About This File:
tion.
/This file was created by scanr;ting the printed publica
ted;
'! Misscans identified by the software have been correc
however, some mistakes may remain.
A SU1tllnar!j ofda:m and
)tf n.fu/t:ing rrrf!n.
o!cl?stpt
gr(JWth plorf
m
Pad& fforthwf/Jt:-
L. WILLIAmson
U.S.
FOREST S ERVICE RESEARCH PAPER PNW 4 OCTOBER
1963
U . S . F OREST SERVIC E Res earch Pa per PNW- 4 GIWWTH and lj!ELD RECORDS
fivm we/1-stvcked stands ofDOU!Jlas-ffr
A s ummary of data and
analys e s r e s ulting from
the old e s t pe rmanent
growth plots in the
Pacific Northwe st
/.-. .
BY R. L. WIL LIAMSON
October 1 9 63
PACIFIC N ORTHWEST
F OREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION
Philip A. Briegleb, Director
Portland, Oregon
U . S. DEPARTMEN T OF AGRIC U L T URE
F OREST SERVIC E
CONTENTS
Page
IN TRODUCTION
1
PLO T DESCRIP TIONS
2
Willamette Plots 1 , 2 , and 3
4
Sius law Plots 4 to 10.
6
Wind River Plots 2, 4, 5 , 9, and 90,
8
Olym pic Plots 1 to 4.
•
•
10 •
v" Gifford Pinchot Plots 1 to 5, 7, and 9
Snoqualmie Plots 1 and 2
•
•
KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM PERMANENT GRO WTH AND YIELD PLOTS .
16 ;:-·1.8 Normal Yield Tables
18 Trends Toward Normality
18 Growth of Douglas - fir
18 Mortality
•
20 Gross Yield Tables
20 Es timating Stand Age
20 Height Growth and Site Index
21 Levels of Growing Stock
21 Ecology
•
21 F U T URE PLOT MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DATA
22 •
•
•
,
,
,
•
•
,
,
Dis position of Exis ting Data
LITERA T URE CITED
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14 •
Mount Hood Plots 1, 2, and 3
12
22 23
,,.,.,/�
-,,_,
INTRODUCTION
In the ea rly 1 90 0 1 s , when Ame rican for e stry was in its infancy,
for e s t e r s s ens ed the tremendous gr owth potential of Douglas-fir but had
only sketchy knowledge of its development in natural, young - g r owth s tands .
Indus try al s o quickly r ecogniz e d the place of Douglas -fir as the Pacific
N o rthwe s t' s most im portant timber tr ee-a position it continue s to occupy.
Since wis e management of the s pecies depended upon accurate yield fore­
cas ts , the Fore s t Se rvice began early to s tudy Dougla s - fir on a s ystematic,
r e gionwide basis . A primary F o r e s t Service objective was to obtain a s olid
foundation for g r owth and yield e s timate s thr ough pe riodic s ampling of nearly
pur e , well- s tocked s tands .
Fr. om 1 9 0 9 to 1 9 3 9 , numer ous permanent s ample plots were e s ­
tablished unde r the dir e ction of E . J. Hanzlik, J. V . Hofmann, R . E .
McArdl e , W . H . Meye r , T. T . Munge r , and W. Pete r s on o f the Pacific
Northwe s t Forest and Range Experiment Station . Though s ome plots have
r·
peen abandoned for various r e a s ons , the 3 1 r emaining have been remeas ured
at approximate 5 - year intervals s ince tim e of e s tablishment . In 1 9 62, the
sampled s tands ranged in age from 77 to 1 21 years. This s ummary of plot
records s pans pe riods of 22 to 4 7 yea r s .
For e s te r s with expe rience in sample plot e s tablis hment will a p p r e ­
ciate t h e difficultie s faced b y earlie r worke rs in finding stands that were
"just right . " The objective was 1 -acr e plots , but in s om e cas e s lack of
stand uniformity nece s sitated smalle r plot s . Acce s s posed problems of a
magnitude s eldom encountered today. In 1 9 1 0 , for example , a full day by
s ta g e , r owboat, and foot travel was r equired to cov e r the 30 miles s e par­
ating three plots on the Willamette drainage from Eugene , O r e g. - - an hour ' s
drive by car today (Mun g e r , 1 9 4 6b ) .
The s e 3 1 plots - - the olde s t in the Dougla s - fir r e gion- -have witne s s ed
many of the gr owing pains a s s ociated with development of plot e s tablishment
and t r e e meas urement technique s ove r the pas t 50 years . Some of the earli­
est plots we r e e s tablished on a s urface instead of a horizontal area basis .
Caliper s , us e d in the earlie r meas ur ements ,· gave way to the more accurate
and convenient diamete r tape about 1 9 2 0 , Similarly, int r oduction of the
Abney level about 1 9 2 5 conside rably improved height dete rminations for­
me rly made by the For e s t Se rvice hyps ometer. Some of th e fir st tree tag­
ging failed to follow a s ystematic patte rn. This ove r s ight elicited a numbe r
of caustic notes which we re entered in the office r e p orts by later obs e rve r s .
•
This paper is intended to (1 ) acquaint the r eader with the 31 s urviving
plots , ( 2 ) make available the wealth of s tatis tical data de rived from the s e
plots , and (3 ) de s cribe briefly s ome of the knowledge yielded by analysis of
the plot data.
PLOT DESCRIPTIONS
One of the mos t striking features of the s e plots is their consis tent
s ubs tantiation of normal growth and yield predictions for natural stands of
Douglas -fir . The few exceptions have been due to per s is tent and heavy
bark beetle and root rot attack. When the se attacks /ceased, trends toward
normality res umed.
Each plot was chosen initially for its good stocking. Underbrush,
us ually lacking during early measurements, has g radually increased on
most plots . The im plications of this trend in regard to reproduction of
managed s tands war rant further s tudy.
General des c riptive data of all 31 plots are outlined in table 1.
Tables 2 to 8 present the cumulative s tatistics of the live stand through the
latest field examination . Supplementary notes on plot location and history
ap pear on the page facing each table.
Table I.--Description of permanent sample plots
plot numbers
Legal description
Established
National Forest
and
By
Year
Section
Township
Topographic features
Rangel
/
precipi·
Elevttion
Feet
Willamette:
1, 2, 3
Siuslaw:
4,
6, 7.
9. 10
Wind River:
4, 90
·!!/
2.
1910
Munger
1911
1911
1926
Hanzlik, Meyer
Hanzlik
1 ?';',2
3. '4
2
E.
16
s.
8
w.
15
Hofmann, Peterson
13
13
4
4
N.
7J,
7l,
Hofmann, McArdle
34
5
N.
7
Hofmann
1926
1926
1 to
7. 9
Meyer,
s.
N.
7.
27
29
N.
11
12
N.
N.
s
1927
1927
Meyer
1928
Meyer
16
14
1930
Meyer
14
3
Snoqualmie:
1, 2
Meyer
Hood:
1, 21 3
34
24
Meyer
Gifford Pinchot:
l/
s.
21, 22
Meyer
1914,
1939
1914
1914,
1924
20
9
w.
E.
E.
E.
700
800
_gh,300
Slope
tation
Aspect
Percent
0-30
15-25
(l,/
J/)
20-40
1,300
1,400
5-50
65-100
2,600
2-15
48
No
jr·
NE.
100
w.; E.
E.
E.
to NE.;
N. to
NW.
; ·
Olympic:
Mt,
19
Annual·
N.
2
3
w.
w.
100
200
0-60
30-60
w. to NW.
w. to sw.
E.
1,800
0-10
0-50
s.
s. to SE.
8
E.
2,500
15-20
sw.
7
E.
1,900
60
.NE.
N.
E.
50
35
61
81
to SE,
100
East or west of the Willamette meridian, '];/
Data for plot
11
Ridgetop. 8,
!i/
Wind River District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest,
but representative of the other two, 3
..,..
WIL LAME T T E P L O T S l,
2, and 3
The 53 - year history of these plots
covers a long er span of years than that of
any other group of permanent sam ple plots
in the Douglas-fir region. Located about
30 miles southeast of Eugene, Oreg., these
plots are on a level bench above Lookout
P oint Reservoir on the Middle F ork of the
Willamette River.
At plot establishment, Munger noted
that many tre es bore basal fire scars or
had forked or bayonet tops from wind and
ice storms. These injuries had no ap parent
effect on subsequent gross volume growth,
however. In addition, the stands have con­
tinued normal development after a severe
wind and snow storm in the 1 9 1 5 - ZO p eriod
plus a bark be etle attack from 193 5 - 45.
Plot 1 - 10,316 cubic feet ot age 69 (1925).
Plot 3- 11,864 cubic feet at age 69 (1925).
"
i
j
j
f
'
)
J
-
Tab l e 2. - -Wil l amet te p ermanent s amp l e p lo t s 1 , 2, and 3; s tatis tics of the l ive s tand
( values on horizontal acre basis )
.
k
>.
.;
.!l
k
>."0
I
""k
c "
.
'i:
:il
.c
s
.
k
.
k
u
.;
k
k
c.
>.
.c
.;
00
0
k
"'
<
c
E
k
0
"'
'"'
.:!
"
'0
c
I
I
E'
"""
'"'
"'
"'
Stand
Number of
trees
Conifers
Hardoods
2.6
inches and more
Basal area,
square feet
Conifers
in
Average
d.b.h.,
inches
Hardwoods
Conifers
Hardwoods
I
d. b. h.
Average
height of
conifers,
feet
Volume of
conifers,
cubic
feet
I
Conifer stand
6.6+
Number
of
trees
inches d.b.h.
Volume.
board feet
(International
':-inch rule)
I
11.6+
Number
of
trees
inches d.b.h. j
I
Volume,
board feet
(Scribner
rule)
I
Dominants and
codominants
Average
d.b.h.
inches
•
I
Average
height,
feet
--
1.00
157
153 157
160 161
166 168
170
170
170 IIII+
IIIIIIII
II
II
II
II
188
175
149
141
137
127 121
112 110
103
28
13 9
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
181.2 197.2
207.0
218.2 225.0
239.1
249.0
257.1
270.5 271.4 8.7
4.0
3.5
2.8
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
13.3
14.3
16.0
16.9
17.4
18.6
19.4
20.4
21.2
22.1
7.6
7.5
8.4
8.6
9.0
8.9
8.6 9.4
9.4
9.4
103 116
126 132
136 145
149
157
158 162
7,354
8,709
9,528
10,316
11,162
12,483
13,301
14,165
15,225
15,510
165 159
143138 133
126 120
111 110
102
48,420
60.270
68,590
74,260
82,564
92,652
100,011
108,194
116,899
119,686
100
106
110
111
112
111
109
106
105 101 29,010
37,440
44,070
49,280
54,128
63,754
70,145
77,713
84,666
87,686
18.3
19.9
21.6
20.5
20.7
21.2
22.3
23.7
24.2
24.3
119 131
137 139 143 151 156 163
166 --
1.00
162
173
171 162
168 177
168
170 170 170
IIII II IIII
II+
II II II II
214
198
160
151
149
136
114
116 109
106
8
5
4
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
215.3
231.7
226.9 238.7 255.1
255.5
239.1 254.6
259.7
261.8
1.6 .8 .6
.6 -13.6
14.6
16.1
17.2
17.6 18.6 19.6
20.0
20.9
21.3
6.1
5.4
5.2
6.1
2.5
6.1
5.3
6.8
6.8 7
105 117
126
132 136 145
150 154
158 160 8,796
10,274
10,536
11,324
12,485
13,274
12,788
13,917
14,654
14,954
201
L89
160
151 149
136
114
108
101
97
59,235
71,460
74,920
80,370
91,411
98,579
96,211
106,811
112,404
115,300
124
127
122 125
125
120
107
103
100
95
34,710
44,040
47,860
53,860
60,620
67,242
67,716
77,153
81,917
84,641
18.4
21.1
21.9
19.9
21.1
21.2
22.3
23.4
24.0
"24.4
119 133
138
138
144 151 156
163
166
151 158 III+
II-II IIII"
II II II II 190 175 157
147
145
131
127
118
110
114 18
8
7
6
3
4
7
2
2
2
214.7
233.2
237.2
251.3
263.2
260.7
271.6
273.1
274.7
283.7
5.3
2.2
2.0
1.7
.8
.9
1.2
.2
.2 .3
14.4
15.6
16.7
17.7
18.2
19.1
19.8
21.0
21.4
21.3
7.3
7
7.2
7.2
7.0
6.4
5.6
4.7
4.S
5.0
108 121
128
134
137
146
150 155
159
159
' 8,833
: 10,406
:10,934
11,864
12,741
13,628
14,536
15,052
15,508
16,216
171
168 154
147
145
131
127 112
103
100
59,280
72,820
78,090
86,070
94,155
101,314
109,504
115,212
119,320
125,272
118
124
120
120
120
115 112
105
98
97
36,380
46,410
50,940
57,290
63,312
69,694
76,893
83,022
87,000
92,263
19.4
21.3
22.1
21.4
21.8
21.7
22.4
23.6
24:4
24.9
121
133
L38
140
144
152
156
162
167
4/10
5/15
6/20
3/25
4/30
10/34
10/39
10/45
12/50
10/55
54 59.5
64.5
69
74
79
84
90 95
100
5.5
5
4.5
5
5
5
5
6
5
4/10
5/15
6/20
3/25
4/30
10/34
10/39
10/45
12/50
10/55
54 59.5
64.5
69 74
79
84 90 95 100
5.5
5
4.5
5
5
5
5
6
5
4/10
5/15
6/20
3/25
4/30
10/34
10/39
10/45
12/50
lD/55
54
59.5
64.5
"69
74
79 84 90 95
100
--
5.5
5
4.5
5
5
5
5
6
5
.98
.98
.98
1.00
1.00
i.OO
1.00
1.00 1.00
--
171 159 165 168
170 170 170 .l
.6
.9
.8 .8
.8
.l .l
'!
•
<.11
j
)I
"W'C''=<''"''�'"'C'"'"'""
"""'"'' "'"'7;C''C' ':'''
""""'�''
·:_: •·:-:c·::•
o:O:c''':•:::c=:c•::-··'"-"�:::"�.:::C' "•=-�·,,----·---
,__ '""
...,j
0'
SIUS LAW P L OT S 4 to 10
Plots 4 and 5 , in the D adwood
Creek drainage near Alpha, Oreg. , lie on
a spur ridge with parts of the plots extending
The
off the ridgetop onto steep ground.
same is true of plots 6 and 7, which lie on
the ridge between Saddle Mountain and
Three Buttes , about 9 0 0 feet south of the
road from Pawn. Plot 8, near plots 6 and
7, and plots 9 and 1 0 , on a bench next to
Five Rivers near Paris, are all on gentle,
uniform ground.
Unfortunately, the trees on plots 6
and 7 were not tagged in 1 9 1 1 when the plots
were established. At age 38, these were
the youngest stands in the growth and yield
plots, and 1 5 years passed before the trees
were tagged in 1926. Plots 6 and 7 were
very dense and suffered severe losses from
windthrow and snowbreak.
In the same period, plots 9 and 10
suffered even heavier mortality from a
variety of causes, losing about 30 percent
of their cubic volume. The recovery of
these stands at ages of around 9 0 years is
of particular silvicultural interest.
A
stand map was prepared for plot 9 in 1926.
Plot 10 - Average diameter 23.1 inches at age 67 (1926).
Plot 5 - Showing stand density at oge 65 (1926).
f
;1
j
'
')
---·--·-- -
-
- ----
-··---
]
--
Tab l e 3 . - -Sius l a w p e rmanent s amp l e p l o ts 4, 5' 6' 7' 8, 9, and 10; s tatis tics o f the l ive s tand
(values on hor?,.z on J:al acre bas is )
m
m
=
"'·
.;
.e
=
I
4
10
-..]
"'"' "'
c
= m
=
-"
·
m
"'
=
"'
"a
c
0
,j "'
-"
"'
"'
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8/11
9/16
10/21
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
10/46
9/51
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8/11
9/16
10/21
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
10/46
9/51
38
45
48
53
58
63
68
73
78
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8/11
9/16
10/21
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
10/46
9/51
38
43
48
53
58
63
68
73
78
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
11/46
9/51
53
58
63
73
78
5
5
5
5
5
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
10/46
9/51
74
79
84
89
94
99
5
5
5
5
5
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
10/46
9/51
67
72
77
82
87
92'
5
5
5
5
5
!/
"
c
0
=
....
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
&8
•
=
':i
0
8/11
9/16
10/21
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
10/46
9/51
Stand 2.6 inches and more in d.b.h.
Stand 6.6+ inches d.b.h.
=
N
0
,.
.:!
"
.
"'
c
.,...
"
....
"'
"'
"
Nmnber of
trees
....
=
"'
"
....
"'
Conifers
!
Hardwoods
Basal area square feet Coni
fers
-I
Average
d.b.h . •
inches
Hardwoods
Conifers
!
Number of trees
Hardwoods
Average
height of
conifers,
feet
Volume of
conifers.
cubic
feet
Coni
fers
-I
Hardwoods
j
Volume of
conifers,
board feet
(International
!,;-inch rule)
I
Stand 11.6+ inches d.b.h.
Number of trees
Conifers
Hardwoods
I
Volume of
conifers,
board feet
(Scribner rule)
170
172
167
167
176
175
174
174
--
II
II
II
II+
II
II
II
--
298
273
238
228
218
198
180
180
173
60
38
25
23
23
10
10
10
10
292.8
329.4
346.6
364.1
392.1
408.4
420.5
446.4
463.2
11.9
9.1
6.7
6.5
6.9
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.3
13.4
14.9
16.4
17.1
18.2
19.2
20.8
21.3
22.2
6.0
6.6
7.0
7.2
7.4
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.8
102
112
120
125
138
145
151
155
159
11,980
14,150
15,520
16,890
19,435
21,120
22,125
24,253
25,716
273
263
233
223
213
198
180
180
173
18
18
12
12
15
10
10
10
10
79,290
96,870
109,000
120,450
142,770
157,390
167,159
184,868
196,086
185
192
190
192
190
185
175
175
168
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
48,350
61,620
71,870
81.510
100,840
111,110
119.726
134,028
143,848
.455
175
177
162
160
160
160
159
164
--
II
II+
IIIIIIIIIIII--
382
347
297
286
268
230
202
189
185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236.3
255.1
256.3
267.0
280.0
281.8
285.6
288.3
298.1
----------
10.6
11.6
12.6
13.1
13.8
15.0
16.1
16.7
17.2
----------
102
109
116
119
124
131
135
144
147
9 ,895
11,180
11,625
12,395
13,415
14,110
14,328
15,474
16,218
336
331
290
279
266
228
zoo
189
185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63,390
74,450
79,590
86,210
95,850
101,810
104,938
114,835
120,224
110
134
145
152
154
151
149
147
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,370
35,500
42,290
47,890
54,940
62,280
67,283
75,298
81,013
.932
188
--187
190
192
190
194
--
I--IIIII--
199
183
156
150
142
128
109
104
98
9
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
187.2
208.2
(lj)
241.9
259.4
265.6
256.4
270.3
274.8
3.8
3.6
(1/)
-.6
------
13.1
14.4
(l/)
17.2
18.8
19.5
20.7
21.8
22.7
9.0
11.1
(lf)
95
105
137
148
152
162
166
7,060
8,415
(1/)
11-;225
12,655
13,910
13,550
15,278
15.762
181
177
153
149
142
128
109
104
98
4
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
44,920
56,130
(1/)
80 10
92,950
103,820
101,819
117,360
121,548
101
115
131
131
130
126
108
103
98
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,280
33.760
10.0
------
<f{l
27
o
5
63,240
73,710
73,024
86,007
90,310
188
--185
187
194
190
196
--
I--IIIII--
236
161
138
132
120
111
79
77
75
11
14
0
5
5
2
2
2
0
151.0
156.2
(1/)
190.4
205.4
219.2
199.4
217.1
227.6
5.7
9.2
10.8
13.3
9.6
11.1
4.5
4.5
2.0
1.9
1.8
--
16.3
17.7
19.0
21.5
22.7
23.6
13.5
13.5
13.8
13.8
13.8
--
87
102
Cl/)
124
134
147
154
165 168
5,445
6,270
(1/)
8-;-805
9,960
11,455
10,587
12,367
13,163
202
161
138
132
120
111
79
77
75
11
14
0
5
5
2
2
2
0
32,520
40,920
(1/)
62-:-320
72,480
85,380
79,684
95,217
101,677
82
93
120
107
109
104
79
77
75
7
7
0
5
5
2
2
2
0
14,440
22,120
(l /)
39,880
49,070
59,690
57.793
67,925
76,303
1.000
178
178
172
173
169
--
II+
II+
II
II
II
--
234
228
191
168
153
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
244.8
266.4
265.6
273.3
281.8
293.5
-------
13.8
14.6
16.0
17.3
18.4
19.1
-------
114
122
127
134
137
140
10,985
12,480
12,760 13,493
14,030
14,882
232
227
191
168
153
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
75,880
88,550
91,430
98,546
103,532
110,396
147
151
150
148
142
138
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,400
53,320
58,810
66,047
70,970
76,875
1.000
193
193
198
195
195
--
III
II--
117
102
86
53
50
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
286.4
273.5
266.0
185.0
191.8
197.4
-------
21.2
22.2
23.8
25.3
26.5
27.5
-------
163
168
178 183
187
190
16,340
16,025
16,370
11,452
12,075
12,620
117
102
86
53
50
48
0
0
0
0
0
125 '790
124,290
128,780
90,850
96,030
100,568
115
102
86
53
50
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
91,620
92,100
98,090
6Q,
· 346
74,514
78,67S
201
210
203
205
203
--
I
I+
I
I
I
--
126
106
87
52
52
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
270.0
258.0
245.1
177.2
189.9
199.0
-------
19.8
21.2
22.8
25.0
25.9
26.7
-------
161
15,305
15,580
14,860
11,130
12,099
12,831
126
106
87
52
52
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
117,320
121,330
116,460
87,936
96,374
102,444 122
105
87
52
52
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
84,740
90,040
87,610
67,448
74,991
80,072
0.399
.441
1.000
II
(!/)
(1/)
(l/)
m 185
189·
192
•
a
1
em nts erratic.
Meas
j
-- --
..
00
WIND RIVER P L OT S 2,
4, 5, 9, and 90
Plots 2 and 9 are adjacent to the Carson­
Guler road, about 1 1 miles from Hemlock Ranger
Station near Carson, Wash. Plots 4, 5, and 90
are along Panther Creek near the Warren Gap
road, about 7 miles from the Ranger Station.
The s e stands have suffered recurrently
from wind and ice s torms and from bark be etle
attacks . Heavy mortality has occ:; rred consist­
ently s ince 1 924, and stand deterioration has
been evident s ince 1 9 35-stand age 94 years.
Bark be etle attacks have b e en the chief obs tacle
to recov ery, conditions being s o s evere that part
of plot 5 was clear cut when an adjacent patch of
kille d and infested timber was harv e sted. Thes e
plots have obviously s uffered s omewhat more
than 11normal11 mortality.
The 47-year data record for plots 2, 4,
and 5 provided an opportunity to smooth out the
curve of the e rratic los s e s due to m ortality and
derive s om e consistent expre s s ions of m ean and
periodic annual increment. Adjusted gros s vol­
ume s were obtaine d through regre s sion analysis
of volume- basal area ratios with r e s p ect to age.
Regres sion analysis als o revealed that m ortality
increa s e d with stand age, though age accounte d
f o r only 1 0 percent o f the total variation. Gro s s
growth for the 47-year period agreed clos ely
with gros s yield table s (Staebler, 1 955b), but the
perl. odic annual increment curve was s kewed
negatively relative to the gros s yield table curve.
This skewnes s reflected the heavy mortality,
below stand age 1 00, noted previously. This
m ortality fls o reduced net growth rat e s to about
70 perc n of normaL
1
'
)
Plot 4- 12,140 cubic feet at age 88 (1929).
'
P·l ot 9 - After heavy mortality
in 1919-29 period (1929).
,..
__
/
Tab l e 4.--Wind River permanenL s amp le p l o t s 2, 4, 5, 9, and 90; s tatis t ic s of the l ive s tand!
(val ues on ho�}zo��al acr e b as is )
!i;
.
li!
2
4
90
:>-.
-o
'g
;
;;
J.j
.z
5
{;
1914
72
1919
9/24
9/29
77
83
88
5
6
5
Stand
"'
.-1
.5
";:!
0.995
..
x
.S
1!
;.:
150
147
144
142
9/34
9/39
93
98
5
5
140
145
l03
5
146
8/50
8/55
109
114
6
5
-147
9/60
119
5
144
1914
72
1919
9/24
77
83
5
6
---
9/29
9/34
9/39
88
93
98
5
5
5
--148
5/45
103
5
152
8/50
5/56
9/60
109
114
119
6
5
5
155
151
153
1914
72
1919
9/24
9/29
77
83
88
2.6
J
inches and more in d.b.h.
IU
5/4S
.975
.938
5
6
5
144
144
----
9/34
93
5
--
9/39
5/45
8/50
5/56
98
103
109
114
5
5
6
s
150
152
153
1s2
9/60
119
5
9/24
83
9/29
88
5
121
9/34
9/39
5/45
8/50
8/55
9/60
93
98
103
109
114
119
5
5
5
6
5
5
119
122
122
-122
120
9/3$
5/45
98
103
5
154
156
8/50
5/56
9/60
109
114
119
6
5
5
157
159
156
u
....0
;
52
13
..;
.S
l tm
1.1.885
1.000
1.000
150
128
t'
.,...
"'
g.
1!
III+
III+
III
III
III
III
III+
-III+
III
III
Number of
trees
Conifers
Basal area,
square feet
Other
=
lasr
fir
Conifers
Other
=lasfir
!v:r:ge
i ch '
Coni.- Other
fers
:lasfir
Average Volume
h i. h/'
:c
•
J
I
11.6+
i.nches d.b.h.
volume,
Volume.
Number board feet Number bOard feet
of
(Internaof
(Scribner
trees
io al i-)
trees j .rule)
nc ru e
I I
I
I
Dominants and
codominants
Average
d.b.h.,
inches
I
Average
height,
feet
160
8
219.8
2.2
15.4
7.1
112
9,247
146
63.390
116
42.270
19.6
124
7
7
5
236.3
256 •.1
254.0
2.1
2.1
•8
16.8
17.7
18.8
7.4
7.4
5.5
123
130
130
10,625
11,953
11,524
141
139
126
75,310
86,090
83,468
117
121
112
50,400
58,850
57,320
19.7
21.1
21.5
132
138
136
110
108
5
4
228.5
238.6
1.0
.9
19.5
20.1
6.0
6.4
133
139
10,681
11,427
104
103
77,799
84,406
97
97
54,357
59,175
21.9
22.4
139
144
110
8
251.9
.8
20.5
4.2
141
108
93
13
7
255.5
234.6
.9
.9
20.9
21.5
4.1
4.9
140
142
12,293
12,582
11,441
100
95
86
91,106
92,878
85,029
96
94
84
64,514
66,557
60,726
23.8
24.2
"24.3
148
149
150
92
7
243.7
1.2
22.1
5.7
145
11,982
86
89,579
83
64,265
25.0
153
185
10
215,0
4.0
14.5
8.1
--
8,952
177
59,910
127
37,400
18.5
121
---
176
171
8
7
231.0
249.1
2.6
2.5
15.4
16.2
7.3
8.1
---
10,047
11,344
170
166
69,670
80,510
132
132
44,660
52,640
17.4
20.8
124
135
---
158
151
143
7
8
11
254.1
257.5
264.8
2.5
3.0
4.5
17.2
17.7
18.4
8.1
8.3
8.7
--138
12,140
12,265
12,924
154
148
137
87,000
88,645
95,295
128
123
120
59,440
59,630
65,807
21.0
21.7
22.3
140
141
147
III+
III+
III+
III+
III+
III
----
--
III+
III+
III+
III+
III+
III­
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
-IV+
IV+
III+
II­
II­
II­
II­
129
11
258.1
4.9
19.7
--
146
13,191
124
98,337
112
68,268
23.4
154
122
113
112
16
17
21
253.6
249.3
253.0
4.5
5.1
6.8
20.0
20.1
22.6
-7.4
7.8
147
150
159
12,588
12,727
13,049
111.
96
101
94,287
95,842
97,856
98
91
88
6S,872
67,845
70,304
24.8
24.7
24.8
156
159
163
157
6
232.4
.8
16.5
4.9
--
10,292
150
72,330
127
48,130
20.3
133
154
151
145
6
6
6
253.7
275.7
289.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
17.4
18.3
19.1
6.0
6.4
6.4
----
11,490
12,651
13,712
148
148
143
81,880
91,710
99,930
131
132
132
55,630
63,200
68,810
19.3
21.8
22.4
132
138
143
127
10
266.6
2.2
19.6
6.4
--
12,820
123
94,180
115
66,310
22.8
144
114
107
112
254.0
248.7
268.4
258.5
1.0
3.8
3.7
8.4
20.2
22.1
22.3
20.2
7.7
--7.3
143
154
155
145
12,323
12,265
12,765
12,995
109
102
101
98
91,578
91,249
95,290
97,757
102
95
93
88
64,433
64,715
67,984
70,404
23.6
26.0
27.2
...zs.3
149
162
163
158
ns
9
12
20
29
120
33
271.0
10.6
20.4
7.7
143
13,577
99
101,553
89
73,067
25.9
159
210
18
227.6
6.6
14.0
8.2
--
9,190
187
60,700
137
37,830
19.9
118
197
18
232.9
7.9
14.7
9.0
103
9,139
179
60,619
137
38,378
19.1
114
182
165
164
170
164
152
19
17
20
26
25
22
227.1
220.7
229.7
221.6
247.1
240.3
8.6
8.2
9.0
12.4
13.1
11.8
15.1
15.6
16.0
15.5
16.6
17.0
9.1
9.4
8.9
9.3
9.8
9.9
112
113
112
116
118
9,172
9,210
9,711
10,292
10,765
10.476
168
156
156
157
154
145
61,518
63,020
66,759
71,569
74,975
73,506
131
124
124
127
126
120
39,414
40,858
43,473
46,625
49,445
48,824
19.1
19.4
19.2
19.8
20.2
20.3
117
121
123
125
127
128
l07
138
132
33
30
285.0
295.0
43.9
43.9
19.5
20.3
15.6
--
146
149
14,756
15.463
131
125
110,751
116,951
123
119
77,908
83,577
22.0
22.4
152
155
133
122
118
30
32
31
309.5
304.9
306.7
44.1
49.9
46.8
20.7
21.1
21.8
-16.9
16.6
150
155
158
16,518
16,470
16,869
125
115
108
123,668
128,082
129,648
118
110
105
88,811
93,475
95,653
24.1
25.9
25.4
159
167
166
.
1956
inches d.b.h.
149
145
131
.
val
's for plots 4. ·5. and 90 were revised in 1960. All other values for 1956 .arid prior are taken from the
11
2/
- Area r dJ:ed for portion of plot included in adjacent area clear cut about 1953 ..
J
-
6.6+
1956
office report.
......
0
OLYMPIC PLOTS l to 4
Plots l and 2 are ·adjacent to U. S.
Highway 1 0 1 , about 3 miles south of
Quilcene, Wash. Plots 3 and 4 are about
5 miles south of Blyn, on the Jimmiecome­
lately Creek road.
Back in the 'Prohibition Era while
plot 4 was being establishe d by Walte r
Meye r and his helpers, a local bootlegge r,
who had two 50-gallon stills within 1 00
fe et, was on tent e rhooks, not knowing
wheth e r to hov e r a round or to get clear
out of the country.
Poria weirii r oot rot has kille d
many t
n all o f the plots since 1 94 1
and o n plot 3 i s r esponsible, togeth e r with
considerable wind and ice storm damage,
for steadily decreasing plot values relative
to normal values.
Plot 1
- At age 51; showing largest tree on plot (1926).
Stem maps are available for
Olympic plots 1 and 2.
Ploi 3 - At age 42; nearly normal stocking is evident (1926).
"
' )
•:
j
J
,
I
Tab le 5.--0lymp ic p ermanent s amp le p lo t s 1 , 2, 3, and 4· s tatis t ic s
o f the live s tand
'
(values o n hori zontal ac re bas i s )
I
I
,.,
.;
k
"'"'
"'k
'1 0
0
z
""
0
p,.
2
4
m
k
"'
m
""e
-"
c
0
.)::_
<
00
k
"'
.z
"'
0
k
"'
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
12/46
4/57
51
56
61
66
71
81
5
5
5
5
10
9/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
12/46
4/57
51
56
61
66
71
81
5
5
5
5
10
10/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
12/46
4/57
42
47
52
57
62
72
5
5
5
10
10/26
9/31
9/36
9/41
12/46
4/57
42
47
52
57
62
72
5
5
5
5
10
......
......
j
J
--------
m
k
5
I
m
Stand
k
.;
k
""
c
k
0
"'
""
....
"
"'
tg
"""'
0'
""
"'
Number of
trees
Conifers
Hardwoods
2.6
inches and more in d.b.h.
Basal area,
square feet
Coni­
fers
Hardwoods
Average
d.b.h.,
inches
Conifers
Hard­
'WOOdS
Average
r :
feet
I
Volume of
conifers.
cubic
feet
I
Conifer stand
6.6+ inches d.b.h.
I 1
board feet
(International
-inch rule)
of
trees
·--..
···-
I
11.6+
inches d.b.h. j
Dominants and
codominants
I I
board feet
(Scribner
rule)
...
d. b.h. .
inches
height,
teet
of
trees
·
- ..
_ --" · ·"
1.00
130
132
130
126
125
130
IIIIII­
III­
III­
IIIIII­
411
377
347
307
282
273
33
23
18
11
9
5
185.7
198.2
210.2
221.4
228.1
257.4
5.32
4.99
4.48
3.42
2.30
1.64
9.1
9.8
10.6
11.3
12.2
13.1
5.4
6.3
6.8
7.6
6.8
7.8
76
80
85
89
94
103
6,265
6,945
7,725
8,194
8,726
10,544
252
256
254
250
239
227
34,100
39 '990
47,300
50,161
55,457
70,141
88
98
104
112
117
129
14,460
18,640
23,260
25,976
30,382
42,049
13.2
13.6
14.4
15.3
15.8
17.1
92
99
102
103
106
118
1.00
130
133
136
134
130
128
III­
III­
III
III­
III­
III­
389
349
334
295
274
249
14
8
7
4
5
3
176.3
181.1
193.3
198.3
205.8
220.8
1.71
1.17
1.00
.43
.81
.62
9.1
9.8
10.3
11.1
11.7
12.8
4.7
5.2
5.1
4.4
5.5
6.1
74
84
91
95
99
104
5,925
6,585
7,325
7,710
8,142
9,292
271
271
266
253
248
222
32,190
39,480
44,970
48,574
52,725
62,023
57
72
89
102
109
120
10,590
14,370
19,180
22,601
26,521
36,289
12.9
12.9
13.7
14.4
14.6
15.7
92
100
107
110
111
116
.75
127
125
120
122
119
118
III­
IIIIV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
611
563
508
457
385
324
103
92
49
41
27
20
148.7
155.6
169.0
176.8
171.8
182.5
13.54
15.96
8.60
8.35
8.10
8.82
6.7
7.1
7.8
8.4
9.0
10.2
4.9
5.6
5.7
6.1
7.5
9.0
67
73
75
79
84
92
4,440
5,125
5,475
6,320
6,242
7,070
244
265
275
284
263
252
17,880
23,140
26,920
33,132
35,032
42,501
19
33
47
64
68
87
1,970
4,000
6,980
9,913
11,689
17,351
9.6
9.9
10.7
11.3
11.8
13.2
79
84
86
92
94
101
126
125
123
122
119
116
IIIIII­
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
929
732
633
547
464
397
15
16
12
12
12
4
191.6
192.4
199.9
206.0
207.0
227.0
2.69
2.99
2.63
2.39
2.52
1.68
6.1
6.9
7.6
8.3
9.0
10.3
5.7
5.9
6.3
6.0
6.2
8.8
68
74
77
83
87
92
5,920
6,370
6,803
7,466
7,683
8,780
289
331
346
341
337
324
19,650
25.780
32,719
38,613
42,977
50,475
8
19
37
64
79
99
980
2,340
5,443
9,905
13,105
20,245
9.0
9.4
10.2
10.8
11.5
12.5
78
84
88
92
94
99
•
75
.,. -· -
......
N
GIFFORD PINCHOT PLOTS
1 to 5,
7, and 9
These plots lie in two groups: plots
1 to 5 in the Cispus Rive r drainage, 1 0- 1 /2
miles southeast of Randle, Wash. , and
plots 7 and 9 on the Kiona Peak t rail about
3 miles n orthwest of Randle.
Plot 3
-
At age 50 (1927).
The Cispus Rive r group p r ovides a
str iking, and aesthetically pleas':ing, ex­
ample of the maximum yields attainable in
natural stands. At the last measurement
(av erage age 83 years, and site index 1 77),
they averaged 90, 2 1 1 board f eet, Scribn e r
rule, p e r acre.
Plot
All of these plots wer e stem­
mapped at establishment.
i
j
j
7
A magnificent stand
under way at age 50 (1927).
'
'I
j
1
r
Tab l e 6.--Gi f ford Pinchot permanent s amp e p l s 1-5 ( Camp Creek) , 7 and 9 ( Kiona Peak) ;
s tatis ti c s o f the l ive s tand (val ue s on hori zontal acre b as i s )
..
,g
..
..
"'i:
.,
"
.. ..
., ....
&5
.,.
I
I
..
"'
.,
..
..
.."'
;:
0.
-z
E
"
"'
..
:;
..
....
.:;;
Stand 2.6
..
.:;
:J
"
.,
!1
0
:c
"'
3
inches and more in
u
.;..
g.
"'
Number of
trees
Conifers
I
Average
d.b.h.'
inches
Basal area.
square feet
I
Hardwoods
I
Conifers
I
d.
b.h.
Conifer stand
6.6+
Average
height of
conifers
feet
Volume of
conifers, I
cubic
Number
feet
of
trees
inches d.b.h.
Volume,
board feet
(International
'!;-inch rule)
11.6+
I
Number
of
trees
Volume:o
board feet
(Scribner
rule)
Hard­
woods
Conifers
227
205
180
164
150
140
0
0
0
0
0
0
255.8
27L3
286.1
297.5
322.4
326.0
14.4
15.6
17.1
18.2
19.9
20.7
117
124
133
143
159
160
10,800
12,490
13,900
15,375
19,405
18,629
224
204
180
164
150
140
74,330
88,140
101 '700
113,770
140,841
143,074
156
154
158
152
146
137
44,650
56;270
67,900
77,830
100,742
103,412
295
282
236
192
172
163
0
0
0
0
0
0
223.7
246.4
258.3
266.7
290.5
302.1
1L8
12.7
14.2
16.0
17.6
18.4
95
106
114
136
143
150
8,520
10,080
10,920
12,605
15,110
16,325
263
258
228
192
172
163
55,200
66,920
73,750
90,491
112,259
122,554
120
130.
138
141
138
135
256
250
215
188
152
131
0
0
0
0
0
0
243.7
267.9
279.3
289.0
294.0
28L9
13.2
14.0
15.4
16.8
18.8
19.9
109
114
124
132
150
154
iO,l80
11,680
12,980
14,039
16,042
15.353.
253
250
215
188
152
131
68,000
79,110
91,710
101,654
121,085
116,464
223
207
191
158
139
140
20
20
20
21
17
16
205.7
222.4
242.1
254.9
276.1
288.0
2.6
3.0
3.7
4.6
7.4
5.0
13.0
14.0
15.2
17.2
19.1
19.4
4.8
5.3
5.8
6.3
9.1
7.6
106
113
24
134
149
151
8,460
9,590
11,110
12,288
l4,792
15,414
187
181
173
153
139
131
186
180
164
138
121
116
27
23
12
9
5
4
237.8
248.2
263.7
275.2
295.7
305.0
7.9
7.4
5.1
4.7
3.2
2.8
15.2
15.9
17.2
19.1
2L3
22.0
7.3 7.'7
8.8 9.8
10.8
1L4
110
118
130
138
165
166
9,600
10,770
12,380
13,389
17,042
16.542
257
245
216
213
192
178
15
13
11
2
0
0
212.2
230.2
238.8
260.9
286.9
294.4
9.1
8.5
7.3
L4
12.3'
13.1
14.2
15.0
16.6
17.4
10.6
11.0
11.1
11.5
110
115
124
130
147
15
413
376
320
300
272
256
3
3
1
1
1
1
222.2
23L8
237.7
256.5
280.5
289.8
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
9.9
10.6
11.7
l2.5
13.7
14.4
4.1
4.1
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
1
83'
8ll
96
102
110
116
Hard­
v.roods
Dominants and
codominants
inches d.b.h.
11----..---
Average
d.b.h.,
inches
Camp Creek
_/d
,A
4/27
5/32
4/37
5/43
11/52
9/57
-:s- .J
,r
9J-=
-y'
J
4/27
5/32
4/37
6/43
11/52
9/57
4/27
5/32
4/37
5/43
11/52
9/57
------
't--
c
4
"
4/27
5/32
4/37
5/43
11/52
9/57
9/27
5/32
4/37
5/43
11/52
9/57
LOO
w
M
n
a
w
n
a
w
M
n
a
61
M
72
5
6
w
5
5
5
6
LOO
156
160
158
166
166
175
LOO
168
164
171
167
170
174
.75
155
158
166
161
168
172
LOO
163
164
171
167
182
185
LOO
171
170
171
175
176
179
LOO
130
127
131
135
130
137
w
5
5
5
6
w
5
5
5
6
a
u
w
n
u
n
n
m
4
5
6
179
176
179
172
177
181
5
w
5
II+
II+
II+
II
IH
·II-!
II­
II­
II­
II
II
II
II
II·
II
II
II
II
II­
II­
II
II·
II
II
II­
II­
II
II
II+
II+
I
Average
height.
feet
17.5
18.2
19.2
20.8
2L8
22.9
125
130
139
148
163
166
27,900
37,350
44,430
57,831
75,078
84,344
16.1
17.0
18.2
19.3
20.3
2L3
109
118
122
138
151
159
142
153
153
150
137
124
36,920
45,380
57,000
66,034
83,914
82,029
16.6
17.4
18:5
19.5
20.7
22.1
117
121
133
139
155
159
55,010
65,000
79,040
89,284
111,690
116,845
112
115
113
110
113
107
32.410
39.900
50,190
58,791
77,868
82,350
18.0
18.6
19:8
2L1
---- 22.3
23.3
116
124
136
143
160
162
180
176
162
138
120
115
64,900
75,060
88,720
98,286
131,249
135,450
131
133
131
125
117
114
40,330
47,170
58,550
67,292
95,6U8
98,919
18.6
18.8
20.0
21.9
23.1
24.4
118
124
136
144
169
171
9,220
10,370
11,270
13,177
15,901
15,786
234
224
200
188
173
163
62,820
71,600
80,340
95,164
119,216
123,389
133
141
142
145
141
138
33.470
40,550
48,490
60,772
80,872
85,339
16.5
16.8
17.9
19.4
21.1
21.6
123
127
134
146
163
164
7,940
8,460
9,460
10,983
12,176
13,001
261
255
249
245
234
226
46,550
51.240
60,430
67,186
83,044
90,270
113
125
133
140
151
149
22,810
27.170
33,080
38,905
49,956
56,129
15.1
15.4
16.2
17.2
17.6
18.6
99
101
108
117
124
130
--
Kiana Peak
.....
(J.J
9/27
5/32
4/37
5/43
11/52
9/57
ll
9/27
5/32
4/37
5/43
11/52
9/57
58
62 ,'
67 '
4
5
:aa
s
n
77
a
4
5
6
w
;' lg
II
II
II
-II
II+
II+
III­
III­
III­
III
III­
III
--'
.....
SN OQ UA L MIE
and Z
P L O TS l
Skate C r e ek
Th es e plots ar e on
sh.
th of Longm ir e, wa
about 4 mi les sou
al
rm
no
the
of
t
en
60 pe rc
Having only about
the y
,
ent
hm
lis
ab
est
at
numb er of tre es
ns er
ntrast with the de
w e r e chosen to co
to
ng
sti
ere
ts. It is int
Giffor d Pinchot plo
,
sis
ba
e
lum
vo
ner
Sc rib
obse rv e that, on a
per ­
291
d
an
408
e
r
e
w
ts
the Snoqualmie plo
the y
1 928, and in 19 57
cen t of no rm al in
real,
rm
no
p erc ent of
w e r e 1 27 and 95
sp ectively.
Plot 1 -In 1928.
l
e plots contrasts wel
The openness of thes
s.
plot
t
cho
Pin
d
ffor
with the denser Gi
Plot 2- In 1928.
j
j
I
.i
f
··
-·
····-----���::::=:.:
··
-�-·····
..
'P
Tab l e 7.- -Sno qualmie permanent s amp l e p l o t s 1 and 2, Skate Cre e k; s tatis tics o f the l ive s tand
.
.
.
....
..
. I. .
.... .
-"
....
u
•
»
0
'"'
0
""
z
.;
.:l
»]
.,
c
'"'e
c
:iJ
5/28
5/32
4/37
•
•
'"'
c
0
N
-.<
0
:e
Co
»
•
I
I
42
46
51
.z
•
0
c
0.50
4
5
(values on hori zontal acre bas i s )
..... E'
.,. .....
. .
'"'
"
..'i
'"'
-.<
"'
130
128
138
6/43
57
6.5
145
10/52
8/57
67
72
9.5
5
Y! 5/28
5/32
4/37
42
46
51
4
5
.75
6/43
57
10/52
8/57
67
6.5
9.5
72
5
137
133
142
149
.!/ : "'
'-.<"'
"'
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III+
II­
Stand
Number of
trees
2.6
Basal area,
square feet
Conifers
Hard­
woods
Conifers
Hardwoods
388
6
6
182.7
205.4
218.2
2.2
374
296
4
2.2
2.0
,
79
90
99
238.7
1.8
12.4
13.0
1.8
1.8
13.8
14.4
13.0
13.0
318
313
257
0
0
167.3
185.6
198.7
9.8
10.4
11.9
239
216
208
0
0
------
0
0
218.0
234.3
237.2
-
12.9
14.1
14.5
72
9.2
251.1
261.5
-
-
-­
----
Conifer stand
6.. 6+
Average
height of
conifers,
feet
8.3
8.3
2
11
74
79
91
102
11 Volume of
conifers,
cubic
feet
5,140
6,200
7,420
Number
of
trees
214
inches d.b.h.
Volume,
board feet
(International
'!;-inch rule)
27,590
34,070
44,700
1957.
11.6+
Num.ber
of
trees
inches d.b.h.
Volume,
board feet
(Scribner
rule)
Dominants and
codominants
Average
d.b.h.,
inches
Average
height,
feet
13,890
18,490
14.2
26,130
15.6
97
108
118
128
81
85
8,850
222
216
208
56,748
92
110
120
130
9,986
10,928
190
184
66,396
75,092
130
130
41,678
48,482
17.8
18.8
5,010
5,780
160
169
161
26,950
32,970
41,500
79
91
14,560
18,780
25,310
15.5
15.9
85
88
102
100
113
109
104
47;:313
16.8
17.9
19.1
20.1
6,760
8,097
162
52,768
9,564
10,166
153
149
65,313
71,571
by using average height of the dominants and codominants measured for height. ') Applied to curves in Bulletin
Smaller sample of trees used for construction of height curve in
!
9.3
10.0
11.6
Hardwoods
2
2
1/
J
Conifers
284
Determined in
.....
U1
AverC!.ge
d.b. h.,
inches
242
230
!/
1957
inches and more in d.. b.h.
201.
35,260
33,474
42,507
14.5
17 .o
112
127
136
h
'it.
,.....
0"
MOUNT HOOD PLOTS 1, 2, and 3
Located on the Devils Peak Way
Trail near Rhododendr on, O r e g. , these
plots were e stablished to ompare the de­
velopment of stands of different densities.
On the basis of average diameter, plots 1 ,
2, and 3 w e r e 87, 1 1 1 , and 1 01 percent of
normal, r espectively.
This comparison
has b e en thwarted by sever e wind damage
to plot 1 , which lies on an exposed slope.
On the basis of age and site index, all plots
w e r e considerably rmderstocked, in numbe r
of t r e es, in 1930. It was thought t o be ex­
traordinary, then, that they should have
Scribner volumes so much in excess of
normal (221, 21 7, and 1 74 percent). We
know now, of course, that bel ow-normal
stocking in numbe r of t r e es is often asso­
ciate d with above-normal board-foot
volume.
Plot 1 - In 1930.
.,
j
j
I
'
')
Plot 2 - In 1930.
;w;
-·
-
�----- ----- �-----
---,,
Tab l e 8. - -Mount Hood permanent s amp l e p l o t s 1 , 2, and 3; s tati s tics o f the l ive s tand
(values on hori zontal acre bas i s )
»
k
=
l
2
"' "
" k
" "
= •
=
.
k
=
»
..
""
.;
.s
k
p.
.c
-
<
"e
4/30
10/34
9/39
3/45
5/52
45
50
55
60
67
5
5
5
7
4/30
10/34
9/39
3/45
5/52
45
50
55
60
67
5
5
5
7
4/30
10/34
9/39
3/45
5/52
45
50
55
60
67
5
5
5
7
"
k
=
'"'
....
x
"
.!1
E'
....
1.0
132
132
133
134
--
IIIIII­
III­
III­
--
1.0
124
124
128
129
--
1.0
124
124
135
139
--
.;
k
=
....=
'"'
"
]
"
=
Number of
trees
Conifers
I
Basal area,
square feet
I
Hardwoods
Volume of
conifers,
cubic
feet
172.2
183 . 9
185. 1
193.6
205.7
3. 4
4.2
4.6
4.6
5. 0
9.6
10.5
11.7
13.0
14.2
5.6
6. 2
6.5
6. 7
7.0
77
85
90
100
112
29
27
21
22
20
220.8
232.8
242. 2
248.9
263.3
6.0
6.4
4.3
6.4
6.1
9. 3
10.1
11.0
11.9
12.6
6. 2
6.6
6.2
7.3
7. 5
64
56
43
33
22
200.3
210 .2
218.1
230.3
247.5
14.6
15.4
13.7
11.8
9.1
9.4
10.0
11. 1
12. 0
12. 7
6. 5
7.1
7.6
8.1
8.7
344
306
249
211
187
20
20
20
19
19
IV+
IV+
IIIIII­
--
464
416
368
325
305
IV+
IV+
III
III
--
417
383
325
295
281
"'
I
Average
height of
conifers,
feet
Conifers
Conifers
0
. •
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
0"
k
Average
d.b.h
inches
Number of trees
Hard­
woods
5 .798
6,659
6,968
7 ,635
8,417
234
228
207
195
178
5
7
7
7
8
77
83
88
95
101
7,144
8,165
8,811
9,657
10,607
380
370
347
310
293
77
83
92
100
106
6,709
7 .449
8,261
9,355
10,358
300
300
278
257
246
'
'j
j
j
Stand 6.6+ inches d.b.h.
Coni
fers
-1/ For 1930, 1934, and 1939 , trees 0.5 inch and more in d.b. h. were included.
,_.
--J
I
Stand 2.6 inches and more in d.b.h.l/
0
0
k
Volume of
conifers,
board feet
(International
-inch rule)
I
Stand 11.6+ inches d.b.h.
Number of trees
I
Volume of
conifers.
board feet
(Scribner rule)
Conifers
Hardwoods
31,936
39,326
43,550
49,706
56,207
95
111
116
123
128
0
0
0
0
1
13,267
19,271
23,414
28,136
34,028
10
11
9
12
10
37. 717
47,395
53,455
61,267
68,952
78
112
131
159
164
0
1
0
1
2
9 . 755
16,866
22,673
30,232
35,894
21
24
24
21
15
32,543
43 .236
51.370
60,873
69,545
81
101
123
137
149
1
2,
2
2
2
11,301
17 ,142
23,390
31,347
38,913
'
KNOWLEDGE GAINED F ROM PERMANENT GROWTH AND YIELD PLOTS
To the best of the author ' s knowledg e , all published information derived from the
plots is s ummarized in the following s e ction. No attempt has been made to cover publi­
cations othe r than thos e ba,s ed on dir e ct analysis of plot 1ata.
The article s are dis cus s ed by s ubj ect matte r , chronologically within each s ubj e ct.
Remarks are confined to the main ideas in each article .
N ORMAL Y IE L D T A B L E S
Pr obably the most s ignificant publication t o which the s e plot s contributed data i s
Te chnical Bulletin 2 0 1 , " The Yield of Douglas -fir i n the Pacific Northwe st " (McArdle
et al. , 1 949), which includes Bruce ' s "A Revis ed Yield Table for Douglas -fir " (1 948).
This has b e en a standard r eference of fo.!e s t r s s ince its publication. Subs equent data
obtained from the gr owth and yield plots have generally s ubs tantiated the yield tabl e s .
T REN DS T OW A R D N OR MA L I T Y
Meyer ( 1 9 3 3 ) pione ered work i n this dir e ction for Douglas-fir . The pe rmanent
sam ple plots had not b e en e s tablished long enough to allow cons ideration of the effect of
age , but he was able to demonstrate the effect of exis ting normality perc entage on futur L_
normality and de rived r e gr e s s ion equations for the standard units of measure according
r-· .
to the form :
change ( o/o) = a + b ( p r e s ent normality) .
Briegleb, in a late r analysis ( 1 942) was able to us e age as another inde pendent
variabl e . His r e g r e s sion equations of the form ,
change ( %) = a + b (ag e ) + c (normality) ,
provided multiple correlation coefficients above 0 . 6 (43 degrees of fre edom) for cubic­
foot, Inte rnational board-foot, and Scribner board-foot standards of normality.
G R O W T H OF DO UG LAS - F IR
Rep orting of gr owth data from pe rmanent s ample plots in Douglas - fir stands be gan
with a p r e s entation by Munger ( 1 9 1 5) at the annual me eting of the Society of Am erican
Fore ste r s . The Willamette plots had then been e stablished for 5 year s .
Meye r (1 9 28) r e p orted further on the growth of th e s e plots and obs e rved how dis ­
tr ibution of stand diam eter cla s s frequency changed with tim e . He noted that all plots
showed a trend in frequency distribution from a skewne s s toward the small diamete r s in
young stands , through a nearly normal distribution, to a skewn e s s toward the larger
diameter s as the stands matur ed. A thorough dis cus sion of diameter distribution s e r i e s
in even - aged stands be came available in a s ub s e quent publication (Meye r , 1 9 3 0
--._\. --..
'
Munge r ( 1 946b) had the opportunity to review the Willamette plots after 3 5 con­
s e cutive years of expe rience with them. A most valuable contribution of the s e plots has
been a detailed life hi story typical of stq.nds occur ring over millions of acre s in the
Pacific Northwe st, Although, they had suffer d Qccasional heavy los s e s from fir e , in,s e ct ,
18
snowbreak, and wind, they had an ave rage vohune per acre of ove r 7 8 , 0 0 0 board feet,
Sc ribner rul e , at age 90, thus demonstrating the re cupe rative powe r s of natural stands .
Des pite periodic annual volume g r owth ranging from 2 8 6 to minus 99 cubic feet per acr e ,
the plots have substantiated the g ene ralization that the various measur e s o f st6cking for a
particular stand all tr end toward normality.
The Douglas -fir Se cond - Gr owth Management C ommitte e ( 1 947) analyzed 2 5 , 0 0 0
individual t r e e measur ement s , cove ring 3 5 year s 1 ex pe rience with the pe rmanent g rowth
and yield plots , to develop s tand table p r oj e ction methods for well- stocked Douglas - fir
s tands . This analys is de rived diameter ,gr owth and Scribner and cubic-volume gr owth
,
according to s ite index, crown clas s , d. b. h . , and stand age . The tables in the r eference
we re for site III only and illustrated the following gene ral C Qnclus ions in r egard to cubic ­
volume g r owth :
l. When tree s of a c e rtain d. b . h. but of differing ages and cr.own clas s e s are
consid e r e d , g r owth and g r owth p e rcent decrease with incr easing age and in­
crease with increasing dominan c e .
2 , When tr e e s of a ce rtain a g e and crown clas s ar�;� c ons ide r ed, g r owth increas e s
with d . b . h . Gr owth p e r c ent, howev e r , decreas e s with inc reas ing size , exc e pt
t'or the older age clas s e s whe r e the r e is little differentiation.
Over all s ite clas s e s , a study s uch .as this p r ovide s an unexcelled view of the
g rowth dynamics of natural , even- aged, well- stocked stands of Douglas - fi r .
S purr ( 1 9 5 2 ) , in a s s e s s ing various stand characte ristics as dir e ct e stimator l·- f
r.
cubic volume per acre , bypas s ed t r e e volume table s and us ed the plot data to make r e ­
g r e s sion analys e s of volume on differ ent combinations o f basal area, total height (domi­
nan"ts and codominant s ) , age , s ite index, and basal area time s height. Basal area, total
height, and the product of the s e two provided the most accurate e s timates ; age and s ite
index , the least ac curate. Furthe r , the height tim e s basal area e stimate alone gave a
standard e r r or of 6 p e r c ent.
He als o analyzed the plot data to test rate of cubic-volume g r owth against s everal
s tand characte ristic s . Site index and stand age had the highe st correlation with volume
gr owth. The corre lation coefficient was 0 . 7 65 ( 3 3 degre e s of freedom ) . Ave rage diamete r
of the stand made a s light impr ovement in the e s timate ,
In a dis cus s ion of tr ends of basal area p e r acre with stand age , Spurr used the
pe rmanent plot data to show the linearity of gros s basal area with tim e . The curvilinear
trend of net bas al area r efle cte d the inc reasing s ignificance of mortality as stands get
olde r .
A linear r e g r e s sion analys is of eight factor s r elated to net basal area g r owth
showed that basal area its elf is the b e s t single indicator . The addition of age as an inde ­
pendent variable im proved the correlation s omewhat but , for all practical pur pos es , bas al
area alone was s uitable .
Staebler ( 1 9 54) us ed data from s ome of the 7 8 - year- old Gifford Pinchot plots as an
argument to retain thrifty young stands at least to the culmination of mean annual inc r e ­
ment. The ave rage annual value g r owth p e r cent o f 9 . 9 , achieved b y the s e plots i n goingrs­
from 5 2 to 7 8 years old , might be cons ide red adequate by any owne r . Furthermore, mean
annual in cr ement and value per th ous and board fe et were still inc r easing.
.,,_
Johns on ( 1 9 5 5 ) used the plot r emeas urements to com pare the accuracy of s even
common methods for volume gr owth prediction.
The be st method a s s umed that
19
--- ------ ' 1
!
well- stocked stands put on normal g r owth. The other methods gave biased r e sults or had
a lar ger standard deviation than did the normal - g r owth method. This confirms S purr ' s
conclusion s , noted p revious ly, in regard to c u b ic-volume g r owth.
Worthington and Staebler ( 1 9 6 1 ) , in examining s ome of the pe rmanent sample plots , found that tree s below' the ave r age diameter of the s ands had 27 percent of the total basal area, though they contributed only 1 6 per cent of the total bas al-area g r owth. The implication was that thinnings could r emove about 25 percent of stand basal area in the smaller t r e e s with little sac rifice in increment. The same authors als o found a definite r elation between crown clas s and the live crown- total height ratio. The ratio inc r e a s e s with dominanc e . M OR T A LI T Y
Johns on ( 1 9. 5 3 ) examined the pe rmanent plot r e cords for mortality. H e found that
the m ortality on all plot s ave rag ed 8 3 cubic feet or 284 board fe et (Scribner) per acre per
year , a figur e s ignificant enough to alert for e st- land own e r s ,
Staebler ( 1 9 53 ) found that r eas onable e s timat e s o f mortality for any particular
diameter clas s in the pe rmanent plot stands c,ould be made on the basis of stand ag e ,
s ite index , and d . b . h. Se parate e quations were r e quir ed, one for inte rmediate and
supp r e s s ed t r e e s and one for dominants and codominants . A strong correlation coeffi­
cient, 0 . 7 1 5 ( 68 de g r e e s of fre edom) , for the inte rmediate - s uppre s s ed equation r eflected...._
fthe more re gular mortality due to suppr e s s ion in well - s tocked stands , The doll¥:h>')-nt­
, codominant equation had a weak cor r elation coefficient, 0 , 266 (68 deg r e e s of freedom ) ,
r efle cting the irregular mortality in the dominant portion of stands .
\
G R OSS Y IE L D T A B L ES
Munge r ( 1 946a) wrote on the cumulative mortality and g r o s s growth of the s e plots .
His article was the fir st attempt to derive g r o s s yield table s for Douglas - fir , but he felt
that the data we re too limited for his figur e s to be applicable over all site and age clas s e s .
Staebler ( 1 9 5 5a) expr e s s ed average volume of t r e e s that die during any particular de cade as a function of the average volume of t r e e s living at the beginning of that decade , Limitations on age and size range of timber pr ohibited deve lopment of a curvilinear r e ­ g r e s sion. The r efor e , two linear r e g r e s s ions w e r e combined t o fit the data. This work led to Staebl e r ' s "Gr o s s Yield and Mortality Table s for Fully Stocked Stands of Douglas ­
fir " ( 1 9 5 5b) . The s e g r o s s yield figure s provide a g oal for for e s t manag e r s , E S T IMAT ING S T A N D AG E
As us ed in McArdle ' s ( 1 949) Douglas - fir yield table s , stand age was dete rmined by averaging dominant and codominant t r e e s in the ratio of 1 to 4. In analyzing the plot data , Johns on ( 1 9 54) found that e s timates of stand age , reliable enough for us e with the yield tabl e s , could be made from dominant- tree meas urements only : Subtract 1 year for dominants 30 to 8 0 year s old
Subtract 2 year s for dominants 81 to 1 3 0 years old
Subtract 3 year s for dominants 1 3 1 to 1 8 0 years old
20
H EIGHT G R O W T H A N D S I T E IN DEX
Staebler ( 1 948 ) proposed meas uring heights of only dominant t r e e s for dete rmina­
tion of s ite index . Mo r e r eliable identification of dominants plus clear e r visibility of
their tops r educ e s both bias and measurement time in field work. He us ed data from the
gr owth and yield plots to arrive at a factor for c onverting fror;h height of dominants only
to that of dominants and codominants .
Spur r ( 1 9 5 2 ) felt that , in g ene ral , actual gr owth from pe rmanent s ample plots
would devel op better s ite index curve s than harm onized data fr om tem porary plots . He
used the height and age meas urements from the pe rmanent plots to construct natural s ite
index curves for Douglas-fir. A c om paris on of the s e curve s with the yield table curves
shows that the natural s ite curves have a shallower g radient in the younger age clas s e s ,
l
In Spur r ' s analys is of the plot data, age was found t o be the s ingle factor best r e ­
lated to height growth . With two factor s , howeve r , total height its elf and s ite index had
the b e st correlation, If s ite index of a stand is known, the need to find stand age in pr e ­
dicting height gr owth i s eliminated . Otherwis e , the correlations s ubstantiate the gene ral
use of s ite index curves for height- g r owth prediction ,
LEV E LS OF G R OW IN G S T OC K
Mung e r ( 1 9 4 5 ) offe r e d the accrue d expe rience of pe rmanent ·sample plot remeasure­
m ents as a guide to identifying and enume rating r e s e rve tre e s unde r low-thinning practi c e .
· .
Briegleb ( 1 9 5 2 ) used data from the Wind River g r owth and yield plots plus oth e r
s ourc e s to s ubs tantiate two r elated hypothe s e s : ( 1 ) that, for trees o f a given breast-high
diarP.ete r , the shorter one s have large r c r owns than the talle r ; and ( 2 ) that, for trees of
a given height, tho s e with g r eate r breast-high diameter have the lar g e r cr owns ,
An analys is of meas ur ements from thinned stands in Prus sia, Denmark, and
western Washington yielded an equation e s timating , for ave rage diamete r , the des irable
number of tre e s in pe r c ent of n ormal as a function of stand height in percent of normal.
Briegleb1 s article p r e s ents tabular s olutions to the equation as a guide to thinning practi c e .
One principal advantage of this appr oach is its consideration o f stand history. F o r ex­
ample , a 6 0 - year- old stand that had never befor e been thinned would be differentiated
from a s imilar stand r educe d in stocking by r e peated thinning s .
E C O L OG Y
Spilsbur y and Smith (1 9 4 7 ) us ed t r e e -measurement and g r ound- c ove r obs e rvations
on the gr owth and yield plots , as well as on num e r ous other areas , in their pionee ring
work on using g r ound- cover s pecies as indicators of Douglas -fir site quality. In the
United States , they we re concerned primarily with the humid temperate areas on the we st
s l o p e s of the C oast Range s and of the Cas cade Mountains . They e s tablished definite vege­
tational trends by s ite type s . The key to s ite quality was not the p r e s ence or abs ence of
ce rtain s pecie s , but rather the relative dominance of ce rtain s p ecie s in r elation to othe r s .
For instance , while s alal may b e abundant ove r all site s , it i s dominant iri the g r ound .:.;�
-\
cove r only on the poor e r s ite s .
21
FUTU RE PLOT M ANAGEMENT AND DISPOS ITION OF DATA
Due to the shift in silvicultural emphasis from unmanage d to managed stands , the
Pacific Northwe st For e s t and Range Experiment Station is shifting s ome of its r e s ponsi­
bility for future r emeas urement
and maintenance of the s e plot s .
'
,l
The University of Washington has ag r e ed to take ove r the maintenance and re­
measur ement of the plots located in the State of Washington. C o pies of all r emeasur ement
data will be furnished to the Ex periment Station.
DIS POS I T I ON OF E X IS T IN G DATA
Office r e ports will continue to be on file and available to the public at the Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Ex pe riement Station in Portland, Oreg.
In addition to the table s pr e s ented he r e , the s e r e ports include tables of periodic
and mean annual inc r ement, pe riodic mortality, and relationship of plot values to normal
stand value s .
Basic individual t r e e data i s being punche d on data- proc e s sing cards s o that this
wealth of tre e - g r owth information can be made available to all Northwe st for est research
agencie s for a wide variety of future analys e s . Scientists inter e sted in using this data
should write the Dir ector of the Pacific Northwe s t Forest and Range Experiment Station
for information on availability and use of a s e t of cards .
f
r .
22
LITERATURE Cl TED
Barne s , G. H .
1 9 3 1.
The importance of ave rage stand diameter as a factor in for e casting timbe r
yields , British Columbia Dept. Lands For e s t Serv. , 24 p p . , illus ,
Briegleb, Philip A.
1 94 2 . Prog r e s s in e s timating tr end of no rmality percentage in s e cond - g r owth
Douglas -fir. Jour. Fore stry 40 : 7 8 5 - 7 9 3 , illus .
1 9 5 2 , An approach to dens ity meas urement i n Douglas - fir.
5 2 9 - 5 3 6 , illus .
Bruc e , Donald.
1 94 8 . A revis ed yield table for Douglas - fir .
&: Range Expt. Sta. , 1 7 p p .
Jour . Fore stry 5 0 :
U. S . Fo rest Serv. Pac. NW. For e s t
Douglas - fir Second-Growth Management C ommitt e e .
1 94 7 . Management o f s e cond- g r owth fore sts i n the Dougla s - fir r egion. U, S.
Forest Serv. Pac , NW . For est &: Range Expt. Sta. , 1 5 1 p p . , illus .
Johns on, Floyd A.
1 95 3 , Mortality s tudies in young fir plots show g re at annual wood los s e s .
Lumberman 8 0 ( 7 ) : 1 46 .
1 9 54.
The
;:-· .
Es timating stand age for Douglas - fir. U. S . For e s t S e rv . Pac . N W . For e s t
&: Range Expt. Sta. Re s . Note 1 0 3 , 2 p p .
1 9 5 5 . Predicting future stand volum e s for young well- stocked Douglas - fir for e s t s :
a comparis on of methods , Jour . For e s try 5 3 : 2 5 3 - 2 5 5 , illus ,
McArdle , Richard E. , Meye r , Walter H . , and Bruc e , Donald,
1 9 49 . The yield of Douglas fir in the Pacific Northwest.
Bul. 2 0 1 (Rev. ) 1 7 4 p p . , illus .
U. S . De pt. Ag r . T e ch ,
Meye r , Walter H.
1 9 2 8 . Rate s of gr owth o f immature Douglas fi r as shown b y pe riodic remeasure­
ments on pe rmanent s am ple plots . Jour . Agr . Re s earch 3 6 : 1 9 3 - 2 1' 5 ,
ill us ,
1 93 0 .
Diameter distribution s e ries in evenaged for est stands .
Fore stry Bul . 2 8 , 1 0 5 p p . , illus .
1 93 3 .
Appr oach of abnormally stocked for e s t stands of Douglas fir t o normal
condition. Jour . Forestry 3 1 ; 40 0 - 40 6 , illus .
Yale Univ. School
1 9 3 7 . Yield of even- aged stands of Sitka s pruc e and we stern hemlock.
D e pt. Agr . T e ch . BuL 5 4 4 . 8 6 p p . , i l lus .
U. S .
23
Munge r , Thornton T . 1 9 1 5 . Five ye ar s 1 g r owth on Douglas fir sam ple plot s .
P r o c . 1 0 : 423- 42 5 . 1 945.
Soc. Am e r . For e st e r s The numbe r a'n d diameter o f t r e e s o n pe rmanent sample plots in the
'
Douglas -fi r typ e . U . S . F o r e s t Serv. Pac . ' NW . F o r e s t & Range Expt.
Sta. , 7 p p .
1 946a. Cumulative mortality and g r o s s gr owth on ce rtain pe rmanent s ample plots
in young Douglas - fi r . U . S . F or e s t Serv. Pac . NW. F o r e s t & Range Expt.
Sta. , 6 p p .
1 946b. Watching a Dougla s - fir f o r e s t f o r thirty-five year s ,
705-708.
Jour . Forestry 4 4 :
Spil s bury, R. H . , and Smith, D . S .
1 9 4 7 . F o r e s t s ite typ e s of the Pacific No rthwe s t . A pre liminary r e port. Dept.
Lands and F or e s t s , Brit . C olumbia F o r e s t Serv. T e ch . Pub. T. 3 0 ,
4 6 p p . , ill us .
Spur r , Stephen H. 1 9 5 2 , F o r e s t Inventory.
47 6 p p . , illus .
New York; The Ronald Pr e s s C o . ;-:-· '
·
Staeble r , Ge orge R.
1 948 . U s e of dominant tree heights in dete rmining s ite index for Douglas -fir .
U. S . For e s t Serv. Pac . NW. F or e s t & Range Expt. Sta. Re s , Note 44,
3 pp. , illus .
1 95 3 . Mortality e s timation in fully s t ocked s tands o f young- gr owth Douglas -fir .
U. S. For e s t S e rv . Pac . N W . For e st & Range Expt. Sta. Re s . Pape r 4 ,
8 pp.
1 9 54.
Management pays added p r ofits in young Douglas fir .
5 5 (4) : 7 4- 7 6 , illus .
The Timbe rman
1 9 5 5a. Extending the Douglas - fir yield table s to include mortality.
For e s t e r s P r o c . 1 9 5 4 : 54- 5 9 , illus .
S o c . Ame r .
1 9 5 5b. G r os s yield and m ortality table s for fully s tocked stands of Douglas -fir .
U . S . For e s t Serv. Pac . N W . F o r e s t & Range Expt. Sta. Re s , Pap e r 1 4,
20 p p . , ill us .
W orthington, Norman P . , and Staebl e r , G e orge R .
1 9 61 . C omm e r cial thinning o f Douglas - fir i n the Pacific N orthwe s t ,
Agr . T e ch . Bul . 1 2 3 0 , 1 24 p p . , illus .
U. S . De-pt,
G P O 985-823
24
,