40.4
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
2
Gross
PAI
0
2.0
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.3
–––m –––
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
0
.1
.2
.4
.5
0
0
0
0
CVTS
g
MAI
CV6
PAI
0
21
8
12
0
8
0
12
16
8
3
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.86
.85
.93
.99
.90
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.2
.3
.5
.6
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.2
.3
.4
0
.2
0
1.0
.6
.4
m2
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
1.3
1.9
2.7
0
1.5
0
12.2
6.3
5.4
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
1.1
1.2
0
.4
0
10.8
3.9
4.3
– – – m3 – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
12.2
20.8
19.2
0
17.1
0
31.6
21.2
26.1
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
15.0
19.8
21.9
26.0
22.7
24.1
25.0
24.2
29.9
2.7
4.9
6.6
8.6
10.2
11.6
13.0
14.3
15.3
17.0
0
8.6
18.9
22.7
26.2
22.9
23.7
24.9
24.0
29.1
0.2
1.6
3.6
6.2
8.0
9.6
11.3
12.7
13.8
15.6
0
15.3
20.5
22.5
26.0
23.1
24.1
27.5
25.5
30.7
2.7
4.9
6.7
8.8
10.4
11.7
13.2
14.7
15.8
17.5
0
8.6
19.3
23.0
26.2
22.9
23.7
27.1
24.8
29.7
0.2
1.6
3.7
6.2
8.1
9.7
11.3
13.0
14.1
16.0
––––––––––––––––––––m––––––––––––––––––––
CVTS
PAI
0
2.3
5.5
5.8
18.0
33.3
0
0
0
0
–––––––––m –––––––––
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
2.6
1.9
1.1
2.4
4.1
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 97.5 cubic
meters (9 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 31.3 cubic meters (3 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
3
Net
CV6
51.7
97.3
144.2
223.3
279.5
329.9
450.2
575.4
696.6
905.8
Gross
CV6
––––––––––m––––––––––
Gross
CVTS
CV6
–––m –––
Years
e
11.2
16.4
21.0
27.7
31.0
32.5
38.9
45.4
50.9
59.4
m
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Net
CVTS
12.9
17.5
21.2
25.2
27.8
30.8
33.7
36.9
39.8
43.4
cm
Cumulative
yield
856
683
597
560
519
440
440
428
412
403
No.
2
Stand
age
17.2
22.3
26.3
30.8
33.8
37.0
40.9
45.1
48.5
53.5
cm
Trees
QMDb
Year
11.9
15.5
18.0
21.2
23.8
27.0
31.1
34.6
37.5
42.4
m
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
100
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
20b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
5
(plots
12,
41,
and
72),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
56
CVTS
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
638
1,448
2,234
3,476
4,463
5,569
7,004
8,733
10,390
12,938
638
1,474
2,312
3,581
4,585
5,723
7,158
8,919
10,582
13,283
22
416
1,147
2,423
3,421
4,541
5,957
7,663
9,280
11,751
22
416
1,161
2,445
3,452
4,600
6,015
7,748
9,365
11,978
Gross
CV6
Survivor
PAI
0
.42
.44
.40
.35
.29
.28
.32
.24
.23
0
.42
.44
.39
.35
.29
.28
.32
.23
.22
– – – – in – – – –
Net
PAI
f
in
0
6.0
7.4
9.2
9.6
10.5
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
0
37
43
43
30
42
0
0
0
0
No.
Trees
QMD
2
0
127
267
497
419
762
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
8.4
9.4
9.0
7.6
5.9
5.1
6.2
4.9
4.6
0
8.8
10.3
9.3
7.8
6.2
5.1
6.4
5.0
5.1
– – – ft 2– – –
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
1.9
3.1
8.1
10.3
14.7
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAIg
CV6
PAI
0
17
12
5
2
2
0
2
2
3
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.92
.94
.96
.90
.87
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
3.4
6.2
11.6
14.0
18.1
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
2
0
1.7
2.6
1.2
.6
1.2
0
1.0
.3 3.7
ft
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
26
52
27
17
32
0
32
5
154
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
14
8
10
28
0
27
0
142
– – – – ft – – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
4.3
6.4
6.6
8.3
11.4
0
10.6
5.4
14.4
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
202
262
311
329
277
287
346
332
364
34
63
86
116
135
151
167
186
200
219
0
98
244
319
333
280
283
341
323
353
1
18
44
81
104
123
142
163
178
199
0
209
279
317
334
285
287
352
333
386
34
64
89
119
139
155
170
190
203
225
0
98
248
321
336
287
283
347
323
373
1
18
45
81
105
124
143
165
180
203
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
23
115
348
310
616
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
7.2
12.9
19.8
15.0
24.9
0
0
0
0
ft
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 2,072 cubic
feet (16 percent of the total gross yield at at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 313 cubic feet (2 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Net
CV6
CV6
638
22
1,321
393
1,840 1,009
2,585 1,936
3,153 2,625
3,497 3,129
4,932
4,545
6,661 6,251
8,318
7,868
10,866 10,339
– – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – –
Gross
CVTS
3
Volume
c
– – – ft – – –
Years
2
45.4
71.9
87.2
103.3
111.0
109.7
135.4
166.7
191.4
223.3
ft
Net
CVTS
4.8
6.6
8.0
9.7
10.9
12.5
13.9
15.5
16.8
18.3
in
Cumulative
yielde
360
307
252
203
172
128
128
127
125
122
No.
Trees
QMD
Stand
age
6.4
8.4
9.9
11.7
13.0
14.3
15.9
17.8
19.2
21.2
in
D.b.h.
Year
37
48
55
66
75
84
97
107
118
135
ft
Basal
area
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Years
b
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
40
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
21a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
6
(plots
15,
43,
and
81),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded)
57
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
44.7
101.3
156.3
243.2
312.3
389.7
490.1
611.0
727.0
905.3
44.7
103.1
161.8
250.6
320.8
400.5
500.9
624.1
740.4
929.5
1.5
29.1
80.3
169.5
239.4
317.7
416.8
536.2
649.3
822.2
1.5
29.1
81.2
171.0
241.6
321.9
420.9
542.2
655.3
838.1
Survivor
PAI
0
1.07
1.13
1.01
.89
.74
.71
.83
.62
.58
0
1.06
1.12
1.00
.88
.74
.71
.80
.58
.55
– – – – cm – – – –
Net
PAI
f
cm
0
15.2
18.8
23.3
24.3
26.6
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
1.5
0
27.5 91
70.6 107
135.5 107
183.7 74
219.0 103
318.0
0
437.4
0
550.5
0
723.4
0
No.
Trees
QMD
0
8.9
18.7
34.8
29.3
53.3
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.0
0
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.2
– – – m2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
41
29
12
4
4
0
4
4
8
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.92
.94
.96
.89
.87
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.4
.6
.3
.1
.3
0
.2
.1
.9
m
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
1.8
3.7
1.9
1.2
2.2
0
2.3
.3
10.7
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
1.0
.5
.7
1.9
0
1.9
0
10.0
–––m –––
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
10.9
16.3
16.7
21.1
28.9
0
26.9
13.8
36.5
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
14.2
18.3
21.7
23.0
19.4
20.1
24.2
23.2
25.5
2.4
4.4
6.0
8.1
9.5
10.5
11.7
13.0
14.0
15.3
0
6.9
17.1
22.3
23.3
19.6
19.8
23.9
22.6
24.7
0.1
1.3
3.1
5.7
7.3
8.6
9.9
11.4
12.5
13.9
0
14.6
19.6
22.2
23.4
19.9
20.1
24.6
23.3
27.0
2.4
4.5
6.2
8.4
9.7
10.8
11.9
13.3
14.2
15.8
0
6.9
17.4
22.5
23.5
20.1
19.8
24.2
22.6
26.1
0.1
1.3
3.1
5.7
7.3
8.7
10.0
11.5
12.6
14.2
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
1.6
8.1
24.4
21.7
43.1
0
0
0
0
––––––––m –––––––––
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
1.6
3.0
4.6
3.4
5.7
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 145.0 cubic
meters (16 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 24.1 cubic meters (3 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI – mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
44.7
92.4
128.7
180.9
220.6
244.7
345.1
466.1
582.1
760.3
Gross
CV6
– – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
3
–––m –––
Years
Gross
CVTS
10.4
16.5
20.0
23.7
25.5
25.2
31.1
38.3
43.9
51.3
m
Net
CVTS
12.2
16.7
20.3
24.5
27.7
31.8
35.3
39.5
42.6
46.6
cm
Cumulative
yielde
889
757
622
502
424
317
317
313
309
301
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
16.3
21.3
25.2
29.8
32.9
36.4
40.4
45.3
48.9
53.8
cm
Trees
QMDb
Year
11.2
14.7
16.9
20.2
22.8
25.5
29.6
32.7
36.1
41.0
m
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
100
largesta
Table
21b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
6
(plots
15,
43,
and
81),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
58
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
742
1,598
2,474
3,887
5,102
6,518
8,441
10,332
12,219
15,038
742
1,625
2,590
4,064
5,321
6,756
8,709
10,931
12,939
16,236
41
513
1,345
2,772
3,978
5,406
7,311
9,248
11,136
13,967
41
515
1,381
2,834
4,067
5,498
7,408
9,604
11,567
14,759
0
13
12
0
7
23
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.41
.42
.35
.28
.22
.20
.23
.20
.22
0
.41
.43
.35
.28
.21
.18
.21
.17
.16
– – – – in – – – –
Net
PAI
f
in
0
6.4
6.9
0
7.1
10.3
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
41
498
1,304
2,731
3,912
4,992
6,896
8,834
10,721
13,552
No.
Trees
QMD
0
57
65
0
49
442
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
8.6
9.4
9.2
8.2
6.8
5.7
5.2
5.2
3.9
0
9.0
10.8
9.8
8.7
7.0
6.0
6.9
6.0
5.6
– – – ft2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
2.1
3.7
0
8.0
15.2
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
13
17
8
3
3
5
15
10
23
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.96
.87
0
.69
.92
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
4.4
5.4
0
7.0
19.2
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
1.6
4.1
2.5 1.4
.7
1.1 8.6
3.9 12.0
ft
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
27
89
62
42
18
31
330
121
478
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
2
33
26
28
3
5
259
75
360
– – – – ft – – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
4.7
6.7
7.4
8.9
6.2
6.3
10.3
8.4
9.7
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
214
292
353
405
354
385
378
377
403
39
69
95
130
155
176
201
220
235
255
0
118
277
357
402
357
381
387
377
404
2
22
52
92
121
146
174
197
214
237
0
221
322
369
419
359
391
444
402
471
39
71
100
135
161
183
207
233
249
275
0
119
289
363
411
358
382
439
393
456
2
22
53
94
123
149
176
204
222
250
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft3– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
15
26
0
24
349
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
3.0
3.0
0
1.8
13.4
0
0
0
0
ft
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 613 cubic
feet (4 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 1,198 cubic feet (7 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Gross
CV6
742
1,541
2,352
3,765
4,931
5,905
7,828
9,719
11,606
14,425
– – – – – – – – – – ft3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
3
– – – ft – – –
Years
Gross
CVTS
49.2
80.7
105.9
142.6
165.4
179.2
207.9
234.0
260.1
287.4
ft
Net
CVTS
5.0
6.7
8.0
9.4
10.3
11.3
12.3
13.4
14.4
16.0
in
Cumulative
yielde
360
333
305
297
287
260
255
240
230
207
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
6.7
8.7
10.3
12.0
13.2
14.4
15.7
17.2
18.5
20.4
in
Trees
QMDb
Year
38
49
58
69
78
87
101
112
121
139
ft
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largesta
Table
22a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
7
(plots
11,
23,
and
63),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
59
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
51.9
111.8
173.1
272.0
357.0
456.1
590.6
723.0
855.0
1,052.2
51.9
113.7
181.2
284.4
372.3
472.7
609.4
764.9
905.3
1,136.1
2.9
35.9
94.1
194.0
278.3
378.3
511.5
647.1
779.2
977.3
2.9
36.0
96.6
198.3
284.6
384.7
518.3
672.0
809.4
1,032.7
Gross
CV6
0
33
29
0
16
58
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
1.04
1.08
.89
.71
.56
.50
.58
.52
.57
0
1.04
1.09
.88
.70
.53
.46
.52
.43
.41
– – – – cm – – – –
Net
f
PAI
cm
0
16.3
17.5
0
18.0
26.1
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
2.9
34.9
91.3
191.1
273.8
349.3
482.5
618.1
750.2
948.3
No.
Trees
QMD
0
4.0
4.5
0
3.5
30.9
0
0
0
0
2
Gross
PAI
0
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
.9
0
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
–––m –––
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
.1
.1
0
.3
.4
0
0
0
0
CVTS
g
MAI
CV6
PAI
3
0
33
41
21
8
8
12
37
25
58
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.96
.87
0
.69
.92
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.2
0
.2
.5
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.4
.9
.6
.3
.2
.3
2.0
.9
2.8
m
2
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
1.9
6.2
4.3
2.9
1.3
2.2
23.1
8.4
33.5
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
.1
2.3
1.8
1.9
.2
.4
18.1
5.3
25.2
––––m––––
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
12.0
17.1
18.8
22.5
15.7
16.1
26.0
21.4
24.7
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
15.0
20.4
24.7
28.3
24.8
26.9
26.5
26.4
28.2
2.7
4.9
6.7
9.1
10.8
12.3
14.1
15.4
16.4
17.8
0
8.3
19.4
25.0
28.1
25.0
26.7
27.1
26.4
28.3
0.2
1.6
3.6
6.5
8.4
10.2
12.2
13.8
15.0
16.6
0
15.4
22.5
25.8
29.3
25.1
27.3
31.1
28.1
33.0
2.7
4.9
7.0
9.5
11.3
12.8
14.5
16.3
17.4
19.3
0
8.3
20.2
25.4
28.8
25.0
26.7
30.7
27.5
31.9
0.2
1.6
3.7
6.6
8.6
10.4
12.3
14.3
15.6
17.5
–––––––––––––––––––––m –––––––––––––––––––––
CVTS
PAI
0
1.0
1.8
0
1.7
24.4
0
0
0
0
–––––––––m –––––––––
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
.7
.7
0
.4
3.1
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 42.9 cubic
meters (4 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 83.8 cubic meters (7 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
3
Net
CV6
51.9
107.8
164.6
263.4
345.0
413.2
547.7
680.0
812.1
1,009.3
–––––– ––––m ––––––––––
Gross
CVTS
3
–––m –––
Years
e
11.3
18.5
24.3
32.7
38.0
41.1
47.7
53.7
59.7
66.0
m
Net
CVTS
12.7
17.0
20.3
23.9
26.2
28.6
31.1
34.0
36.6
40.6
cm
Cumulative
yield
889
823
753
733
708
642
630
593
568
510
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
17.1
22.1
26.0
30.5
33.5
36.5
39.8
43.6
47.0
51.7
cm
Trees
QMDb
Year
11.7
15.0
17.5
21.0
23.8
26.5
30.7
34.2
37.0
42.2
m
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largesta
Table
22b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
7
(plots
11,
23,
and
63),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
60
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
764
1,688
2,486
3,845
4,907
6,148
7,893
9,758
11,168
13,822
764
1,700
2,653
4,018
5,116
6,389
8,150
10,101
11,831
14,739
48
623
1,451
2,826
3,907
5,151
6,862
8,722
10,147
12,746
48
623
1,527
2,902
3,991
5,252
6,970
8,892
10,569
13,386
Gross
CV6
0
32
17
17
25
35
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
.43
.44
.36
.31
.24
.23
.25
.23
.22
0
.43
.46
.36
.29
.23
.22
.24
.17
.19
– – – – in – – – –
Net
f
PAI
in
0
5.8
6.9
8.8
9.3
10.6
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
48
594
1,383
2,640
3,484
4,164
5,875
7,735
9,160
11,759
No.
Trees
QMD
0
105
91
177
328
688
0
0
0
0
2
Gross
PAI
0
9.4
8.7
9.6
7.5
5.9
5.5
6.0
3.0
4.4
0
9.6
11.0
9.6
8.0
6.2
5.6
6.5
4.7
5.2
– – – ft – – –
Net
PAI
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
2.4
3.9
7.9
10.3
16.1
0
0
0
0
CVTS
g
MAI
CV6
PAI
3
0
7
22
2
7
3
2
5
15
8
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.85
.84
.91
.86
.90
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
3.3
5.4
10.4
13.1
19.7
0
0
0
0
d/D
d
0
.7
7.0
.3
1.5
1.2
.5 2.4 8.3
5.8
ft
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
12
155
6
35
32
16
86
320
254
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
76
0
8
17
7
61
253
217
– – – ft – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
4.5
7.7
5.9
6.5
8.0
7.6
9.3
10.0
11.3
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
231
266
340
354
310
349
373
282
379
40
73
96
128
149
166
188
208
215
234
0
144
276
344
360
311
342
372
285
371
3
27
56
94
118
139
163
186
195
216
0
234
318
341
366
318
352
390
346
415
40
74
102
134
155
173
194
215
228
250
0
144
301
344
363
315
344
384
335
402
3
27
59
97
121
142
166
189
203
227
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
29
39
118
237
564
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – –
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
5.8
4.3
7.0
11.7
21.6
0
0
0
0
ft
2
Basal
area
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 1,389 cubic
feet (9 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 916 cubic feet (6 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
3
Net
CV6
764
1,583
2,290
3,472
4,205
4,758
6,502
8,368
9,778
12,431
– – – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – – –
Gross
CVTS
CV6
– – – ft – – –
Years
e
49.2
80.9
102.6
133.9
144.8
146.8
174.1
204.1
219.1
249.8
ft
3
c
Volume
CVTS
Net
CVTS
5.1
6.9
8.3
9.8
10.9
12.1
13.3
14.5
15.7
17.3
in
Cumulative
yield
352
313
275
257
225
187
185
180
165
157
No.
2
Stand
age
6.7
8.8
10.4
12.2
13.4
14.7
16.1
17.7
18.9
20.7
in
Trees
QMDb
Year
40
50
59
68
77
86
99
110
120
136
ft
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
40
largest
Stand
age
a
Table
23a—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
8
(plots
14,
53,
and
73),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
61
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
53.5
118.1
173.9
269.0
343.4
430.2
552.3
682.8
781.4
967.1
53.5
119.0
185.6
281.2
358.0
447.1
570.2
706.8
827.8
1,031.3
3.4
43.6
101.6
197.8
273.4
360.4
480.1
610.3
710.0
891.9
53.5
110.8
160.2
242.9
294.2
332.9
455.0
585.5
684.2
869.8
3.4
43.6
106.9
203.0
279.2
367.5
487.7
622.2
739.5
936.6
0
78
41
41
62
86
0
0
0
0
Survivor
PAI
0
1.10
1.11
.92
.79
.60
.57
.64
.58
.57
0
1.09
1.17
.92
.73
.58
.56
.61
.44
.48
– – – cm – – –
Net
PAI
f
cm
0
14.7
17.5
22.3
23.5
27.0
0
0
0
0
QMD
growth
3.4
41.6
96.8
184.7
243.8
291.4
411.1
541.2
640.9
822.8
No.
Trees
QMD
0
7.4
6.4
12.4
23.0
48.2
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.4
.7
1.0
0
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.2
– – – m2 – – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
.1
.1
.2
.3
.5
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
0
16
54
4
16
8
4
12
37
21
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
0
.85
.84
.90
.86
.90
0
0
0
0
Net
volume
growth
0
.1
.1
.3
.4
.6
0
0
0
0
d
d/D
0
.2
1.6
.1
.4
.3
.1
.5
1.9
1.3
m
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
.8
10.9
.4
2.5
2.2
1.1
6.0
22.4
17.8
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
5.3
0
.5
1.2
.5
4.3
17.7
15.2
–––m–––
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
11.4
19.6
15.0
16.5
20.3
19.3
23.6
25.5
28.6
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
16.2
18.6
23.8
24.8
21.7
24.4
26.1
19.7
26.5
2.8
5.1
6.7
9.0
10.4
11.6
13.1
14.5
15.0
16.4
0
10.1
19.3
24.0
25.2
21.8
23.9
26.0
19.9
26.0
0.2
1.9
3.9
6.6
8.3
9.7
11.4
13.0
13.7
15.1
0
16.4
22.2
23.9
25.6
22.3
24.6
27.3
24.2
29.1
2.8
5.2
7.1
9.4
10.8
12.1
13.6
15.0
15.9
17.5
0
10.1
21.1
24.0
25.4
22.1
24.0
26.9
23.5
28.2
0.2
1.9
4.1
6.8
8.5
9.9
11.6
13.2
14.2
15.9
– – – – – –– – – – – – – – –– – – – – – m3– – –– – – – – – – – –– – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
2.1
2.7
8.3
16.6
39.5
0
0
0
0
– – –– – – – – – m – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
1.3
1.0
1.6
2.7
5.0
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut;
volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 97.4 cubic meters (9 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 64.1 cubic meters (6 percent of the total gross
yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period,
(and is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
– – – – – – – – – – m3 – – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
3
–––m–––
Gross
CV6
Years
Gross
CVTS
11.3
18.6
23.6
30.7
33.2
33.7
40.0
46.9
50.3
57.3
m
Net
CVTS
12.9
17.5
21.1
24.9
27.8
30.9
33.7
36.9
39.9
43.8
cm
Cumulative
yielde
869
774
679
634
556
461
457
445
408
387
No.
2
c
CV6
Volume
CVTS
Stand
age
17.1
22.3
26.3
31.0
34.0
37.2
41.0
45.1
48.1
52.7
cm
b
Trees
QMD
Year
12.1
15.3
17.9
20.9
23.3
26.2
30.3
33.6
36.5
41.3
m
Years
D.b.h.
Basal
area
After
thinning
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
100
largest
Table
23b—Stand
development
table
for
treatment
8
(plots
14,
53,
and
73),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
62
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
1,167
2,388
3,577
5,229
6,436
7,810
9,297
10,069
11,634
13,688
1,167
2,401
3,624
5,375
6,735
8,323
10,356
12,372
14,353
17,169
29
342
1,022
2,285
3,413
4,817
6,621
8,056
9,870
12,176
29
342
1,022
2,313
3,446
4,853
6,732
8,760
10,708
13,412
0
.23
.22
.19
.19
.16
.17
.21
.21
.19
0
.22
.21
.16
.13
.10
.09
.13
.12
.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
in
Survivor
PAI
– – – – in – – – –
Net
PAIf
QMD
growth
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Trees
QMD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gross
PAI
0
11.8
12.2
9.6
6.4
4.6
2.2
­.2
2.8
2.5
0
12.0
12.8
10.8
8.7
6.8
5.9
7.0
5.5
5.3
– – ft2 – –
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CVTS
MAI
g
CV6
PAI
Net
volume
growth
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
43
85
108
108
152
167
85
92
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
d/D
d
0
.9
2.0
4.8
7.1
8.7
18.4
35.9
13.3
20.0
ft
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
13
34
99
153
215
545
1,244
416
762
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
0
28
4
2
76
593
134
397
– – – ft – – –
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
2.5
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.7
6.3
5.4
6.3
in
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
305
397
413
402
343
297
154
313
293
61
104
138
174
195
211
221
214
224
232
0
78
227
316
376
351
361
287
363
329
2
15
39
76
103
130
158
171
190
206
0
309
408
438
453
397
407
403
396
402
61
104
139
179
204
225
247
263
276
291
0
78
227
323
378
352
376
405
390
386
2
15
39
77
104
131
160
186
206
227
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ft3– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
PAI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
– – – – – – – – – ft – – – – – – – – –
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic feet (CVTS) or merchantable cubic feet to a 6­inch top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 0 cubic feet
(0 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 3,481 cubic feet (20 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period,
(and is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Gross
CV6
– – – – – – – – – – ft3– – – – – – – – – –
Net
CV6
– – – ft – – –
3
1,167
29
2,388
342
3,577
1,022
5,229 2,285
6,436 3,413
7,810
4,817
9,297 6,621
10,069 8,056
11,634 9,870
13,688 12,176
Years
Gross
CVTS
86.1
133.4
169.8
208.1
227.2
245.7
256.9
256.0
270.2
287.6
ft
Net
CVTS
3.5
4.4
5.1
5.8
6.4
7.1
7.9
9.0
10.0
11.4
in
Cumulative
yielde
1,277
1,252
1,208
1,123
1,015
907
755
588
498
412
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
6.5
8.3
9.5
10.8
11.7
12.7
13.8
15.1
16.3
17.9
in
Trees
QMDb
Year
37
49
57
68
76
86
98
108
118
132
ft
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
40
largesta
Table
24a—Stand
development
table
for
unthinned
treatment
(plots
22,
25,
and
71),
per
acre
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
English
units
63
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
81.6
167.1
250.3
365.9
450.4
546.5
650.5
704.6
814.1
957.8
81.6
168.0
253.6
376.1
471.3
582.4
724.6
865.7
1,004.3
1,201.3
2.0
23.9
71.5
159.9
238.8
337.1
463.3
563.7
690.6
852.0
2.0
23.9
71.5
161.9
241.1
339.5
471.1
612.9
749.3
938.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.58
.56
.48
.49
.41
.43
.53
.54
.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cm
Survivor
PAI
0
.57
.52
.41
.33
.26
.24
.33
.30
.25
– – – – cm – – – –
Net
f
PAI
QMD
growth
2.0
24.0
71.5
159.9
238.8
337.1
463.3
563.7
690.6
852.0
No.
Trees
QMD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Gross
PAI
0
2.7
2.8
2.2
1.5
1.1
.5
0
.7
.6
0
2.8
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.2
–––m –––
Net
PAI
CV6
3
CVTS
CV6
Avg.
volume
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CVTS
g
MAI
CV6
PAI
Net
volume
growth
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
107
210
268
268
375
412
210
226
3
No.
Trees
CV6
MAI
d/D
d
0
.2
.5
1.1
1.6
2.0
4.2
8.3
3.1
4.6
m
2
3
CVTS
MAI
CV6
0
.9
2.4
6.9
10.7
15.0
38.2
87.0
29.1
53.3
CV6
PAI
CV6
MAI
0
0
0
2.0
.3
.2
5.3
41.5
9.4
27.8
–––m –––
CVTS
Volume
Gross
volume
growth
CVTS
PAI
0
6.5
7.3
8.2
8.8
9.7
12.0
16.0
13.6
16.1
cm
QMD
Basal
area
Mortality
0
21.4
27.8
28.9
28.2
24.0
20.8
10.8
21.9
20.5
4.3
7.3
9.6
12.2
13.6
14.8
15.5
15.0
15.7
16.2
0
5.5
15.9
22.1
26.3
24.6
25.2
20.1
25.4
23.1
0.1
1.0
2.8
5.3
7.2
9.1
11.0
12.0
13.3
14.4
0
21.6
28.5
30.6
31.7
27.8
28.4
28.2
27.7
28.1
4.3
7.3
9.8
12.5
14.3
15.7
17.3
18.4
19.3
20.4
0
5.5
15.9
22.6
26.4
24.6
26.3
28.4
27.3
27.0
0.1
1.0
2.8
5.4
7.3
9.2
11.2
13.0
14.4
15.9
–––––––––––––––––––––m ––––––––––––––––––––
CVTS
PAI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
–––––––––m –––––––––
CVTS
Basal
area
growth
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
2
Basal
area
Volume
Removed
in
thinning
b
Average height (Ht) and diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and Ht­d.b.h. curves).
Quadraticmeandiameteratbreastheight.
c
All volumes are total stem cubic meters (CVTS) or merchantable cubic meters to a 15.2­cm top diameter inside bark (CV6).
d
Average d.b.h. cut/average d.b.h. before thinning.
e
Net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include volume removed in the calibration cut; volume (CVTS) removed in thinnings = 0 cubic
meters (0 percent of the total gross yield at age 59); volume (CVTS) in mortality = 243.5 cubic meters (20 percent of the total gross yield).
f
Net periodic annual increment (PAI) is based on difference between QMDs at start and end of period; survivor PAI is growth of those trees present at both start and end of period, (and
is thus unaffected by mortality).
g
MAI = mean annual increment.
a
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
3
Net
CV6
81.6
167.1
250.3
365.9
450.4
546.5
650.5
704.6
814.1
957.8
Gross
CV6
––––––––––m ––––––––––
Gross
CVTS
3
–––m –––
Years
e
19.8
30.6
39.0
47.8
52.2
56.4
59.0
58.8
62.0
66.0
m
Net
CVTS
8.9
11.2
12.9
14.8
16.3
17.9
20.1
22.7
25.5
28.9
cm
Cumulative
yield
3,153
3,092
2,985
2,775
2,507
2,239
1,865
1,453
1,231
1,017
No.
2
CV6
Volumec
CVTS
Stand
age
16.6
21.0
24.2
27.4
29.7
32.2
35.0
38.3
41.3
45.4
cm
Trees
QMDb
Year
11.1
14.8
17.4
20.6
23.2
26.1
29.8
32.9
36.0
40.1
m
Years
D.b.h.
19
23
26
30
33
37
42
47
52
59
Ht
Basal
area
After
thinning
1966
1970
1973
1977
1980
1984
1989
1994
1999
2006
Year
Stand
age
100
largesta
Table
24b—Stand
development
table
for
unthinned
treatment
(plots
22,
25,
and
71),
per
hectare
basis
(ingrowth
excluded),
metric
units
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Appendix 3: Figures
Figure 5—Trends in number of live trees per acre for (A) fixed treatments and (B) variable treatments,
ingrowth excluded.
64
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Figure 6—Trends in live basal area per acre for (A) fixed and unthinned treatments, and (B) variable
and unthinned treatments.
65
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 7—Trends in quadratic mean diameter (QMD) for (A) fixed and unthinned treatments, and
(B) variable and unthinned treatments.
66
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Figure 8—Trends in diameter of the 40 largest trees per acre (D40) for (A) fixed and unthinned
treatments, and (B) variable and unthinned treatments.
67
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 9—Trends in live total stem volume (CVTS) for (A) fixed and unthinned treatments, and (B)
variable and unthinned treatments.
68
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Figure 10—Trends in live merchantable cubic­foot volume (CV6) for (A) fixed and unthinned
treatments, and (B) variable and unthinned treatments.
69
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 11—Percentage of live merchantable cubic­foot volume (CV6) in logs larger than indicated
diameters, for fixed and unthinned treatments at age 59.
Figure 12—Cumulative gross total stem volume (CVTS) production to age 59, by treatment,
3
including estimatedcalibrationcutof457ft per acre.
70
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966–2006
Figure 13—Cumulative net merchantable volume production (CV6) to age 59, by treatments.
Figure 14—Gross basal area periodic annual increment (PAI) by age, for fixed and unthinned
treatments.
71
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 15—Net basal area periodic annual increment (PAI) by age, for fixed and unthinned
treatments.
Figure 16—Periodic and mean annual increment (PAI and MAI) trends in gross total cubic-foot volume
(CVTS) by age, for fixed and unthinned treatments.
72
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966-2006
Figure 17—Periodic and mean annual increment (PAI and MAI) trends in net merchantable cubic volume
(CV6) over age, for fixed and unthinned treatments.
73
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 18—Growth percentages for fixed and unthinned treatments, in (A) net merchantable cubicfoot volume (CV6) and (B) net total stem cubic-foot volume (CVTS).
74
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966-2006
Figure 19—Change in ratios of live merchantable cubic-foot volume (CV6) to live total stem cubicfoot volume (CVTS) with age, for fixed and unthinned treatments.
Figure 20—Trends in relative density (RD) by age, for fixed and unthinned treatments.
75
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 21—Trends in stand density index (SDI) by age, for fixed and unthinned treatments.
Figure 22—Live crown ratios corresponding to QMD and D40 at age 59, for fixed and unthinned
treatments.
76
Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative Study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 19—The Iron Creek Study, 1966-2006
Figure 23–Live crown ratios (LCR) at age 59 in relation to basal area for (left to right) fixed treatments
1, 3, 5, and 7 and unthinned.
Figure 24—Distribution of understory trees by breast-high diameter class, 1994.
77
RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-580
Figure 25–Unthinned plot in 1994, age 47.
Figure 26–Thinned plot in 1994, age 47.
78
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Web site
Telephone
Publication requests
FAX
E-mail
Mailing address
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw
(503) 808-2592
(503) 808-2138
(503) 808-2130
pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us
Publications Distribution
Pacific Northwest Research Station
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Pacific Northwest Research Station
333 S.W. First Avenue
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300