LEVELS ... OF-GROWING-STOCK COOPERATIVE STUDY IN DOUGLAS-FIR REPORT No. 7
PREL IMIN ARY RESULTS, STAMPEDE CREEK,
AND SOME COMPARISONS WITH IRON
CREEK AND HOSKINS
Levels ofagrowlngw9tock study treatment schedule,
showing percent of gross basal area Increment of
control plot to be retained In g rowing stock
Treatment
Thi n n i ng
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
50
40
30
20
10
70
70
70
70
70
70
60 50 40 30 Percent
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth 10
10
10
10
10 10
20
30
40
50
30
30
30
30
30 30
40 50
60
70
50
50
50
50
50
Abstract for Report No. 1
Public: and private agencies are cooperati ng I n a study of eight thi n n ing regimes In
young DouglsrHlr stands. Regimes differ In the amount of basal area allowed to
accrue In growing stock at each successive thi n n i ng. All regimes start with a common
levelwof gt'owlng stock which Is established by a condition i ng thi nni ng.
Thi n n i ng Interval Is controlled by height growth of crop trees, and a single type of
thi n n i ng Is prescribed.
Nine study areas, each I nvolvi ng three completely random replications of each
thi n n i ng regime and an unthlnned control, have been established I n western Oregon
and Washington, U.S.A., and Vancouver Island, Canada. Site quality of these areas
varies from I through IV.
Climatic and soil characteristics for each area and data for the stand after the
condition ing thi n n i ng are described briefly.
KEYWORDS: Thln nlngs, stand growth, Douglas-fir,
Pseudotsuga menzlesl/.
LEVELS-OF-GROWING-STOCK COOPERATIVE STUDY
IN DOUGLAS-FIR
Report No.7-Preliminary Results, Stampede Creek, and
Some Comparisons With Iron Creek and Hoskins
Richard
L.
Williamson, Silviculturist (now retired)
and
Robert
O.
Curtis, Principal Mensurationist
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-323
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
Forest Service
Portland, Oregon
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1984
Other lOGS
(Ievels-oi-growing
stock) reports:
/
WILLIAMSON, RICHARD L.; STAEBLER, GEORGE R. A cooperative level-of-growing­
stock study in Douglas-fir. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1965. 12 p.
Describes purpose and scope of a cooperative study which is investigating the
relative merits of eight different thinning regimes. Main features of six study areas
installed since 196 1 in young stands are also summarized.
WILLIAMSON, RICHARD L.; STAEBLER, GEORGE R. Levels-of:-growing-stock
cooperative study on Douglas-fir: Report No. 1-Description of study and
existing study areas. Res. Pap. PNW- 1 1 1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station; 1971. 12 p.
Thinning regimes in young Douglas-fir stands are described. Some characteristics
of individual study areas established by cooperating public and private agencies
are discussed.
BELL, JOHN F.; BERG, ALAN B. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study on
Douglas-fir: Report No. 2-The Hoskins study, 1963- 1970. Res. Pap. PNW- 130.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1972. 19 p.
A calibration thinning and the first treatment thinning in a 20-year-old Douglas-fir
stand at Hoskins, Oregon, are described. Data tabulated for the first 7 years of
management show that growth changes in the thinned stands were greater
than anticipated.
DIGGLE, P. K. The levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir in
British Columbia (Report No.3, Cooperative L.O.G.S. study series). Inf. Rep.
BC-X-66. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research
Centre; 1972.46 p.
WILLIAMSON, RICHARD L. Level-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas­
fir; Report No.4-Rocky Brook, Stampede Creek, and Iron Creek. Res. Pap.
PNW-210. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1976. 39 p.
The USDA Forest Service maintains three of nine installations in a regional,
cooperative study of influences of levels of growing stock (LOGS) on stand
growth. The effects of calibration thinnings are described for the three areas.
Results of first treatment thinning are described for one area.
BERG, ALAN B.; BELL, JOHN F. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study on
Douglas-fir; Report No. 5-The Hoskins Study, 1963- 1975. Res. Pap. PNW-257.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1979. 29 p.
The study dramatically demonstrates the capability of young Douglas-fir stands
to transfer the growth from many trees to few trees. It also indicates that at least
some of the treatments have the potential to equal or surpass the gross cubic-foot
volume of the controls during the next treatment periods.
ARNOTT, J. T.; BEDDOWS, D.
LevelsBof-growing-stock cooperative study in
Douglas-fir; Report No. 6-Sayward Forest, Shawnigan Lake. Inf. Rep. BC-X-223.
Victoria, BC: Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre;
1 98 1 . 54 p.
Data are presented for the first 8 and 6 years at Sayward Forest and Shawnigan
Lake, respectively. The effects of the calibration thinnings are described for these
two installations on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Results of the first treat­
ment thinning at Sayward Forest for a 4-year response period are also included.
Reference Abstract
WI LLIAMSON, R I C HARD L.; CURTIS, R O B E RT O.
Levels-of-growing-stock
cooperative study In Douglas-fir: Report No. 7-Preliminary results, Stampede
Creek, and some comparisons with Iron Creek and Hoskins. Res. Pap.
PNW·323. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1 984. 42 p.
Results of the Stampede Creek LOGS study in southwest Oregon are summarized,
and results are compared with two more-advanced LOGS stud ies and, in general,
are similar. To age 43, thinning in this low site III DouglasBfir (Pseudotsuga men­
zlesll ( Mlrb.) Franco) stand resulted in some reduction in volume growth and mod­
erate gains in d iameter growth. Growth was strongly related to level of growing
stock. Desirable density levels are recommended for young Douglas-fir stands.
KEYWORDS: Growing stock (-increment/yield, increment -)growing stock
management, stand density, thinnings, Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menzlesl/,
s outhwest Oregon, Oregon (southwest), series Douglas-fir LOGS.
Summary
Results of the Stampede Creek LOGS study in southwest Oregon are summarized
through the first treatment period. Results are compared with those from two
more-advanced LOGS stUdies and, in general, are similar. To age 43, thinning in
this low site III Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzlr'}sll) (Mirb.) Franco) stand resulted
in some reduction in volume growth and moderate gains in d iameter growtr). Gains
from thinning would be minor If this stand were harvested now, but the com­
parisons Indicate a much more favorable evaluation of thinning when rotations are
longer or stands are on higher sites. Growth was strongly related to growing stock
level, and there is little ind ication of any plateau of constant growth over a range
of stocking in young stands. Recommendations are made for desirable density
levels in young Douglas-fir stands.
Introduction
Contents
4 Objectives
4 Data Summarization
5
Results··Stampede Cre e k
5 Calibration Period
5
First Treatment Period
11
R e sults--Comparlsons With I ro n Creek a n d Hoskins
11
Initial Stand Conditions
1 2 Growth Relative to Control Plot Growth
13 Growth:Growlng Stock Relationships
1 4 Gross Yields Relative to Stand Age
1 4 Gross Yields Relative to Stand Height
1 6 Comparison of Volume Growth Per Unit of Height Growth
Relative to Average Growing Stock for Stands 65 Feet In
Height
1 7 Cumulative Net Produotlon by Size Classes
18
Discussion
20 Metric Equivalents
20 L iterature Cited
22 Appendix 1
24 Appendlx:2
32 Appendix 3
Introduction The Stampede Creek levels-of-growing-stock (L OGS) study is one of nine thinning
studies established in young, even-aged Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii
(Mirb.) Franco) stands according to a common work plan (Williamson and Staebler
1971) (see appendix 1 in this report). These studies are a regional cooperative
effort involving Weyerhaeuser Company, Oregon State University, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Canadian Forestry Service, and the USDA
Forest Service. The objective is to compare tree and stand development under
eight thinning regimes, begun before the onset of severe competition between
trees. When the study was established, trees in all areas generally had live
branches down to breast height, but other stand characteristics varied
considerably among areas.
The Stampede Creek stand is located on the Tiller Ranger District, Umpqua
National Forest, near Tiller in southwest Oregon (fig. 1). It is of natural origin after
wildfire. When the study was established in 1968, the stand was older (33 years)
and taller than other LOGS stands were at the time of study establishment. The
ages of dominant and codominant trees varied from 29 to 36 years. Elevation is
2,700 feet. Soils are heavy loam over heavy clay loam and clay derived from well­
weathered volcanic tuffs and breccias. Average (1972-78) growing season (May­
September) temperature and precipitation are 54.9 OF and 7.71 inches. Based on
the 1978 measurement, estimated average site index (based on crop tree heights)
is about 100 in King's (1966) system (50 years at breast height), and 120 according
to McArdle and others (1961) at 100 years total age.
The Stampede Creek study, like the other L OGS studies, is a completely random­
ized experiment comparing eight thinning regimes, with three replications each,
plus control. An initial "calibration" thinning at age 33 reduced all treated plots to a
common basal area level (table 1). Subsequent thinnings retain varying
percentages of gross periodic increment observed on the untreated control plots
(inside front cover) and are expected to produce the basal area trends shown
schematically in figure 2. The thinning interval is the time required for crop trees to
grow 10 feet in height (averaged over all treatments). The principal features of the
general LOGS plan are reproduced in appendix 1, and they are more fully
described by Williamson and Staebler (1971).
The Stampede Creek study has completed only the calibration (ages 33-38) and
first treatment (ages 38-43) growth periods. This report presents some interim
results of the Stampede Creek study as of the end of the first treatment period and
updates a previous report (Williamson 1976). Early results from this and similar
studies can provide some information on desirable levels of growing stock for
intensively managed young stands. Early results from the Stampede Creek study
are of particular interest in connection with the F IR program,li because this is the
only LOGS study located in southwest Oregon.
1 Fundlng for preparation of LOGS Report 7 was provided
by the FIR (Forestry Intensified Research) program for
southwestern Oregon, administered by Oregon State
University and the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
BRITISH COLUMBIA "RI'"
'6SAYWARD o
VANCOUVER
ISLAND
.--.-.-.-
6SKYKOMIS H
Lf LEMONS
Raymond
·Centralla
6
.IRON CREEK
FRANCIS
WASHINGTON OREGON
.HOSKINS
•
Corvallis
• Studies compared In
this report
.
Roseburg
.STAMPEDE CREEK
Figure 1 ,-Triangles Indicate
locations of the nine levels-of­
growing-stock studies In
coastal Douglas-fir,
2
Table 1 -Stand values after the calibration thinning for the Stampede Creek,
I ro n Creek, and H oskins LOGS studies
Study area
: e mhOd
Estimated sito
index at indox aga (yoars):
60, JJ.
breast height
1963
Foot·
Feet
Number of trees,
all spacies
Basal area
Contro I Thi nned Control Thinned
Per acre -
Sguare feet
per acre
120
26
33
66
-.!.!l£!!!!. •
6,6
4,7
996
290
118,6
127
160
12
19
36
3,7
6,0
1,126
336
82,0
47,4
130
160
13
20
36
3,8
6,2
1,727
345
113,8
49,8
•
Stamgode Craek,
196
Iron Creek,
1966
Hoskins,
lOOt ¥
tu a
Quadratic mean
d,b,h,
Average height
of
Breast Total
Control Thinned
hoight
crop trees
Age
•
100
MKing (1966),
-'McArdle and othors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
68,1
(1961),
Height
Figure 2,-Levels-of-growlng­
stock study In Doug las-fir:
Idealized trends of basal area
for the eight thinning regimes,
This report also makes some comparisons with results from two other LOGS
studies, Iron Creek (Williamson 1 976) and Hoskins (Berg and Bell 1 979), The Iron
Creek and Hosk ins studies are on higher sites and differ In some other respects
(table 1 ), Because Iron Creek and Hoskins are now further advanced In the
planned treatment sequence, comparisons may provide some Indications of
consistency of results at different locations and of the probable applicability of
results from other LOGS studies to stands of the Pacific Douglas-fir type
(Williamson 1 980) In southwest Oregon,
3
Objectives The objectives of this report are to:
1 , Present revised data summaries showing development of the Stampede Creek
LOGS stands through age 43 (end of the first treatment period), These tables
Incorporate the most recent measurement and replace the tables published by
Williamson In 1 976,
2, Compare results from the Stampede Creek LOGS study with the Iron Creek and
Hoskins studies for: (a) relationship of growth to growing stock, (b) growth
of crop trees versus growth of all trees, (c) growth by treatment groups, and
(d) effects of treatments on tree size and merchantable volumes,
3, Compare consistency of results at Stampede Creek, Iron Creek, and Hoskins
LOGS studies for (a) initial stand densities, (b) growth of thi n ned stands relative
to growth of controls, (c) relationship of growth to growing stock for all avail&
able periods and for the period at each area when in itial heights of crop trees
averaged about 65 feet, and (d) gross yields relative to stand age and to
average height of crop trees,
4, Examine the possibility that results at Iron Creek and Hoski ns are Indicative of
probable future development of the Stampede Creek study,
Summarization Volume and increment statil'ltlcs discussed i n this report were obtained by the
following procedures:
1, D
iameters (to the nearest 0, 1 i nch) at breast height were measured on all trees
1 ,6 Inches In d,b,h, (diameter at breast height) and larger on each plot.
2, Total height (to the nearest foot) was measured on a sample of at least 1 5
nmdomly chosen trees per plot, distributed throughout the diameter range, with
two thlrds of the sample trees larger than the stand quadratic mean diameter,
3, Total volume, Inside bark, was calculated for each sample tree by the Bruce and
DeMars (1 974) volume equation ,
4, Total cubic volume of every tree on each plot was calculated, usi ng a regression
logarithm of volume on logarithm of diameter at breast height fit to the sample
tree measurements for that plot and measurement date, Plot volume was then
calculated as the summation of tree volumes,
5, Periodic gross growth In total cubic volume was calculated as the difference
between live volumes at start and end of the growth period, plus mortality and
Ingrowth,
Data compilations for all three study areas were done with a common set of
computer programs, Complete summaries are given for all available periods for
Stampede Creek (tables 5 to 1 0 i n appendix 2 and 1 6 to 33 in appendix 3), Data for
the Hoskins study are from 8erg and Bell (1979), plus unpublished data for the
1 975"79 period provided by John Bell of Oregon State Un iversity, Pertinent values
for Iron Creek are given In tables 1 1 to 1 5 (appendix 2), including previously
unpublished data for the 1 973877 and 1 977880 periods,
Results­
Stampede Creek
Calibration Period
All trees
Prethlnning numbers of trees and basal areas were about 83 percent of
normal for the stand diameter (table 25 in McArdle and others 1961). This suggests
relatively low competition and Incomplete site utilization at younger ages and is
consistent with the observation that live crowns extended nearly to breast height at
the time of study establishment.
.-
Gross volume growth of thinned plots was 80 percent of that of control plots (table
2) even though the mean volume In cubic feet was only 66 percent of the volume
of the controls. Average growth percent (based on mean growing stock for the
period) of thinned plots was 10.0, compared with 8.3 for controls.g.! Growth per unit
of growing stock volume on the thinned plots was about 20 percent (10.0/8.3) higher
than on the control plots.
Table 2-Sta m pede C reek: periodic annual g ross volu m e g rowth, g rowing
stock, g rowth percent, and Initial volume per tree for crop trees, noncrop trees,
and all trees, ages 33 38, calibration period
Ratio, thlnned:control
Mean
Gross growth
growlng stock
per year
Component and
treatment
•
•
Cublc feet
er acre ·
•
Growth
percent 1/
Inithl
volume per tree
J:m!!)1
Cubic feet
Crop trees:
Thlnned
Control
104
93
1,011
1,022
10.28
9.10
9.40
9.B8
Noncrop trees: Thlnned
Control
92 163
937
1,934
9.77
7.91
3.45
1. 71
All trees:
Thlnned
Cuntrol
196
246
1 ,949
2,966
10.04
B.32
5.08
2.36
lICelculated
Gross growth
Growing stock
Growth percent
1.12
.99
1.13
.60
.48
1.24
.80
.66
1.21
as percentage of mean growing stock for the perlod.
Crop trees
Crop trees had been chosen on the basis of spacing, dominance,
and vigor, as trees expected to be retained in subsequent thlnnings. Crop trees in
thinned plots grew 12 percent more than those in control plots, though later
discussion suggests that some of this improvement was due to a Slight edge in
beginning volume for control trees (table 2). Average growth percent of crop trees
for th inned plots was 10.3 compared with 9.1 for controls (table 2). This suggests
a 13 percent (10.3/9.1) improvement in growth per unit of growing stock volume
because of thinning.
First Treatment Period
.-
All tree a
Average gross growth on the thinned plots during this period was 80
percent of gross growth on the control plots, whereas growth per unit of growing
stock volume was about 28 percent h igher on the thinned plots than on the
controls (table 3).
.-
2
G rowth percents used In this report were calculated as:
1 00( perlodlc annual Increment In X)
(XI + X2)/2 ;
where: XI and X2 are values of the variable at start and end
of the growth period. This expresses current rate of change
In X In relation to mean value of X for the period , rather than
the Initial value of X used In previous LOGS reports. The
change In method of computation was made to facilitate
comparisons among d ifferent Installations.
5
Ta ble 3-Stam pede Creek: periodic an nual g ross volume g rowth, g rowing
stock, g rowth percent, and Initial volume per tree for crop trees, noncrop trees,
and all trees, ages 33838, by treatment g roup, 1 st treatment period
Component and
treatment
lire S5 growth
per yur
Cubic feet
Mean
growing
stock
Grow th
percent
1/
Initial
vo1 uma
per tree
er acre
Percent
Cubic feet
Crop trees:
1 lind 2
3 dnd 4
5 and 6
7 and 8
Control
140
m
136
136
119
1,612
1,634
1,612
I,Sa,
1,561
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.0
7.7
15.8
15.0
15.9
16.9
15.7
Noncro trees:
I lind 2
:l lind 4
6 and 6
7 and 8
Control
68
94
103
106
166
765
'1,044
1,117
1,331
2,680
9.0
9.0
9.2
8.0
6.2
5.3
6.7
4.9
6.4
2.5
208
226
238
241
286
2,367
2,G78
2,729
3,018
4,231
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.0
6.7
9.7
10.0
8.4
9.8
3.5
All
1
3
6
7
trees:
dnd 2
and 4
and 6
and 8
Control
1/ Calculated
Ratio, thlnned:control
Gross growth
Growth percent
I. 14
1.09
.66
1.42
.80
1.28
as percentage of mean growing stock for the perlod.
The treatments combined In table 3 were identical for the first treatment period
(see treatment schedule on Inside front cover); during this period, there are
effectively four thinning treatments, plus control. Differences In gross growth
among these four treatment groups for the first treatment period were (barely)
significant at the 0.10 level; treatment means of gross growth Increased from
treatments 1 and 2 through 7 and 8,
Gross growth of control plots during th is period (table 3) was roughly equivalent
to normal yield table estimates for mldsite III (Curtis 1967, Curtis and others 1982,
Staebler 1955).
When gross volume growth per year is plotted over periodic average growing stock
(fig. 3), a positive slope Is evident. If only the th inned plots are considered, the
relationship approximates a straight line through the origin,
In figure 4 we have chosen to fit the data, including the controls, with the equation
y
bX CXIl because:
1. This meets the logical requirements that zero stocking should produce zero
growth and that growth cannot Increase Indefinitely as stocking increases.
2. This is the equation of best fit (minimum standard error of estimate) when the
control plots are Included, and the curves with and without the control plots
are almost the same.
3. This Is the curve form found best in COnCLJrrent work with the Iron Creek and
Hoskins data.
700
600
(i;
...
Stampede Creek •
CJ
C\'S
...
CI)
Q.
1J
-
I ron Creek 0
500
Hoskins 4.
CJ
:s
:I
CJ
....
c:
..
4.
... ...
400
&..
t&
CI)
E
6>
;. 0
CJ
.6 "i
:I
c:
c:
C\'S
4.cP
0
00
0
300
CI)
£l.
•
o 00 0 8
oocs>
.
'C
0
·c
0
0
...
CI)
...
0
...
200
•
...•t •••••
"
II
0
,. ...
•
.,
100
o ..----..
1,000
----
2,000
----
3,000
----__
4,000
----
5,000
Periodic mean growing stock (cubic feet per acre)
Figure 3,-Stampede Creek,
Iron Creek, and Hoskins:
period ic annual g ross volume
Increment (trees 1,6 I nches In
d,b,h, and larger) In relation to
volume of g rowing stock, first
treatment period,
7
600
-ai'
loa
,..,... .-
500
/
i
j
u
.-
400
.!:!,
e
!
I
I
I
/
/
./
300
u
.E
m
:J
I:
I:
IV
200
.W
/
...
...
...
...
y::: bx
,." _
- Stampede Creek
- CX2
Standard error of esllmate:
'8
'1:
(II
I:l.
./
//
/ Iron Creek
:J
1
/
/'
Hoskins
100
Hoskins
20.4
Iron Creek
15.8
Stampede Creek
21.5
Periodic m e a n growing stock (cubic f e et p e r a cre)
Figure 4, Stampede Creek,
Iron Creek, and Hoskins:
reg reSSions expressing periodic
annual g ross volume Increment
(trees 1,6 Inches In d,b,h, and
larger) as a function of volume
of g rowing stock, first treatment
period, Solid portions of curves
represent range of thinned plot
data; dashed portions Include
range of control plots,
Variability about the regression was greater and the curve was less clearly defined
than for the comparable period at Iron Creek and Hoskins (fig. 3). This could be
related to the initially greater height and less homogeneous stand conditions at
Stampede Creek than at the other two areas.
Crop trees.-Gross volume growth percent for crop trees in treatments 1 and 2
was 8.7 percent compared with 7.7 percent for controls. Inspection of growth
percents by treatment groups suggests a trend of decreasing growth percents with
increase in growing stock, although differences were not statistically significant
(table 3).
Growth percents for crop trees in all thinning treatments (except 7 and 8) were
slightly less than those for noncrop trees, probably reflecting the greater average
size of crop trees. Since tree size affects growth percent, a more meaningful
comparison is that of crop trees and all trees at the times their average dimensions
were similar. Average heights and diameters were comparable for crop trees at the
start of the calibration period and for all trees at the start of the first treatment
period. For comparable tree size, growth percents of crop trees exceeded those of
all trees. This suggests that the smaller trees (in these thinned stands, codomi­
nants) grew less efficiently than the larger trees.
A similar result has been obtained in an older stand (Williamson 1982). Both
growth efficiency and stand security considerations indicate that larger trees
should be favored.
Cubic volume yields to age 42.- Tables 16 to 33 in appendix 3 illustrate the yields
obtained at Stampede Creek by tree diameter at breast height, both separately and
cumulatively, from largest diameter to smallest for each of the eight thinning
treatments and the unthinned control.
Figure 5 shows cumulative cubic volume production in trees larger than 7.6, 9.6,
and 11.6 inches for eight thinning treatments and the control. At age 43, after 10
years of thinning, average cumulative yield of the thinned plots in trees 7.6 inches
and larger is 86 percent of that of the control plots. Cumulative yield of thinned
plots in trees 9.6 inches and larger is about the same as that of the controls,
whereas yield in trees 11.6 inches and larger is 140 percent of that of the controls.
At age 43, average diameters range from 6.1 inches for the controls to 10.4 inches
for treatment 1.
This stand was of natural origin, somewhat uneven aged, with considerable crown
differentiation. To age 43, thinning has produced no gains in usable fiber pro­
duction, if all trees 7.6 inches and larger are assumed to be merchantable. All
thinning treatments exceed the controls in volumes of trees over 11.6 inches,
however, and the effects of thinning in increasing tree size and value should
become more evident with advancing age.
-
Volume In trees
E
-
=
....... 7.6
4,000
'Ci)
...
(J
«I
...
3,000
ClJ
a.
1
0
to 9.5 Inches In d.b.h . Volume In trees
9.6 to 11.5 Inches In d.b.h.
-
• Volume In trees
• 11.6 Inches In d.b.h.
...... -....
..
......
-..­
.......
-
....
-...
=
E
==
.-
;;;;;;;
and larger
=
==
.......
==
....... =
.......
==
....
..
....
......
... -...
....
....
......
... E
..­
....
--... -
(J
:Q
2,000
::J
(J
ClJ
e
::J
'0
:>
1,000
0
•
•
•
•
(.
•
1 and 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3 and 4
5 and 6
7 and 8
•
•
•
•
Control
Trea t m e nt
Figure 5.-Stampede Creek:
cumulative volume production
for trees 11.6 Inches In d.b.h.
and larger and for trees 9.6 to
11.5 and 7.6 to 9.5 Inches In
d.b.h. at end of first treatment
period (age 43). Volumes are
for l ive stand at age 43, plus
trees cut In th inning
(cal ibration cut excluded) .
10
The Iron Creek and Hoskins study areas were initially similar in stand character­
Results-Compari­
sons With Iron Creek
and Hoskins
istics, except for a much greater number of trees at Hoskins. Although I ron Creek
Initial Stand Conditions
erable difference in number of trees, initial average diameters were almost identi­
and Hoskins controls started with the same average crop tree height and a consid­
cal; evidently, initial competition was low. The Stampede Creek stand was older
and considerably taller at the time of establishment than were the Iron Creek and
Hoskins stands (table 1). Iron Creek was a plantation with considerable natural
fill-in. Hoskins was an unusually uniform natural stand. Stampede Creek was a
natural stand with considerably more variation in tree ages and sizes.
A relative density scale useful in comparisons is provided by a measure (Curtis
1982) defined
RD
=
as:
1/2
(basal area)/ (Dg) ;
where: Dg is quadratic mean diameter, and the units are square feet per acre for
basal area and inches for diameter. This measure is similar to Reineke's (1933)
Stand Density Index but more convenient to use. Dividing RD values by 65 gives
a close approximation to normality ratio according to table 25 in McArdle and
others
(1961).
Values of RD for the control plots at the time of the calibration thinning were:
Stampede Creek
Iron Creek
Hoskins
55
43
71
The common study plan for the regional cooperative LOGS studies assumed that
the spacing equation used to guide the calibration thinning would provide equal
levels of competition among installations that differ in initial average diameter
and would thereby facilitate comparisons between areas. Average RD values for
the thinned plots at the end of the calibration period were 34, 32, and 33 at ages
38, 23. and 23 for Stampede Creek, Iron Creek, and Hoskins. This goal was
accomplished.
Subsequent to the calibration period, the Hoskins control plots have developed
and maintained extremely high densities. At the end of the first treatment period,
RD values for these plots were 74, 74, and 95 for Stampede Creek, Iron Creek, and
Hoskins. Increases since the calibration thinning were consistent with site, age,
and initial stocking. The Hoskins control had 37 percent more basal area and
54 percent more volume than the Iron Creek control. Since then, Hoskins has
stabilized at RD's just below 100. The Iron Creek control was at RD 92 at age 33
and appears to be approaching the RD of the Hoskins control as initial differences
in density are reduced through greater natural mortality at Hoskins.
11
Growth Relative to Control Plot Growth Calibration perlod. For the calibration period, the ratios of gross volume growth
of thinned plots to growth of control plots follow a logical order for the three
studies (table 4), Stampede Creek has the largest ratio (0,80), perhaps because of
greater average height and slightly higher relative density, Hoskins Is lowest (0.61),
probably because the much greater Initial density resulted In greater growth of
the control and In a heavier calibration thinning.
First treatment perlod. A similar comparison (fig, 6) for the first treatment period
shows that differences among thinning treatments In gross volume Increment as
percents of control plot growth were much more pronounced for Iron Creek and
Hoskins (which behaved similarly) than for Stampede Creek, The reason for this
difference In response Is not clear; It may be associated with the later start of
thinning (both In years and In attained stand height) at Stampede Creek.
Table 4-Perlodlc annual net g rowth In quadratic mean d iameter, a n d g ross
g rowth In basal a rea and total cubic volume during the calibration perlod
Stampede Creek, I ron Creek, and Hoskins studies
Ratfo, thlnned:control
Study
and
treatment
tamp ge CrooK:
Control
Tillnnod
Ol'OSS
growth
ln
basal area
Gross growth
In
total vol ume
Totftl
age
Net growth 1 n
quudr'atf c
mean dlameter
Year.
Incll
Sgu re foot
per acre
0.09
.26
7.0
6.6
246
196
.19
.41
12.1
9.0
306
219
.21
16.2
12.3
469 286 JJ" 6
I ron Ct'ooK:
Control
Thlnllod
19·23
HO§Kln§:
Control
Thl nnog
20·23
.
66
Gross
voI ume growth
Cubfc feot
l>.or aCl'a
0.80
2.69
.72
2.16
,61
2.62
Stampede Crlll!k
100
o
Iron Crelik
1i!>0lllno
Flgul't'J tl, StBrflp6dt'l Cr66k,
Iron Cmt'lk, Iftnd H03klne: gW1l1l
(lubl(l volllrfl6 growth (tr6t'J1l 1,6
IMhl'l1! In d,b,h, and Ilftrgl'lr) by
trt'llltm mtll, t'lxprt'l1l8t'ld 1111 pt'lr=
clImtllgt'l1l of growth of (lontrol,
flrllt Ir@lIlmt'lnt pt'lrlod.
•
Treatment
Net
dl ameter growth
Growth:Growlng Stock
Relationships
Curves of periodic annual Increment In gross volume over mean volume by periods
(fig. 4) Indicate much lower gross growth rates for given levels of growing stock at
Stampede Creek than at the other two areas. Conversely, results for Iron Creek
and Hoskins are much closer (figs. 4, 7, and 8). The lesser growth:growlng stock
ratios at Stampede Creek reflect its greater age and lower site index.
600
'W'
..
....-
/'
/
500
u
cu !
l
....
400
,,-
,/
/'
".
".
,/
./"
'"
_
HoskIns
"",-
'" Iron Creek ::J
J:?
1:
Q)
Iii
I!!
u
.;
iii
:J
C
r::: 300
y:: bx -
Standard error of estlmal e: 200 HoskIns
Iron Creek
«:I .!l! "8
'1:
Q)
0.
CX2
26.7
18.0
100
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Periodic mean growing stock (cubic feet per acre)
Figure 7.-l ron Creek and Hoskins: regressions expressing periodic annual g ross volume Increment (trees 1.6 Inches In d.b. h . and larger) as a function
. of volume of g rowing stock,
second treatment period. Soli d
portions o f curves represent
range of th inned plot data:
dashed portions Include range
of control plots.
13
Figu re a.-Iron Creek and
Hoskins: regressions express­
ing periodic annual g ross
vol u m e increment (trees 1 .6
inches in d.b.h. and larger) as
a function of volume of growing
stock, third treatment period.
Solid portions of curves repre­
sent range of thinned plot data:
dashed portions include range
of control plots.
600
--
500
0
IV
/'
/'-
...
Y
Q)
c.
Qi
___
Iron Creek
-::::- - - - - - Hoskins
400 0
:c
:J
C
Q)
E
Y = bx
Hoskins
Iron Creek
0
.S
OJ
:J
C
c
IV 0
- ex'
Standard error of estimate:
300
59.9
20.8
200 '6
0
'c
Q)
D..
100
o
----
----
1.000
------
2,000
3,000
-----*-----4.000
5.000
----
_______________
6,000
7.000
8.000
Periodic mean growing slock (cubic feel per acre)
Gross Yields Relative
to Stand Age
Relationships of gross yields to stand age (fig. 9) correspond to those expected
according to age, site index, and initial stocking. Iron Creek is not illustrated be­
cause trends there were similar to those at Hoskins. Stampede Creek has sUbstan­
tially lower site index than the other two areas; thus, slopes of the yield curves are
less. Though initial volume at Stampede Creek was about the same as that at
Hoskins, Stampede Creek was
13
years older when the study was established.
Though well into the planned thinning regimes, with 40 to 50 feet of height growth
since the calibration thinning, both Iron Creek and Hoskins are still in a period of
growth acceleration for the control and most treatments, as shown by the upward
curvature of these yield curves (fig. 9).
Gross Yields Relative
to Stand Height
Cumulative yields by treatments in gross cubic feet per acre for Hoskins and
Stampede Creek are shown plotted over average height of crop trees in figure
10.
(Curves for Iron Creek were similar to those for Hoskins and are not shown.)
Mortality has been negligible at these two areas, except on the Hoskins control
plots where about 12 percent of gross production was lost to mortality. The wide
spread in cumulative yields among the Hoskins thinning treatments corresponds to
the relationship of growth to growing stock shown in figures
14
6 to 8.
Figure 9.-Hosklns and
Stampede Creek: cumulative
gross yield (trees 1.6 Inches In
d.b.h. and larger, calibration cut
excluded) In relation to stand
age, for controls and for thin­
ning treatments 1, 3, 5, and 7.
Net yield Is shown for Hoskins
control only.
---
Hoskins
- - - - Stampede Creek
Control
'Qj'
..
u
CII ...
Q)
c.
10.000
Control (net)
E
u
:s
.§.
"C
Cl
2.500
o
,. <
30
20
50
40
Stand age (years)
Figure 10.-Hosklns and
Stampede Creek: cumulative
gross yield (trees 1.6 Inches In
d.b.h. and larger, calibration cut
excluded) In relation to mean
height of crop trees, for con­
trols and for thinning treatments
1, 3, 5, and 7. Net yield Is
shown for Hoskins control only.
12,500
---- Hoskins
'Q)
ti
10,000
Control
- - - - - Stampede Creek
Control (net)
C\I
"­
III
C.
1
....
.
,7,500
7
5
.c
!
"C
Qj
'>,
3
5,000
........ /¢1-7
;>'
, .... ......
- _ ...
--
2,500
Control
O., , <__....____...! ______
30
40
________.I ______....__........____
50
60
70
80
90
Mean crop tree height (feet)
15
If the curve for the Stampede Creek control were extrapolated back to a height of
36 feet, It would be close to the curve at that height for the Hoskins thinning
treatments and would suggest initial low density, This Initial similarity in volume
of the Stampede C reek control and the Hoskins thinned plots Is associated with
differences In the diameter distributions at the two locations, The diameter
distribution for the stand at Stampede C reek at the start of the fi rst treatment
period was somewhat J shaped, with a large number of trees in the smallest size
classes, Though ranges In diameter were similar, Stampede Creek had many more
trees In the smallest size classes (fig, 1 1 ), This suggests a somewhat greater range
In tree ages at Stampede Creek, Wltll greater initial crown differentiation, Such
stands are common in the SOUtll Umpqua drainage,
Comparllon of Volume
Growth Per Unit of
Height Growth Relative
to Average Growing
Stock for StandI 85 Feet
In Height
It seems reasonable to compare growth at Stampede Creek during Its first treatment
period with g rowth at Hoskins and Iron Creek when the latter stands were of simi
lar height (thi rd treatment period), Volume growth should be closely related to
Initial height and to periodic height increment (Evert 1964), and comparisons of
growth per unit of height growth are one way of removing effects of age and
site differences,
Since periodic height increments were not identical nor exactly 1 0 feet, volume
growth was expressed as gross cubic volume growth per foot of height increment
for the period, when stands were about 65 feet tall at the start of the period,
Grapl,lcal comparisons of the results indicate, as expected, general similarity
among Installations (fig, 1 2), Stampede C reek appeared to have slightly more
volume growth per foot of height growth, for a given initial volume, It also had
slightly higher values of relative density, presumably reflecting Its different
structure and earlier stage In the thinning regime, These data suggest no density
type III (fig, 1 3) as postulated by Langsaeter (Braathe 1 957), and the Hoskins
controls are very dense, Such a density type has been suggested for older stands
(Williamson and Price 1 971 , Williamson 1 982), and It may be that the hypothesis Is
more appropriately applied to older stands past the period of rapid height growth,
i
400
111
oo
&l
=.
!
'S
JE
:::I
z
F'lgul'''' 11 , DI<lm"'t"'r dlstrlbulion!! of control for Stamp",d",
Cr",,,,k at st<lrt of flr!!1 trllatm",nt
pllrlod <lnd for Hoskln9 <II st<lrt
01 third tr"'lltml¥Jnt p",rlod, wh",n
both !!t<lnds WI¥JI'''' <lbout 65 IIl",1 lilli,
16
200
100
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stampede Croek
Hoskins
6
14
O.b,h, (Inches)
16
Figure 12.-Stampede Creek,
Iron Creek, and Hoskins:
volume growth per foot of crop
tree height growth In relation to
volume of growing stock, when
stands were about 65 feet tall.
200
180
:Ei
180
01
j Qj'
11 ti
'S fO
g l
':::
f
C)
..
140
•
120
"
..
100
. '"
o
0
•
o
.\
o
o
•
o
"
o
•
B
o
.. .....
01
Stampede Creek
•
Iron Creek
0
i
A
Hosk ns
5.000
6.000
8,000
7,000
Periodic mean growing slock (cubic feel per acre)
Figure 13.-Relatlon between
standing volume and volume
Increment, as hypothesized by
I..angsaeter (prepared from
Braathe 1957). Roman numerals
denote I..angsaeter's "denslty
types."
I
1/ III
IV
V
1i
.5
Q)
e
:::::I
Volume per acre
Cumulative Net Pros ductlon by Size C lasses Figure 1 4 shows cumulative yields In total volume of trees, 7.6 Inches and larger,
9.6 Inches and larger, and 1 1 .6 lnches and larger, at the end of the fou rth treatment
period In the Hoskins study. At that time, average crop tree height was 86 feet,
with 50 feet of elapsed height growth since the calibration th inning.
Total production in trees 7.6 inches and larger was less on thfJ th inned treatments
than on the control, in trees 9.6 Inches and larger it was about the same, and in
trees 1 1 .6 inches and larger it was roughly twice a.s much on the th inned
treatments as on thE' control. Any economic 8valuatlon depends on the premium
for large Silt"! irees and on the choice of harvest age. Differences can be expected
to contillue to increase as stand age Increases.
17
Figure 14, Hg6kln(l: cumulative
volume production for trees
11,t} Inches In d,b,h, and larger
and for treell I:),t} to 11.5 and "l,t}
to 1:),6 Inches In d,b,h, at I'lnd of
fourth trt'latmt'lnt pt'lrlod (agt'l
37), pili!! trt'lell rt'lmoved In
thlnnlngl'l (calibration cut
t'lxoludt'ld),
Volume In trees
7.6 to 9.5 Inches In d.b.h.
8,000
1»'
...
o
Volume In trees
9.6 to 11.Slnches In d.b.h.
•
• Volume In trees • 11.6 Inches In d.b.h.
-
and larger
6,000
l
11
,
.W
.CI
:I
U
4,000
cu
e
:I
'0
:>
2,000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
Treatment
The 16 years of record on the Hoskins plots are probably a good Indication of
what can be expected in the future from the other studies, although the lesser
Initial density and less uniform nature of the Stampede Creek control may reduce
the differences between thinned treatments and the control at Stampede Creek,
Discussion
1I.l
Early results show that Stampede Creek differs somewhat from Iron Creek and
Hoskins In the relationship of growth to growing stock and of growth of thinned
stand to growth of control. Possible causes Include: (1) differences In Initial stand
structure and stand homogeneity, (2 ) the later start of thinning at Stampede Creek,
and (3) the evident differences In site quality and site characteristics.
Because of the later start of thinning at Stampede Creek, the thinning treatments
lag behind those at the other studies, In relation to height development. This
Introduces some differences, but the general pattern of future development will
probably be similar. In particular, relationships of growth to growing stock will be
similar to those observed at Iron Creek and Hoskins, but at lower levels because of
lower site quality.
To age 43, the Stampede Creek thlnnlngs have resulted in some reduction In total
production accompanied by moderate gains In diameters. In this stand and similar
stands having moderate Initial numbers of stems and considerable early crown
differentiation, thinning probably Is not economically Justifiable if the objective is
fiber production on very short rotations (for example, 50 years or less for this low
site III stand). The large Increases in tree diameters attained at Hoskins by the end
of the fourth treatment period, however, indicate a different picture for longer
rotations or higher sites.
The particular thinning regimes used In the LOGS stUdies were designed to
determine growth to growing stock relationships, rather than operationally
optimum regimes. Most managers would make only one precommercial thinning
and would probably adopt somewhat longer Intervals between commercial
thlnnlngs. The principles of growth to growing stock relationships, however, would
remain much the same.
At the time the LOGS studies were established, thinking was strongly influenced
by the so called Langsaeter hypothesis (fig. 13). As stated by Braathe (1957, p. 49):
The roman numerals [In figure 13] denote what Langsaeter called
"density types". In density type I the stand Is so open that the Individual
tree exerts no influence on its neighbours, and the annual yield is
therefore proportional to the number of trees or the volume of the stand.
Density type II shows a flattening curve for the annual yield; i.e., the
trees are beginning to crowd each other Increasingly.
The broad band of type III shows an almost horizontal line for the yield
curve denoting a rather wide band In which the yield is Independent
of stand density. Density type IV indicates a rather abrupt change to
declining yield, as stand density becomes excessive and leads to
declining tree vigor.
This decreasing yield Is even more pronounced In density type V, the
condition of density where the trees have been so crowded that tholr
resistance to disease and Injury has been greatly lowered, and where
pronounced stagnation results.
19
As shown by the growth:growing stock curves, the calibration and first treatment
periods In the LOGS studies clearly fall in Langsaeter's zone I, with later thinning
periods In zone II. The control plots in the later periods at Iron Creek and Hoskins
are close to the maximum possible density, and there is little indication of any
broad "plateau" of constant gross volume growth over a wide range of stocking.
Thlnnlngs that do much more than anticipate mortality will reduce total growth,
with an offsetting gain In tree size and value.
Curves of gross volume periodic annual increment over RD resemble the
growth:growlng stock curves presented, except that RD provides a scale
comparable across all ages. Such curves suggest that Langsaeter's zone II
corresponds to RD values of about 30 to 60, and that stands maintained in the
range of RD40 to RD55 represent a reasonable compromise between some loss of
total volume Increment and substantial gains in tree size and stand stability. Once
stands reach a stage where thinnlngs can pay their way, this seems a reasonable
stocking goal.
If an RD of 55 Is attained when stand average diameter reaches 20 Inches, the
related basal area would be 246 square feet per acre, corresponding to about 89
percent of normal according to table 25 in McArdle and others (1961). Such a
stocking goal seems reasonable for southwest Oregon, or for anywhere else within
the Pacific Douglas-fir forest type (Williamson 1980).
Metric Equivalents
1 centimeter = 0.3937 inch
1 meter = 3.2808 feet
1 square meter = 10.7643 square feet
1 cubic meter = 35.3107 cubic feet
1 square meter per hectare = 4.3560 square feet per acre
1 cubic meter per hectare = 14.2918 cubic feet per acre
°C = 0.5556 (OF minus 32)
Literature Cited
Berg, Alan B.; Bell, John F.
Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study on Douglas­
fir, report No. 5-the Hoskins study, 1963-1975. Res. Pap. PNW-257. Portland,
OR: U.S, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station; 1 979. 29 p,
Breathe, Peder.
Thlnnings in even-aged stands, A summary of European literature.
Fredericton, NB: University of New Brunswick, Faculty of Forestry; 1 957. 92 p.
Bruce, David; DeMars, Donald J.
Volume equations for second-growth Douglas-fir.
Res. Note PNW-239. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1 974. 5 p.
CurtiS, Robert O. A method
Monogr. 13; 1 967. 24 p.
Curtis, Robert O.
92-94; 1 982.
of estimation of gross yield of Douglas-fir. For. ScI.
A simple Index of stand density for Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 28:
Curtis, Robert 0.; Clendenen, Gary W.; Reukema, Donald L.; DeMars, Donald J.
Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas-fir. Gen. Tech, Rep.
PNW-135. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1 982. 182 p.
20
Evert, F.
Components of stand volume and Its increment. J . For. 62: 81 0-81 3; 1 964.
King, James E.
Site Index curves for Douglas-fir In the Pacific Northwest. Weyer­
haeuser For. Pap. 8. Centralia, WA: Forestry Research Center; 1 966. 49 p.
McArdle, R ichard E.; M eyer, Walter H.; Bruce, Donald.
The yield of Douglas-fir
In the Pacific Northwest. Tech. Bull. 201 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture; 1 96 1 . 74 p.
Staebler, George R .
Gross yield and mortality tables for fully stocked stands of
Douglas-fir. Res. Pap. 1 4. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1 955. 20 p.
Perfecting a stand density Index for even-aged forests. J . Agrlc.
Res. 46: 627-638; 1 933.
Reineke, L. H.
Williamson, R ichard L.
Levels-of-growlng-stock cooperative study In Douglas-fir,
report No. 4-Rocky Brook, Stampede Creek, and Iron Creek. Res. Pap.
PNW-21 0. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1 976. 39 p.
Williamson, R ichard L.
Pacific Douglas-fir (229). In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover
types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American
Foresters; 1 980: 1 06-1 07.
Williamson, R ichard L.
Response to commercial thinning in a 1 1 0-year-old
Douglas-fir stand. Res. Pap. PNW-296. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agri­
culture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station; 1 982. 1 6 p.
Williamson, Richard L.; Price, Frank E.
Initial thinning effects in 70- to 1 50-year-old
Douglas-fir-western Oregon and Washington. Res. Pap. PNW-1 1 7. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station; 1 97 1 . 15 p.
Williamson, Richard L.; Staebler, George R.
Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative
study on Douglas-fir, report No. i -description of study and existing study
areas. Res. Pap. PNW-1 1 1 . Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station;
1 97 1 . 12 p.
21
Appendix 1
Excerpt from Report No, 1 (Williamson and Staebler 1971):
DESC R I PTION OF EXPERIMENT
The experiment Is designed to test a number of thinning regimes
beginning In young stands made alike at the start through a
"calibration" thinning, Thereafter, through the time required for 60 feet
of height growth, growing stock Is controlled by allowing a specified
addition to the growing stock between successive thinnings, Any extra
growth Is cut and Is one of the measured effects of the thinning regime,
Exper lmental Design
A single experiment consists of eight thinning regimes plus unthinned
plots whose growth Is the basis for treatment In these regimes, There
are three plots per treatment arranged In a completely randomized
design for a total of twenty seven 1 /5 acre plots, ' "
Interaction of site quality and treatment can be evaluated by replicating
Installations on each site quality class, Cooperative effort has made this
replication possible,
Crop Tree Selection
Well formed, uniformly spaced, dominant trees at the rate of 80 per
acre, or 16 per plot, are designated as crop trees prior to initial thinning,
Each quarter of a plot must have no fewer than three suitable crop trees
nor more than five-another criterion for stand uniformity,
Initial or "Calibration" Thinning
All 24 treated plots are thinned Initially to the same density to
mi nimize the effect of variations in original density on stand growth,
Density of residual trees is controlled by quadratic mean diameter
[diameter of tree of average basal area) of the residual stand according
to the formula:
Average spacing In feet :;;;;; 0,6167 (quadratic mean d,b,h,) + 8,
If one concentrates on leaving a certain amount of basal area
correspondi ng to an estimated overall quadratic mean d,b,h, ' " [ Dg] ,
H1et1 the residual number of trees may vary freely and the actual , , ,
[ Og's) may vary between plots" , ± 1 0 percent. Alternatively, If ernpf1asis
Is on leaving a certain number of trees corresponding to an esti mated
overall. , , [ Dg] , then the basal area may vary and the actual. , , [ Dg's) may
vary, , , ± 1 5 percent between plots,
Treatments
The eight thinning regimes tested differ In the amount of basal area
allowed to accumulate in the growing stock. The amount of growth
retained at any thinning is a predetermined percentage of the gross
increase found in the unthlnned plots since the last thinning . . . [table
inside front cover ) . The l:iverage residual basal area for all thinned plots
after the calibration thinning Is the foundation upon which all future
growing stock accumulation is based. As used in the study, control
plots may be thought of as providing a "local gross yield table" for the
study area.
Control of Thinning Interval
Thinnings will be made [after the calibration thinning] whenever
average height growth of crop trees. . .comes closest to each multiple of
10 feet [above the Initial height].
Control of T�2e of Thinning
As far as possible, type of thinning is eliminated as a variable in the
treatment tllinnings through several specifications:
1 . No
crop tree may be cut until all noncrop trees have been cut (another
tree may be substituted for a crop tree damaged by logging or I illed by
natural agents).
2. The quadratic mean diameter of cut trees should approximate that of
trees that are available for cutting.
3. The diameters of cut trees should be distributed across the full
diameter range of trees available for cutting. 23
Appendix 2 Tables 5 to 1 0-summary data for live stand, periodic annual growth, and cut trees:
Stampede Creek
Tables 1 1 to 1 5-summary data for live stand and periodic annual growth: Iron Creek
Table 5-Stam pede Creek: stand data for all live trees, by treatment, at
beginning and end of perlod-1968s73 and 1973-78
Quad"tlc moan d . h . h .
Tr.o, por ficro
Cal ibration
l o t troatll1lJnl
Cnl 1 bra II o n
'
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
0
Control
1913
1966
"
.
m
261
266
296
263
320
270
256
991
lli!!!!!!r.
292
283
267
290
282
311
211
263
1 ,010
191,1
1976
"
"
.
"
.
HO
192
190
197
207
181
191
203
m
m
276
l68
236
1 ,01 0
216
260
233
661
"
•
6.6
6.6
6.1
6.6
6.7
6.1
6.1
7.0
4.7
•
1913
Incho,
1.9
1 .9
1.9
7.9
6.0
7.4
6.0
0.3
6.3
Col i bra t I on
"
1Y13
1960
•
l s i I,'.atment
-
---
Treotmont
U as 6 l at'CHI par "ere
"
"
•
6.4
8.3
6.6
6.4
6.2
7.5
0.1
6.5
6.3
1966
•
•
"
l s t treatmont
C.l lbratlon
1 st tl'oo tmont
-
1916
9.9
9.8
10.0
9.9
9.6
6.9
9.6
9.7
6.1
Total ,tern vol ume por .cro
•
•
1m
1973
o S.!!!''ro feot
_
6 8 ,' / 90.4
61 . 6 96 . 0
6 9 . 6 96 . 9
69.7 99.2
li6 . 9 9 7 . 6
64.1 94.4
68.8 9 7 . 6
61 . 6 9 5 . 6
1 19 . 2 1 52.0
1916
•
•
73.2
11.0
78.8
79.9
86.4
65.6
92.9
91 . 0
162.0
•
0
1973
1960
•
100 0 5
97.6
107 . 1
107 . 5
114.6
1 1 9 .0
122.0
120.3
161 . 9
"
•
•
1 . 476
1 ,440
1 ,466
1 ,448
1 , 605
1 , 316
1 , 644
1 ,498
2 , 354
1973
Cubic fe_ot
2 , 446
2 , 369
2 ,440
2 ,469
2 , 462
2,212
2 ,510
2,616
3 , 557
1976
•
•
1 , 866
1 ,637
2 ,004
2 , 037
2 , 238
2 , 031
2 , 403
2 , 441
3 , 557
•
0
0
2 ,976
2 , 169
3 ,147
3 ,126
3 , 364
3 , 284
3 ,629
3 , 597
4 , 905
Table 6-Stampede C reek: stand data for crop trees, by treatment, at beginning
and end of pe rlod 1968R73 and 1973m78
Tree. por aeJ'.
Col l bro!lo"
Quadratic mean d . h . h .
l ,t tr•• tmont
�.�-�-�"
Troat1l1ont
"
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
6
Control
1913
1960
60
00
00
60
60
00
60
60
80
•
•
1973
lii!!!!r
"
60
60
60
60
00
00
00
60
00
eal l b ... tlon
-
"
60
00
00
00
60
60
00
80
00
1976
"
•
60
76
60
60
00
60
80
00
80
0.3
0.0
0.4
8.3
9.1
6.0
8.4
0.9
0.7
"
l . t tro.t1l1ent
Cal i bration
Tot.l stem vol ume por acr.
1 st tro.tmont
Cal i bration
1st treatmont
---
1966
'
Basal area per acre
1973
•
•
0
10.0
10.6
10.0
10.1
10.0
9.B
10.1
10.1
10.1
1913
I n,-hos
•
10.0
10.6
10.0
10.1
10. 6
9.0
10.1
10.7
10.1
1976
0
0
•
11.7
12.6
11.7
11.0
12.6
11.5
11.6
12.3
11.6
1966
•
•
30 . 0
33.9
30.6
30 . 3
36.2
28.0
30 . 0
34. 6
33.0
1973
1 97 3
"S'l"'r� feot
43.4
40 . 6
43.9
44. 3
51 . 2
41 . 4
44.4
49. 9
44.8
•
43.4
46.9
43.9
44. 3
51 . 2
41 . 4
44.4
49. 9
44.0
1970
•
•
"
59. 7
66 . 5
59 . 1
60 . 7
67.0
57.6
56.0
66. 3
67.6
1 97 3
1968
•
713
002
705
694
006
645
740
B27
790
•
•
• Cublc
1 , 1 62
1 , 340
1 , 1 91
1 , 216
1 , 471
1 , 016
1 , 236
1 , 462
1 , 264
1 970
1973
fe"t
1 , 1 62
1 , 349
1 , 191
1 , 21 6
1 , 471
1 , 076
1 , 236
1 , 462
1 , 264
0
0
•
0
1 , 811
2,047
1 , 660
1 , 81B
2 , 1 64
1 , 139
1 , 862
2 , 1 67
1 , 049
25
Table 7-Stampede Creek: periodic annual g rowth, total g rowth, and
cumulative volume yield for all trees, by treatment and perlod-1 968-73 and
1 973·78
Quadratic medn d . b . h .
Basal area
Peri odic annual net growth
Treatment
Ca l i brati o n ,
1 968 - 1 3
-
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
Control
-
-
•
Per i od i c annual gross growth
1 st treatment ,
1 973 - 78
- - - - I nches
0 . 26
. 26
. 26
. 26
. 25
. 26
. 26
. 27
.09
•
-
Total growth ,
1 968 - 78
- - - - -
0 . 29
. 28
. 28
. 28
. 25
. 27
. 24
. 25
.11
-
Cal i brati on ,
1 968 - 7 3
-
1 st treatment ,
1 9 73 - 78
- - - - Square feet per acre - - -
2. 7
2.7
2. 7
2.7
2. 5
2.6
2.5
2.6
1 .0
6.0
5.8
5.9
6.0
5.8
6.0
5.7
5.6
6.9
5.5
5.3
5.7
5.7
5.6
6.7
6.0
5.8
6.9
57 . 5
55.9
57 . 9
58 . 6
57 . 0
63 . 4
58. 8
57.0
69 . 3
Total stem vol ume
Peri odic annual
Cal i brati o n ,
1 968- 7 3
gross growth
1 st treatment,
1 97 3 - 7 8
Cumul ative y i e l d
Cal i brati on ,
1 973
1 st treatment ,
1 978
- - - - - - - - - - - - Cub i c feet per acr - - - - - - - - 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
26
1 96
1 93
1 96
207
1 96
1 79
1 93
204
246
222
1 95
229
222
225
251
249
233
285
Total growth ,
1 968 - 7 8
2 , 456
2 , 407
2 , 448
2 , 481
2 , 484
2 , 21 5
2 , 51 1
2 , 51 8
3 , 584
-
-
3 , 564
3 , 383
3 , 591
3 , 593
3,610
3 , 47 2
3 , 754
3 , 684
5 , 009
-
Table 8-Stampede Creek: periodic a nnual growth, total growth , and
cumulative volu me yield for crop trees, by treatment a nd period-1968- 73 and
1 973-78
Basal area
Quadrat i c mean d . b . h .
Peri odi c annual gross growth
Per i od i c annual net growth
Treatment
Cal i brati on,
1 968-73
1 s t treatment ,
1 973-78
- - - Inches - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
0 . 33
. 35
. 33
. 35
. 35
. 35
. 34
. 36
. 29
Total
growth,
1 968-78
Cal i brati o n ,
1 968-73
1 s t treatment ,
1 973-78
Total growth ,
- - - - Square fee t per acre -
-
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.2
3 .4
2.8
0 . 35
. 36
.33
.34
.33
. 35
.30
.33
. 27
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.8
3.0
2.7
2.7
3.1
2.4
1 968-78
-
- -
29 . 7
32.9
29 . 0
30 . 3
31 . 6
29 . 6
28 . 0
31 . 7
24 . 6
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
2.9
3.3
2.6
Total stem vol ume
Peri odi c annua 1 gross growttl
Cal i brati on, 1 s t treatment,
1 968-73
1973-78
- - - - - - - - - - - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
94
1 08
97
1 04
1 17
86
99
127
93
1 38
142
1 32
1 32
1 39
1 33
1 29
1 41
1 19
Cumul a t i ve y i e l d
Total growth ,
1 968-78
Cal i brati o n ,
1973
- -C u b i c feet per acre - - -
1 , 1 59
1 , 249
1 , 1 45
1 , 1 84
1 ,278
1 ,094
1 , 1 42
1 , 339
1 ,059
- -
1 , 182
1 , 340
1 ,1 91
1 ,216
1 ,471
1 , 076
1 ,236
1 , 462
1 , 254
- -
1 st treatme n t ,
1 97 3
- -
-
- -
-
1 ,871
2 ,052
1 ,850
1 ,878
2 , 1 64
1 , 739
1 ,882
2 , 1 67
1 , 849
27
Table 9-Stam pede Creek: trees cut, by treatment and thlnnlng-1973 a nd 1978
Troes per ac ro
T roatment
1m
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
"
100
93
90
03
47
3B
10
18
Quadrat 1 c mean d . b . h .
1913
1910
.!ilmlt!.!ll:"
•
62
62
42
47
32 67
20
25 •
"
"
1 918
.!.!l£tl!l!
"
6.8
6.9 6.4
6.5
6 .6
6.4
6.8
6.1
"
"
1973
•
8.7
7 .8
8.6
B.4
8.6
7.9
B.5
8.1
T o t a l stem
vo 1 ume per acre
B a s a l area per acre
1 978
1 97 3 - Sgu are feet "
25 . 2
24 . 1
20 . 1
19.3
11.1
0.6 4.6
3.7
" -Cu b 1 c f e e t ·
25 . 3
20.6
16.B
18.0
12.9
19.4
7.9
9.0
500 553
437
4 32 244
180
107
77
Table 10-Stampede Creek: mean height of crop trees by treatment and measurement year 1968, 1973, and 1978 Tre e s mea sured
Treatme n t 1 9 68
1 973
1 9 78
Mea n
1 968
Number 1
11
13
12
1 '1
14
13
10
7
10
8
12
Contro'l
Thi nned trea tme nts only
94
1 06
A 1 1 trea tme nts
2
3
4
5
6
Standard dev i ati on
31
19 16
33
31
14
16
32
35
18 15
28
31
16
31
16
16
24
1 30
252
1 46
276
le i gh t
1 97 8 1 97 3
Fee t
56 . 2
56 . 5
55 . 2
57 . G
57 . 1
65 . 0
56 . 0
57 . 9
57 . 7
56 . 4
56 . 5
1 . 01
1 97 8
67 . 3
67 . 0
68 . 0
68 . 5
67 . 5
65 . 3
67 . 9
69.4
69 . 1
67 . 6
67 .8
1 .1 4
-
-
76. 2
78 . 0 76 . 9 77.3 79 . 7
75 . 9 77.8 79.8
78 . 4 77 . 7 77 . 8 1 . 31 •
699
!iZl
456
402
353
494
218
238 Table i i - I ro., Creek: shmd data for all live trees, by treatment, at begin n i ng
and e nd of perlod 1 966R70, 1 970873, 1 973-77, 1 977-80
QUiHh'a t1c mOiln d , b , h .
Tro6t) par aero
C,l l 'ratl.n
m
360
346
301
347
360
360
4
6
6
I
0
Conlrol
m
1 ,110
m
m
113
198
146
340
m
m
m
177
30)
J43
341
J40
1 ,193
m
m
1 , 193
110
100
131
211
173
196
317
190
1 ,191
"
3d trodWlont
1911
1m
1m
1m
" ,. " .. " " " " " " '" " ,.. aNu mlHIt' "
..
1
2
3
1910
1910
196.
Tru"",nt
2d troatme n t
lit lroo"".nl
"
"
"
m
"
,..
"
"
166
193
196
141
151
306
147
191
100
111
161
110
111
10)
197
1 , 191
1 ,tal
1 , W)
m
14,
16)
taO
190
m
1930
"
"
1966
•
91
1 13
160
111
117
101
m
m
m
Col 1 'ra\1.n
1,0
1 ,09,
•
1910
h t treatmont
10 Ir.,"",nt
1910
1913
4.7
6,0
4,9
5,0
6,1
4,0
6,0
6,1
3,7
6,6
6,9
6,0
6,9
6,9
6,6
6,l
6,9
4"
6,4
6,1
6"
6,7
0,1
6"
6,7
6,8
h t trO ll tllien t
..
I
"
..
4
6
6
1
a
Control
..
..
"
..
'"
M
OU
06 , /
1 19 , 9
1913
_tQ1!!
3d trQatmflnt
1911
1m
..
"
61,1
60,d
/1,0
77,1
91 . l
1l 7 , 1
lO U
102"
166,6
14.0
l1.1
06,1
66 , 6
99,1
100,0
10U,9
1 06 . 1
166,6
•
•
1m
•
•
•
•
•
10,1
10,4
10,0
10,3
9,9
9,6
9,4
9,1
6,1
0,)
3,5
6,)
0,;
0,3
8,0
0,0
0,3
6,1
1930
1m
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 1 ,9
11 ,0
11,3
11,6
10,6
10,1
10,2
10,1
6,1
1O"
10,6
10,1
10,4
9,9
9,6
9,4
9,0
,,)
Total stom vol umll par aero
20 tft1l1 tffio nt
1913
" " ,. S U tll'O
q
61,9
61 , .
61 . 9
6J,1
11.3
1l . 9
61),7
1l0 , 9
119,9
16,0
114 , 4
19,9
66 . 1
07,6
79,0
43,4
40,d
46,3
49,6
40,6
46,4
49,1
49,1
01,4
1
3
1973
lilO
19,6
I nch"
0,1
0,4
6,1
0,4
6,1
),9
7,9
0,1
6,1
Oiuill draa por (11:1'(1
C.l lb" .llon
1911
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Jd treatment
"
"
"
"
1960
"'
"
"
60,9
7/"
90,1
104,1
110,1
103,J
141,6
61,7
09,9
101, I
110,4
m,l
l1J,1
141,6
140,9
109,4
m,g
109,4
1966
"
•
74.1
94,0
111.,
116,0
146,3
1 26 , 9
101,1
166,6
110,1
600
13
040
171
•
m
679
134
76)
1 ,1 1 6
1913
1970
1970
C ub l ,
• • • • • • • • • • • •
1 ,J)O
1 ,636
1 ,4 7 4
1 ,703
1 , 606
1 , 410
1 , 690
1 , 667
1,310
1911
1973
1960
1911
f"l . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 , 661
1 ,659
1 ,034
1 ,910
1,136
1 ,006
7,442
2,364
3 , \) 11)
964
1 ,01 3
1 ,1 6 1
1 , 211
1 , 303
1 , ,103
1 , 634
1 , 661
1 , 310
JO I reo ""on!
ld I"" ",,onl
1st troatmont
C,l l brotion
1 ,010
1 , 344
1 , 69 1
1 , 099
3,191
3 , 070
3,739
J , 51l9
6 , 1 10
1 ,105
1 , 404
1 , ,39
1 ,161
1 ,066
1 ,011
1 , 3)0
1 , 101
3 , 510
1 , 506
1,031
2 , 308
1 ,161
3 , 1 70
1 , 604
3 , 139
3,419
6 ,170
1 ,007
1 , 163
3 , 1 66
3 ,161
4 , 193
3,662
4 , 649
4 ,464
6 ,404
Table 1 2 l ro n Cree k: stand data for crop trees, by treatment, at beg i n n i ng and
end o f perlod 1 966e70, 1 970R73, 1 973R77, 1 977aBO
Tr(HHi per acrtt
e,l l brAtl.n
Quodroll, moon d , b , h ,
lit \m"",nt
2d tt'oiltfl1tJn t
1910
1m
3d tr<h'l tffif!nt
Cil l ibration
lilt troiltmoni
----�-
rroo ""on t
"
1
1
3
4
6
6
7
6
Conlrol
1970
1906
..
..
"
"
..
" '"
"
"
"
w
16
00
00
60
00
110
16
16
10
71
77
60
76
00
16
00
BO
60
00
00
60
70
10
16
1m
II
II
)0
.. " " Hu mb e r
76
7:1
76
16
YO
110
72
10
76
1m
1911
..
" "
"
"
76
7J
70
71
10
60
77
00
70
'"
'"
11
7J
"
19BO
"
..
'"
11
7J
71
16
77
16
16
01
1/
II
II
77
77
70
n
60
11
6,.
;,6
6,9
',9
6,1
6,1
6.7
6,0
6,6
II
7/
77
61
70
II
1910
1970
1 973
" " " " .. " " " " " .. " .. I n'h !
"
73
1/
I..
1.4
1,1
/,8
7,0
0,0
1.5
7.5
0,0
1.4
/,7
1,6
1,0
0,0
1,6
1,5
6,0
1.4
9,1
9,3
9,1
9,3
9,5
9,0
9,0
f) , G
1),6
lIo ti fi l MOil pot' ilf,r6
ht trcHHm(lnt
Calibration
1910
1%6
"
1
1
3
4
6
6
7
II
Conlrol
1 3 , (,
14.9
1;,1
16,1
16,1
14,0
13,9
16,1
14.4
..
"
"
1) , 3
14,1
16,4
16,J
1 1 , 11
14,6
13,1
1[),1I
13.4
1910
..,
'"
13,1
26. fi
1 6 , .1
2 0 , fj
111, I
2 4 , /1
14 , 0
1/,1
IJ,4
loll
'"
'"
- SqU�t��l�!u
33"
') 4 , 6
36 , 4
:15 , 6
.1 11 , /
16,6
31 . 6
3tj , 2
3l . 1
----
101.1
n , t:)
34,1
3 6 , ,]
Jf) , 5
311 , 1
,", I
n,4
311.11
J1 . 1
-
1973
..
->
..
..
"
..
11,1
11.1
11.0
1 1 .1
1 1 ,1
10,6
10"
11.1
9,7
9,1
9.2
9,1
9,3
9,6
9,0
0,9
9,4
0.6
1900
1911
'"
..
"
"
..
11,1
11,1
1 1 .0
1l.1
1 1 .1
10,6
1M
11.1
9,1
"
"
..
"
11,4
\1,4
11,1
12,4
11,4
11,0
1 1 ,6
11,1
10,4
-
-
41),1)
II, 11
O,II
Gl,2
62,9
4 !) , Q
46,4
{l,) , 9
)9"
C a l l bl'ilt!on
h t trfliltlfK!nt
HI 6
1970
l'J/0
61 . 11
tl 2 . b
b3,O
'],0
6 ,1
1110
1.111
117
2!J)
260
207
G FJ . 6
45,1
141
116
440
fl\lJ
,11
652
663
461
460
546
459
2d troiltI\1Qnt
3d tr(HI\ji'HlIlt
loll
1m
1900
1 , l l0
1 , .1 61
1 ,m
1 , 403
1 ,417
1 , 161
1 , 14;
1 , 400
1 ,061
' , 699
1 , 013
1 ,lJlJ7
1 ,095
1 , 941
1 , 716
1 , .44
1 , 911
1 ,m
��
1911
191/
ry
3d troiltfliont
1m
Tot!]l stem Yol ulfFn p r {Jero
In troatmont
211 trlllltlllQnt
---
2d treatma.nt
-------==
1966
'"
'"
'"
'"
49,1
61.1
5() , ft
52.&
F! 2 , 'J
- 411 . 7
46 , 4
56,1
40,J
"'
1900
''
",
-
(jn,
6 4 , ,1
'"
m
"
"
"
446
610
611
m
670
466
466
664
469
'"
1973
"
"
��_j�_ (O_flt
no
1119
791
Oll
900
]69
110
1116
III
120
003
796
06.
Oll
169
1611
905
117
1911
..
"
"'
'"
1 , 105
1 , 316
1 ,011
1 1 ,l OG
1 , 42)
1 ,m
1 , 146
1 ,411
1 , 061
29
Table 1 3- l ron Creek: periodic annual growth and cumulative vol ume yield for
all trees, by treatment a nd perlod- 1 966-70, 1 970-73, 1 973-77, 1 977-80
Quadrati c mean d .b . h . ,
periodi c annual net growth
Treatment
1
2
3
4
ij
6
7
8
Control
Basal area,
periodic .nnual gross growth
C.libration, 1 s t treatment, 2d treatment, 3d tre.tment,
1977 -80
1970-73
1973 -77
1966 -70
C.l ibration,
1966 - 70
- - - - - - - - - - - - I nch - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -Square feet per ac re - - - - - - - - -
0.40
.41
.40
.41
.40
.40
.40
.42
.19
0.44
.40
.38
.36
.32
.34
.27
.28
.09
0.45
.46
.42
.43
.37
.39
.34
.36
.12
0.46
.48
.46
.45
.43
.43
.41
.43
.18
l st treatment,
1970- 73
8.3
7.9
9.0
9.1
9.9
10.3
1 0 .8
1 1 .0
12.9
8.5
9.4
8.6
9.4
8.8
8.8
9.0
9.6
12.1
Periodi c annual 9ross growth
Calibration, l st treatment,
1966 -70
1970-73
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
2d tre.tment, 3d tre.tment,
1977 - 80
1973 -77
213
237
275
289
320
318
356
328
442
216
240
246
262
293
277
333
320
406
3d treatment,
1 977 -80
6.8
7.4
8.0
8.5
8.9
9.3
9.8
9.6
11.9
5.3
6.2
7.1
7.7
8.2
7.8
8.7
8.0
9.1
Cumul.tive yield
1 st tre.tment,
1970 -73
Calibration,
1966 - 70
- - Cubi c feet per a cre - - - - - - - - -
197
234
210
238
218
206
221
229
307
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
2d treatment,
1973 -77
21 3
266
293
345
372
331
424
360
480
2d treatment,
1973 -77
- - - - - - - - - - Cubi c feet per a cre - - -
-
- - -
2,889
3,338
3 ,327
3,663
3,765
3 , 559
4 ,039
3,953
5,329
2,038
2,391
2,227
2 , 506
2,486
2 , 286
2,617
2,639
3,562
1 ,389
1 ,673
1 ,487
1 ,721
1 ,606
1 ,454
1 ,620
1 ,678
2 ,342
3d treatment ,
1977 -80
-
- -
3 ,628
4 , 1 36
4 , 206
4 , 698
4 ,880
4,553
5 , 31 0
5 ,034
6 ,769
Table 1 4- l ron C reek: periodic annual g rowth and cumulative volume yield for
crop trees, by treatment and period-1 966-70, 1 970-73, 1 973-77, 1 977-80
Qu.drati c mean d . b . h . ,
periodi c annual net growth
Trentment
Cal ibration,
1 %6- 70
-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
_
.
-
1 s t tre.tment,
1970 -1 3
2d treatment,
1 9 7 3 -7 7
- - - - - - - .!.n£!l - 0.61
. 51
.49
.49
.49
. 60
.45
.49
.39
0.45
.44
.47
.47
.47
.47
.45
.50
.40
Basal area
periodi c .nnu.l gross growth
3d tre. tment,
1 9 7 7 -80
- - - - - - - -
0 . 48
.48
.45
.46
.42
.44
.40
. 42
.30
-
-
0 .45
.41
.41
.39
. 37
.39
. 32
.33
.26
C.l i b,·ati o n ,
1966 -7 0
- - - - - I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Control
30
62
69
71
16
76
65
63
76
61
1 s t tre.tment,
1970-7 3
•
-
•
2d treatment,
1973-77
125
128
136
1 35
1 34
1 33
119
1 30
95
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.2
3.8
2.4
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.1
3.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.6
3.0
2.2
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.7
2.9
3.5
2.2
Cumul ative yiel d
3d tre.tment,
1977 -80
167
174
165
1 72
172
1 62
142
1 56
116
1 st treatment,
1970 - 7 3
Cal i bration,
1 966 - 7 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cubi c feet per a c re 100
116
101
109
1 16
101
100
111
86
3d tre. nent,
1 97 7 -80
- - - - - - - - Square feet per a c re - - - - - - - - - -
Periodi c annu.l gross growth
Cal ibration,
1 9ti6 -70
2d tre.tment,
1973 - 77
1 st tre.tment,
1970 - ]3
449
514
512
565
563
468
468
550
459
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
749
864
81 7
882
911
770
769
884
717
-
-
-
2d treatme n t ,
1973 - 77
-
-
-
-
-
1 ,251
1 , 377
1 ,360
1 ,421
1 ,448
1 ,302
1 ,245
1 ,406
1 ,096
-
-
3d treatment
1 97 7 - 80
-
-
•
-
- -
1 ,751
1 ,900
1 ,855
1 ,938
1 ,963
1 ,787
1 ,670
1 ,875
1 ,443
Table 1 5- l ron Creek: mean heIght of crop trees, by treatment and
measurement year-1 966, 1 970, 1 973, 1 977, and 1 980
Trees meas u red
Treatment
1 9 66
1 70
1973
1 977
- - - - - - Numb er - - 1
2
a
4
5
6
7
8
Contro l
nli nned only
Al l treatments
Standard dev i ati on
16
16
16
15
15
15
16
15
14
1 24
1 38
22
22
24
22
22
21
24
21
19
1 78
1 7
21
21
23
23
19
22
24
20
18
1 73
1 91
Mean hei ght
28
30
31
28
30
27
30
30
20
234
254
1 980
-
-
-
32
30
30
26
30
28
27
29
20
232
252
-
1 966
1 970
1973
- - - - - - - Feet 34 . 4
36.4
34 . 9
38.8
37 . 6
35.4
36 . 7
38.4
35 . 4
36 . 6
36 . 4
1 . 47
45.9
48 . 7
47 . 0
50 . 5
48 . 9
45.8
46 . 7
49 . 6
47 . 5
47 . 9
47 . 8
1 . 58
53 . 5
56 . 4
53 . 9
58 . 5
57 . 3
53 . 2
55.2
57 . 7
55.7
55 . 7
55.7
1 . 83
1 97 7
-
1 980
- - - -
63.6
66 . 3
64.6
68 . 6
67 . 5
64 . 6
67 . 3
66 . 5
65.9
66 . 1
66. 1
1 . 52
-
71 . 9
7 !i.6
72.8
77 . 4
7 7. 0
72.8
76 . 1
75.1
75.1
74.8
74.8
1 . 87
31
Appendix
3
Tables 16 to 24 Stampede Creek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatments 1 through 9 at beginning
a nd end of perlod-19G8 to 1973
Tables 215 to 33-Stampede Creek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per t ree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatments 1 th rough 9 at end of
perlod-1978
Table i s-Stampede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, t reatment 1 at beginning and
end of perlod-i 968-73
Trees
per Gcre
a.b.h.
class
1968
!!l£lill,
13.6
1 2 .6
1 1 .6
1 0.6
9.6
8 .6
1.0
6.0
G . t>
4.6
3.6
2.0
1 .6
Ji
1 91 3
Cumul a tive
trees
per acre
1966 1913
- - -Number-
•
14 •
- 13.6
12.0
• 1 1 .0
- 10.6
- 9.0
- 8.6
7.6
•
0.6
•
6.5
•
- 4.5
•
3.6
- 2.6
•
•
Tota'i
Average
2
2
6
23
42
66
40
48
36
10
2
293
Ji Rounaed
2
3
3
12
36
48
1i0
31
42
26
22
13
•
-
-
1 96U
•
2
6
8
20
66
1 03
163
190
232
2
3
8
32
73
1 38
181
236
213
292
293
Vol umo
er tree
m
278
29 2
-
1 973
•
3.1
10.0
14.7
10.1
6.0
0.6
3.9
2.4
1 .4
.6
.4
2n
33.9
27.1
22.7
18.5
14.9
1 1 .3
6.6
6.1
4.0
2.7
1 .6
.8
0.4
36.4
30 . 0
13.3
249 . 6
332 . 9
319 . 3
1 09 . 7
1 14.3
64.8
1 1 .5
.7
1 968
1 97 3
1 966
- Cubi c feet -
6.0
Cumul a t i v e vol ume per acro
Vo 1 ume per acre
-
•
•
66 . 0
90 . 3
16.6
21 6 . 3
522 . 3
645 . 2
440 . 3
224 . 2
165.9
66 . 6
33.7
1 1 .3
1 ,4 7 4 . 6 2 ,448 . 3
1913
.
1 960
.
2.3
3.1
3.1
6.8
21 . 3
22 . 3
18.0
9.2
6.6
2.1
1 .4
.5
2.61
2 . 03
4 . 97
1 6 .93
2 2 . 56
25.12
1 2 .87
7 .75
3.72
. 70
. 06
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 97 3
C u b i c feet -
38.4
66 . 4
1 41 . 1
391 . 3
1 24 . 2
,103.5
, 293 . 3
,407 . 6
,4 62 . 3
,4 1 3 . 0
, 474 . 5
56. 6
146.9
222 . 6
436 . 6
961 . 0
1 , 506 . 2
1 ,946 . 6
2 , 1 10 . 8
2 ,336 . 1
2 ,403 . 2
2 , 431 . 0
2 ,448 . 3
1 968
1 97 3
- -Percent -
2.6
4.6
9.6
26.5
49.1
14.6
81.7
95.6
99 . 2
99.9
1 00 . 0
-
2.3
6.0
9.1
17.9
39 . 2
61 . 5
19.5
86 . 7
95 . 4
96 . 2
99 . 5
1 00 . 0
100.0
1 00 . 0
to who l e numbers.
Table 1 7 Sta m pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. clas8, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatment 2 at beginning and
end of perlod i 968M 73
Trees
per Here
a.b.h.
class
15.0
14.6
13.6
1 2 .6
1 1 .6
10.6
9.6
8.6
7.6
6.6
D . ij
•
-
4.6 •
3.6 •
2.6 •
1 .6 -
1 966
- - - Number-
- 16.6
• 15.6
• 14.6
• 13.6
- 12.6
· 11.0
• 10.5
- 9.0
•
Ji
1 968 1 97 3
!!l£lill,
Cumu l dtive
trees
per aere
O . 1i
1.6
6•
0.6
4.5
3.5
2•
Total
Avorage
Ji llounded
•
•
2
2
6
6
13
18
21
42
43
42
62
35
2
287
2
2
5
6
12
13
28
20
33
30
4U
43
30
12
203
•
2
3
8
13
21
46
12
113
161
1 9u
260
287
Va 1 ume
per tree
1 913
-
-
•
2
3
8
13
26
38
67
81
1 20
1 50
1 9a
242
272
283
1973
1 968
-
-
34 . 0
26.8
21 . 4
16.2
12.9
10.6
7.1
5 .4
3.7
2.3
1 .4
.1
.3
6.0
-
•
-
01 . 2
44.7
33.8
26.0
21 . 1
16.8
14.0
10••
6.5
••9
4.1
2.7
1 .4
.8
8.4
Vo 1 ume per acre
1 968
Cub i c feet - - -
67 . 7
44 . 7
1 06 . 8
80 . 8
171.8
193.3
204 . 7
2 23 . 4
161 .4
96 . 7
74.4
24 . 0
.6
1 968
1913
65 . 3
74.5
169.0
1 33 . 1
246 . 7
260 . 3
390 . 0
209 . 5
281 . 9
177.3
1 97 . 1
1 16.0
42.7
9.7
l ,440 . 4 2 ,3S9 . 1
-
Cumul a t i ve vol ume per acre
1 968
1973
1973
ercent -
- Cub i c feet -
3.6
3.1
7.1
0.6
10.3
10.5
1 6 .6
8.8
1 1 .8
1.4
8.2
4 .0
1 .8
.4
85 . 3
169.8
326 . 8
462 . 0
100.6
958 . 9
1 , 354 . 9
1 , 564 . 4
1 ,846 . 3
2 ,023 . 6
2 , 22 0 . 1
2 , 336 . 1
2 , 379 . 4
2 , 389 . 1
4.0
3.1
1.4
!L6
1 1 .9
13.4
14.2
16.6
11.2
6.1
6.2
1 .1
.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
51.7
1 02 . 4
2 09 . 2
290 . 0
461 . 9
G65 . 1
8 59 . 8
,063 . 2
, 244 . 6
, 341 . 3
,4 1 5 . 0
,439 . 8
,4 40 . 4
1 968
•
1 91 3
Per e n t -
4.0
1.1
14.5
20.1
32.1
46.5
59.1
16.2
86 . 4
93.1
98 . 3
99.9
100.0
3.6
6.1
13.8
19.3
29 . 7
40 . 1
56 . 7
66 . 5
77 . 3
84 . 7
93.0
97 . 0
99.6
1 00 . 0
100.0
to who l e nUllIbers .
33
Ta ble 1 8 Stampede C reek: live t rees per acre by d.b.h. class, vol ume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatment 3 at beginning and
end of perlod-1 968·73
Trees
per aero
11
g,b,h,
clan
1 9t1d 1 91J
Inches
•
13,6
12,6
1 1 .6
]0,6
,6
e,g
1,6
6,6
tl , 6
4,6
J ,6
2.6
•
•
•
•
•
1 4 , ti
13.5
1 2 , 1)
1 1 .6
10,J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9.Il
8,6
1..
• , Il
6 , 1)
4.Q
3,6
fotal
AveraQe
•
•
CUnJul a i l v 9
trees
per acre
Vol ume
per tree
1 960
1 91)0
Nulfll or
•
•
2
28
30
13
60
43
40
13
0
1
21
17
46
116
36
36
33
20
6
88
261
2
0
8
1m
•
•
2
2
6
31>
1> 2
1 00
l
2
10
38
60
142
192
231>
m
1 93
m
262
282
281
m
288
•
•
1 913
•
•
Vo1 urna per Hcre
1 966
Cuo l c feet ·
2U.
0
13.7
10,8
7,7
5,6
3,9
2,6
1 ..
,1
32,9
0
22.9
18.4
14.6
11 ,0
0,6
6,0
4,0
2.7
1.6
.1
1> , 1
8,6
1 968
1 9'/ 3
•
•
•
•
Cumuhtlve vol ume per acro
Percent
34 , 6
0
114. 1
306 . 2
231 , 4
41 0 , 0
193.6
107 . 0
60 , 2
9.0
54,8
0
162,0
489 , 4
246 . 3
632 , 6
413 . 3
229 . 3
1 39 . 5
89,0
30.0
3.4
7,8
20 . 9
15,8
20 . 0
13,2
7,3
4,1
.6
2,2
0
6,3
20,0
10.1
21 . 0
19.4
9.4
6.7
3,6
1.2
,1
1 ,466 . 6
2 , 440 . 4
1 00 . 0
1 00 , 0
2.4
°
1 960
1 91 3
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
•
1 91 3
Cub l c feet ·
34.0
34.6
148,9
466 , 1
606 . 5
,096 , 6
, 290 , 2
,391 , 2
, 467 . 4
,466 , 5
64 . 6
64,8
207 , 6
691 . 0
943 . 3
1 ,4 7 5 , 8
1 , 949 . 1
2 , 1 78 , 4
2 ,318,0
2 , 401 . 0
2 , 437 . 0
2 ,440 , 4
1 968
•
•
1 97 3
Percent ·
2.4
2,4
lQ,2
31 . 0
46 . 8
74 , 8
88.0
95.3
99 . 4
1 00 . 0
2,2
2,2
0,6
28,6
38 . 6
60.6
79,9
89 , 3
96.0
96.6
99,9
100,0
lIRounded t o who l e number s ,
Table 1 9-5tam pede C reek: live t rees per acre by d.b.h. class, vol ume per tree,
volume per acre, and cum ulative volume per acre, treatment 4 at beginning and
end of perlod-1 968·73
fre@s
per aere
o,o,n.
elan
1 1 .•
10,6
9,6
8,6
1 , t)
5 , il
5 , 1l
4.0
3,6
2,6
1. 6
•
m
m
•
•
•
•
m
•
•
•
1m
1 60
Inch@5
•
1 2 , 1>
11.6
1 0 ,1)
U
0,5
1,5
6,5
6,6
U
J.
2,0
fot.l
Av@raoe
11 Rounoed
6
23
40
113
62
48
26
20
3
m
t o W;lO I @
11
Cumul il t i v
trees
pel' tree
mo
NUilIJer
8
20
38
33
40
I>tl
42
22
17
12
•
8
32
80
1 33
19Ii
243
m
m
29Il
Volumo
per tree
19GU
1m
•
•
•
8
20
61
1 00
140
1 96
240
262
276
290
•
•
•
13,0
10,6
8,0
0,6
3.1
2,6
1 .4
,7
.3
290
4,9
numbur . ,
1913
•
Vo1 U ll1a
1 966
Cubl e feet.
22,9
18,6
14,8
1 1 .4
O.
6.2
4,0
2.1
1 .6
,6
8.6
115,0
247 , 5
384 . 3
299 . 4
220 , 2
120,4
36 , 1
13,7
1.0
per .ere
1 9/ 3
m
•
•
1 968
•
190.6
3i1 .8
667 , 0
319 , 0
338 , 9
360 . 1
1 67 . 6
6i . 5
26 . 2
g,O
1 ,446 , 2 2 ,469 . 5
m
Cumul a t i ve
1973
Percent
m
1 968
•
•
1 00 . 0
16.1
23 . 0
16,4
13.7
14.6
6.8
2.3
1.1
,4
100,0
1
1
1
1
1
1
19/3
Cub 1 c feo t
1,I
7,9
17.1
26 , 6
20 , 1
15.0
8,3
2.7
1 .0
.1
115.0
362 . 6
746 . 9
,046 . 3
, 214 . 4
, 394 , 8
, 433 , 5
,471 . 2
, 448 , 2
vol ullie
per acre
1 968
•
190.6
662 . 6
1 , 1 30 . 3
1 ,510.2
1 ,049 . 1
2 , 209 , 2
2 , 316 . 6
2 ,434 , 3
2 ,460 . 5
2 ,469 . 6
m .
7,9
26 . 0
61 . 6
72 . 2
08 . 0
96.3
99.0
99.9
100.0
1 9/ 3
.
7. I
22,0
46.6
61 . 2
14.9
89.5
96.2
96 . 6
99.6
100.0
Table 20-Sta m pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume pe r tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre , treatment 5 at beg inn ing and
end of perlod-·1 968-73
Tree s
per acre
U.b .h.
cl ass
Jj
1 97 3
1 968
Cumul dtive
tree s
p r acre
1 968
. . . .
14.6
1 3 .6
12.6
1 1 .6
'1 0 . 6
9.6
8.G
7.6
6.6
5.6
4.6
.6
2.6
1.6
- 10.6
- 14.6
- 13.5
• 1 2 . 6
- 1 1 .5
• lQ.6
9.5
•
e.5
•
7.6
•
•
6.5
- 5.6
- 4.6
3.5
•
2.S
•
3
6
13
23
43
66
92
1 28
1 60
207
247
268
282
2
5
19
28
43
72
1 17
1 67
212
268
217
283
•
•
1 973
•
40.6
37.7
2U . 2
24 , Y
19.4
14.0
11.5
8.4
6.1
3.9
2.6
1 .5
.6
26 . 2
23.3
17.0
13.3
1 1 .4
7.8
6.9
4.0
2.6
1 .4
.7
.3
Vol ume per acre
1 968
Cubi c feet
•
282
283
Total
Average
1 968
. . . .
3
2
8
10
20
12
37
37
32
47
40
22
13
2
3
13
10
15
28
46
40
55
47
Ie
7
1 973
Vol ume
per tree
1 968
1 91 3
•
•
•
•
136.6
62.8
235 . 1
248 . 6
387 . 9
1 63 . 5
421 . 1
309 . 1
1 91 . 9
183 . 2
1 02 . 9
31 . 9
8.6
43.7
77.S
226 . 2
1 33 . 6
170.4
219.8
269 . 2
1 58 . 6
1 34 . 9
66.6
1 2 .8
2.2
1 , 505 . 3 2 ,481 . 9
•
Cumul a t i ve vol ume per acre
1973
Percent
2.9
6.2
1 5 .0
8.9
11.3
14.6
17.2
10.6
9.0
4.4
.8
.1
1 00 . 0
1 968
•
6.5
2.5
9.5
10.0
15.6
6.6
1 7 .0
1 2.4
7.7
7 .4
4.2
1 .3
.3
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 97 3
Cub i c feet ·
43.7
1 21 . 2
3 47 . 4
480 . 9
661 . 3
871 . 1
,1 30 . 3
, 288 . 8
,4 23 . 8
,490 . 4
, 503 . 1
,505 . 3
1 35 . 5
198.3
433 . 4
682 . 0
1 ,069 . 9
1 ,233 . 3
1 ,654 . 4
1 ,963 . 6
2 , 1 66 . 4
2 , 338 . 6
2 ,441 . 6
2 ,473 . 4
2 ,481 . 9
1 968
1 97 3
Percent
•
2.9
B.O
23 . 1
32 . 0
43 . 3
57 . 9
75.1
85.6
94 . 6
99.0
99.9
1 00 . 0
•
5.5
S.O
17.5
27 . 5
43.1
49.7
66.7
79.1
86 . 8
94 . 2
90 . 4
99 . 7
1 00 . 0
1 00 . 0
8.8
5.3
JiRounded t o whol e numbers.
Table 21 -Sta m pede C reek: l ive trees per acre by d .b.h. c l ass, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, t reatment 6 at beginning and
end of perlod-1 968u73
Trees
per acre
D.b.h. c l a ss
1 96u
-
13.6 •
1 2.6 •
1 1 .6 •
10.6 •
9.6 •
0.6 •
7.0 •
6.6 •
6.6 •
4 . 1l •
3.6 2.0 -
14.5
13.5
12.5
1 1 .6
10.6
9.5
0.6
7.5
6.5
5.6
4.5
3.5
Total
Average
Jj Rounued
•
Cumu1 dti VII
trees
per troe
Jj
1 97 ;)
•
•
NUirIl er
3
2
3
2
6
10
3
48
62
52
67
33
12
23
43
40
47
62
60
35
7
3 U
317
:m
1 9 73
1 908
5
10
20
58
1 07
160
220
287
320
t o wno 1 e numbers .
•
-
•
3
5
0
20
43
87
1 27
173
m
m
31 0
31 7
Vol ume
per troe
1 973
1 96U
•
•
•
•
Vol ulna per acre
1 968
-Cub i c feet
21 . 1
1 5. 4
14.6
10.2
8.1
6.6
3.7
2.4
1 .4
.7
30.9
26.3
23 . 9
17.2
14.4
10.7
0.0
6.7
4.1
2.5
1.5
.9
4.1
7.0
-
1 97 3 1 968
-
•
•
-
Cumul a t i ve vol ume per acre
1 973
Percent
102.9
43 . 9
79.8
200 . 8
335 . 0
466 . 3
321 . 6
267 . 2
209 . 3
126.1
53.S
6.2
5.3
2.0
6.5
7 .6
23.4
20 . 5
1 7 .4
9.4
6.9
1 .8
4.6
2.0
3.6
9.1
15.2
21 .0
14.5
12.1
9.5
6.7
2.4
.3
1 , 3 1 0 . 0 2 , 21 1 . 7
1 00 . 0
100.0
70.2
26.7
'13 . 0
102.4
300 . 9
270.3
226.8
1 24 . 2
90 . 9
23.6
1 968
1 97 3
- Cub i c feet ·
•
1
1
1
1
70.2
95.8
160.8
271 . 2
580 . 1
050 . 4
,079 . 3
, 203 . 6
, 204 . 4
,310.0
102.9
146.8
226 . 6
427 . 3
762 . 3
1 ,227 . 6
1 , 549 . 1
1 , 016 . 3
2 ,025 . 6
2 ,151 . 7
2 , 20 6 . 5
2 , 21 1 . 7
1 968
•
1 97 :l
Percent
5.3
7.3
1 2.8
20 . 6
44 . 0
64 . 5
81 . 9
91 . 3
90 . 2
100.0
•
4.6
6.6
10.2
19.3
34 . 5
55.5
70.0
82 . 1
91 . 6
97 . 3
99.7
1 00 . 0
Table 22-Stampede C reek: l ive trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volu m e per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatment 7 at beginning a n d
e n d o f perlod-1 968m73
Oob.h
c l an
Inchu
ireDD
acro
II
fer
Cumul ative
trooD
POt' acro
1 969
1m
1 909
•
1 2. 6 - 1 3 . 6
1 1 .6 • 12.6
lo.G • 11..
9 . 6 • 1 00 6
9.6 • 9.6
7.6 • 9 . 6
0 . 6 • 1.6
6.0 • 6.6
4.6 • 5.6
3.6 - U
2.6 - 3
1 . 6 - 2.6
••
•
lJnoundoll
•
•
9
9
12
18
62
69
31
33
20
19
1
9
9
19
38
63
67
46
25
12
3
m
iotal
AV0rilg0
•
Nu mb er
Vol umo
per tree
•
•
-
m
m
210
m
m
m
1 960
27 . 9
2 .6
19.4
10.1
11. 7
B.5
6.3
4.3
2.9
1 .9
.8
1 7 . Ii
13.6
1 0. 0
7.9
6. 1
4.2
2.6
1 .6
.9
.4
m
•••
9.1
146.1
112.9
1 93 . 6
297 . 6
397 . 6
237
116.6
40 . 7
9. 6
1.6
••
1 , 643. 6
1 968
1 97 3
- - - - -Cubi c feet -
•
9
11
2B
47
99
1 67
193
9
11
35
73
1 37
193
239
263
1 97 3
1 969
1913
Cumul a t i ve vol ume per acre
Vo1 ume per acre
•
- Percent -
231 . 3
195.5
21 6 . 0
277 . 6
602 . 6
604 . 3
232 . 2
1 41 . 9
70. 6
33. 2
5.3
9.2
7.9
9.6
11.1
24 . 0
20.1
9.2
6.6
2.0
1.3
.2
•
•
2 , 609 . 6
9.6
7.3
12.6
19.3
25.1
16.4
7.6
2.6
.6
.1
1 00 . 0
1 968
1 97 3
- .. Cubic foet
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 46 . 1
269 . 0
452 . 6
760 . 1
, 1 37 . 7
, 376 . 2
, 491 . 9
, 632 . 6
, 542 . 1
, 643 . 6
1 969
1973
•
231 . 3
426 . 9
641 . 9
91 9 . 4
1 , 622 . 0
2 , 026 . 3
2 , 69 . 5
2 , 400 . 4
2 , 471 . 1
2 , 604 . 3
2 , 509 . 6
1 97 3
- Percent·
-
9.6
1 6. 0
29 . 3
49 . 6
73.7
09.1
99 . 6
99.3
99 . 9
1 00 . 0
9.2
17.0
26.6
36. 6
60.6
90 . 7
90.0
95.6
99. Ii
99.9
1 00 . 0
1 00 . 0
t o whol o numb@r§.
Table 23-Stampede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volu m e per acre, treatment 8 at beginning a n d
end o f perlod-1 968-73
,r@o! p@r
acre
Cumu l a t i v@
tr@@§
per acre
1 969
1 968
II
D.b.h
e l an
InchQu
13.6
12.6
11. •
10.6
9• •
9.6
1.6
6.6
6.6
4.6
3.6
2.6
1.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14.6
13.D
12.6
11.6
10. 5
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
O• •
7 . II
6. I)
6. II
4.5
3. 6
2. 5
iotal
Averdge llHoundell
36
•
1 91 3
-
•
•
Numb 0r·
:I
3
9
13
20
33
60
40
32
13
29
6
m
0
12
22
20
32
47
21
32
22
11
13
3
12
26
46
19
1 31
1 71
200
m
260
m
263
t o whole numoarD . Vol umn
p0r tree
•
•
•
3
12
23
45
65
97
1 43
1 10
202
223
240
263
1m
1 960
1913
•
•
•
21 . 9
17.1
13.1
10.9
1.9
0.0
4. I
2.5
1.3
.0
.3
•• 9
•
•
Cumul a t i ve vol ume per acre
Volume per acre
1 969
·Cub l c feet 30 . 0
29.9
24. 3
19.0
14.6
1 1 . II
a.9
6.0
4.0
2. 2
1.3
.7
9.9
73. I
142.1
1 92 . 4
21!i . l
263 . 2
339 . 0
163.1
19.6
11. 0
21 . 4
1.3
1 960
1973
•
•
•
1 29 . 3
249 . 5
284 . 1
422 . 0
291 . 9
363 . 6
409 . 6
160.9
1 28 . 1
49 . 0
20. 9
9.0
1 , 490 . 2 2 , 61 1 . 6
•
1 973
Percent -
4.9
9.6
12.2
14.4
17.6
22.0
10.9
6.3
1.1
1 .4
.1
1 00 . 0
5.1
9.9
11.3
16.9
11. 6
14.4
16.3
6.4
G.l
1.9
.0
.4
1 00 . 0
1 969
1973
·Cubl e feet
13.1
21 5 . 3
397 . 7
613.7
977 . 0
1 ,215.0
1 , 310 . 9
1 , 459 . 6
1 , 47 6 . 5
1 , 496. 9
1 , 490 . 2
•
129.3
370 . 9
662 . 0
1 ,005 . 7
1 , 377 . 6
1 , 741 . 1
2 , 1 50 . 7
2 , 31 1 . 0
2 , 439 . 7
2 , 497 . 7
2 , 500 . 6
2 , 51 7 . 6
1 968
•
•
1 97 3
Percont·
4.9
14.4
26 . 5
41 . 0
50. 5
81 . 2
92.0
97.4
96.6
99 . 9
1 00 . 0
0.1
16.0
26 . 3
43. I
64. 7
69.2
96.4
91 . 0
96.9
90.0
99. 0
1 00 . 0
•
Table 24-Sta m pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, a n d cumulative volu m e per acre, treatment 9 (control) at
beginning and end of perlod-1 968w73
Cumul ative
trees
per nere
Treos per
nere
Y
U.b.h
c l ass
Inches
14 . 6
13.6
12.0
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.6
7.6
6.0
5.0
4.6
3.6
2.6
1.6
1973
1968
-
- 16.0
- 14 . 6
- 13.6
• 12. 6
- l 1 . ti
10 . 6
9.6
•
0.5
7.6
•
•
6.5
6.5
•
4.6
•
3.5
•
2.5
•
•
Total
Avernva YRoundod
-
-
•
•
2
0
3
3
17
32
46
72
57
73
100
107
16S
326
2
2
3
12
30
46
70
92
96
133
163
342
1968
lli!!!-!!!r.
2
3
7
19
40
93
172
263
358
492
665
997
Vol ume
per tree
1960
1973
•
•
-
•
2
2
5
8
26
57
102
173
240
313
413
520
68S
1,010
997 1,010
•
•
1973
•
Volume per aere
1968
- ·Cubi c feet
26.6
21.0
17 . 2
13.2
10.3
7.9
5.6
3.0
2.4
1.4
.7
.2
42.1
0
27.9
22. 3
19. I
15 . 3
11. 9
8.7
6. I
4.3
2.6
1.6
.7
.3
2.4
3.6
1968
1973
•
•
•
•
Cumul ative vol ume per acre
.
.
71. I
0
93.1
74.5
317.7
486.4
6 3 5.6
620.6
405.9
313. I
263.6
163.2
122.7
90.4
1.9
1.5
2.4
6.6
13.I
15.2
18.6
14.6
9.8
0.0
4.7
3.6
2.0
0
2.6
2. I
8.9
13,6
16.1
17 . 4
11.4
B.B
7.4
4.6
3.4
2.5
2,354 . 2 3,56 6 . 7
100 . 0
100.0
44. 3
36.0
67.3
154.3
300.9
357.3
437.5
344.4
230.2
189.4
110.9
84.0
1968
1973
•
1973
-Cubic feet ·
44.3
79.3
136.6
291.0
599 . 9
9 57 . 2
1,394 . 7
1,739 . 2
1,969 . 3
2,1 5B.7
2,269.6
2,354 . 2
71. I
71. I
164 . 2
238.7
556.4
1,041 . 9
1, 577 . 4
2,198.0
2,603.9
2,916.9
3,100.4
3,343.7
3,466.3
3,666.7
1968
•
•
1973
Percent-
1.9
3.4
5.8
12.4
25.5
40.7
59.2
73.9
83.6
91.7
96.4
100.0
2.0
2.0
4.6
6.7
16.6
29 . 3
44.4
61.8
73.2
02.0
89.4
94.0
97.5
100 . 0
to whol 0 numbers. Table 25-Sta m pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volu m e per acre, treatment 1 at end of
perlod 1 978
I nchos
Y Roundod
Cumul a t vo
trees
per acre
d :Y
•
16.6 • 17 . 6
16.6 • 16 . 5
14.6 • 16 . 6
1 3 . 6 • 14.0
12 . 6 • 13.5
1 1 . 6 • 12.5
10 . 6 - 11.5
9.6 • 10 . 6
8.6 - 9. Ii
7.6 • 8 . 5
6.6 • 7.5
6.6 • 6 . Ii
4 . 6 - 0.5
3.6 • 4. Ii
2.6 • 3. Ii
rota1
Average
1
Troes
D . b . h.
c l ass
•
"
NUOI .er
0
2
J
7
27
30
37
17
22
20
10
8
Ii
2
190
to whole nurnbars.
•
•
•
2
2
J
7
13
40
70
107
123
143
166
175
103
180
190
Vo I urno
per
tree
Cubi c feet
53.7
0
44.8
34 . 0
29.7
25.5
20. I
16.2
12.1
9. I
o.G
4.3
3.2
1.8
1.2
15.7
Vol ume per acre
Cumu l a t i ve vol ume per acre
Percent
Cub1 c Jeet
Percent
89 . 6
0
74.7
" 6.9
198 . 2
678 . 7
602.0
694.4
211.2
19B.I
131. 3
43.3
26.4
9.2
2.0
3.0
0
.5
3.9
6.7
22.8
20. 2
20.0
7. I
6.7
4.4
1.5
.9
.3
.1
89.6
09.5
164 , 2
280.2
478. J
1, 157.0
1,769.0
2 , 363.4
2,564.7
2,726.0
2 ,894. I
2,937 . 4
2,963 . 0
2,973. I
2,975 . 0
3.0
3.0
5.5
9.4
16 . I
3B . 9
69. I
79. I
86.2
92.9
97.3
98.7
99. 6
99.9
100.0
2,976 . 0
100.0
Cub1 c feet
Table 26-Stam pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatment 2 at end of
perlod-1 978
Trees
per
aero
D . b . h.
Inchos
18.6
17.6
1 6. 6
1 6. 6
1 4. 6
1 3. 6
1 2. 6
1 1 .6
1 0. 6
9.6
8.6
7.6
6.6
6.6
4.6
3.6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cumul ative
treOl
per acre
1J
chu
•
19.6
18.6
17.6
16.6
1 6. 6
14.6
1 3 . 1i
1 2. 6
11 .6
10.6
9.6
0.6
7.6
6.6
6.6
4.6
Total
Average
•
Numb er
•
•
•
Cubic feet
•
2
3
6
0
10
22
33
48
66
99
97
116
1 43
1 63
176
187
2
2
2
3
2
12
12
16
11
23
8
10
28
20
12
12
Vol ume
per
tree
73.2
62.4
66. 4
46.0
39. 0
32.7
28. 9
22.9
18.7
14.6
10.6
0.2
6.0
4.2
2.0
1.6
1 07
14.9
Vol ume per acre
Cubic feet
Percent
1 22 . 1
104.0
92 . 3
1 49 . 0
66 . 0
301 . 3
331 . 7
343 . 3
31 1 . 6
338 . 4
89. 6
1 60 . 9
170.6
93.7
32. 2
18.0
4.4
3.7
3.3
6.4
2.3
13.7
12.1
12.3
11.2
12.1
3.2
6.4
6.1
3.0
1.2
.6
2 , 7 89 . 6
1 00. 0
Cumul ntive volume per acre
Cubic feet
122.1
226. 0
31 8 . 4
468 . 3
633. 3
91 4 . 6
1 , 262. 2
1 , 595 . 6
1 , 907 . 2
2 , 24 6 . 6
2 , 334 . 2
2 , 494 . 9
2 , 66 5 . 6
2 , 7 39 . 3
2 , 771 . 6
2 , 799 . 6
Percent
4.4
8.1
1 1 .4
16.8
19.1
32.8
44.9
57 . 2
68. 4
00. 6
83. 7
89 . 1
96.2
98. 2
99.4
1 00 . 0
1J ounded to whol o numberu.
Table 27-Stampede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatment 3 at end of
perlod - 1 978
D.b.h.
c hIS
Inches
1 6.6 · 16.6
1 4 . 6 • 1 6. 6
1 3. 6 • 1 4 .
1 2. 6 • 1 3 . 6
1 1 . 6 · 1 2 . f)
10,6 • 11.6
9.6 • 10.6
8.6 • 9.6
1 . 1) • 0 . 6
6.6 • 1.6
5.6 • 6.6
4.6 • 6.6
3.6 • 4.G
2.6 • 3.6
iotal
Averago
Cumul a ti ve
trMs
per acre
TroGs
per
.ere
1J
•
•
•
Number
2
0
1
17
20
28
38
30
13
17
111
2
3
2
191
lhoundod t o whol e numbor s .
3B
Vul ume
per
tree
Vol ulna per acre
Cubi c fee t
Cubi c feet
Percent
2
2
49 . 2
0
25
46
13
112
1 42
156
172
1 90
1 92
195
1 97
29.6
24.4
19.6
16.6
1 2. 1
8.9
6.5
4.7
2.5
1.7
1 .1
02 . 0
0
2 30 . 8
493. 0
487 . 5
651 . 2
696 . 6
380 . 0
1 19.1
1 09 . 0
06 . 1
4.2
6. 5
1 .8
2.0
0
7.3
16.7
15.6
17.5
18.9
12.1
3. 0
3.5
2.7
.1
.2
.1
3 , 1 46 . 6
1 00 . 0
•
•
0
•
34 . 1
16.0
Cumu l a t i v e vol ume per acre
Cubic feet
Percent
02 . °
82.0
31 2 . e
606 . 6
1 , 294 . 0
1 , 046 . 2
2 , 440 . 8
2 , 820 . 0
2 , 939 . 9
3 , 048 . 9
3 , 1 35 . 0
3 , 1 39 . 2
3 , 1 44 . 7
3 , 1 46 . 6
2. 6
2.6
9.9
25 . 6
41 . 1
58 . 6
77.6
89 . 6
93. 4
96.9
99.6
99.8
99. 9
1 00 . 0
Table 28-Sta mpede C reek: live t rees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volu m e per acre , treatment 4 at end of
perlod-1 978
Trees
per
acre
O.b.h.
class
11
- - - Nu mb er - - -
Inches
13.6
1 2. 6
1 1 .6
lQ,6
9.6
0.6
7.6
6.6
6.6
4.6
3. 6
-
Cumu1 ati ve
trees
per acre
14.5
13.5
1 2. 5
11.0
10.6
9.5
8.S
7.5
6.5
5.5
4. 5
Total
Average
8
22
62
80
1 03
1 30
1 55
177
1 90
197
203
8
13
30
28
23
27
25
22
13
7
7
203
Vol ume
per
tree
Cubi c feet
34 . 3
28. 9
25. 2
19.7
15.3
1 2. 0
9.4
6.5
4.3
2.8
1.6
15.4
Vol ume per acre
Cumu l a t i ve vol ume per acre
Cubi c feet
Percent
Cub i c feet
Percent
286 . 1
384 . 9
755. 9
558 . 3
356 . 5
320 . 2
234 . 7
140.9
58. 0
10.4
10.9
9.2
1 2. 3
24.2
17.9
1 1 .4
10.2
7.5
4.5
1 .9
.6
.4
286 . 1
671 . 0
1 . 4 25 . 8
1 , 985 . 1
2 , 341 . 6
2 ,661 . 9
2 , 896 . 6
3 , 037 . 5
3 , 095 . 5
3,113.9
3 , 1 24 . 8
9.2
21 . 5
45. 7
63.5
74.9
85. 2
92. 7
97 . 2
99.1
99 . 6
100.0
3 , 1 24 . 8
100.0
lI ounded t o who l e numbers.
Table 29-Sta m pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volu m e per acre, treatment 5 at end of
perlod-1 978
Trees
per
acre
D.b.h.
class
11
- - - Number - - -
Inches
17.6
16.6
16.6
14.6
13.6
1 2. 6
11.6
10.6
9.6
8.6
7.6
6.6
5.6
4.6
3.6
2.6
-
Total
Average
Cumu l ati ve
trees
per acre
18. 5
17.5
16.5
15.5
14.5
13.6
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.6
8. 5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4. 5
3.5
2
0
3
7
12
13
12
23
23
28
13
28
32
25
5
8
235
2
2
6
12
23
37
48
72
95
1 23
1 37
165
197
222
227
235
Vol ume
per
tree
Cub i c feet
60 . 3
0
53 . 7
41 . 8
35. 5
30.1
24. 6
19.2
16.2
1 1 .8
9.5
6.5
4.6
2.8
1.3
.8
14.3
Vo1 ume per acre
Cubic feet
Percent
1 00. 5
0
1 79 . 1
279 . 0
41 4 . 6
401 . 7
286 . 9
448 . 4
377 . 7
335 . 6
1 26 . 3
1 85 . 2
1 46 . 3
69 . 3
6.4
7.0
3.0
0
5.3
8.3
1 2. 3
1 1 .9
8.5
1 3. 3
1 1 .2
10.0
3.8
5.5
4.4
2.1
.2
.2
3 , 363. 9
100.0
Cumu l a t i ve vol ume per acre
Cubi c feet
1 00. 5
1 00 . 5
279.6
558 . 5
973. 1
1 , 374 . 8
1 , 661 . 7
2,110.1
2 , 487 . 8
2 , 8 23 . 4
2 , 9 49 . 7
3 , 1 34 . 9
3 , 281 . 2
3 , 350. 5
3 , 356 . 9
3 , 3 63 . 9
Percent
3.0
3.0
8.3
16.6
28. 9
40. 9
49. 4
62 . 7
74.0
83 . 9
87.7
93. 2
97 . 5
99 . 6
99.8
1 00 . 0
lIRounded t o whol e number s .
39
Table 30-Stampede Creek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per t ree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, treatment 6 at end of
perlod-1 978
Trees
per
acre
D.b.h.
cl ass
-
5.6
4.6
3.6
2.6
-
Cumul a ti ve
trees
per acre
- - - Number - - -
I nches
1 5.6
1 4.6
13.6
1 2.6
1 1 .6
1 0. 6
9.6
8.6
7.6
11
16. 5
15.5
14.5
1 3. 5
12.6
1 1 .5
10.5
9.0
u.6 -
3
3
2
5
27
28
30
32
33
40
32
27
12
e . li
7.5
6. 5
6.5
4 . ,.
0
3.5
2
Total
Average
3
7
8
13
40
68
98
1 30
163
203
235
262
273
275
Vol Ulna
per
tree
Cubi c feet
48 . 2
42.1
35 . 5
28 . 1
23. 9
18.6
15.4
1 1 .8
8.6
6.5
4.4
2.9
1.7
1.1
275
Va 1 ume per acre
Cub i c feet
Percent
1 60 . 8
1 40 . 3
59. 2
1 40 . 6
6 37 . 2
525.8
462 . 7
372 . 9
285 . 4
261 . 0
1 40 . 1
76.5
19.3
1 .9
4.9
4.3
1 .8
4.3
19.4
1 6. 0
14.1
11.4
8.7
8.0
4.3
2.3
.6
.1
3 , 287 . 7
1 00 . 0
Cumul ati ve vol ume per acre
Cubi c feet
1 60 . 8
301 . 1
360. 3
500 . 9
1 , 1 38 . 1
1 , 663 . 9
2 , 1 26 . 6
2 , 499 . 4
2 , 784 . 8
3 , 045 . 8
3 , 1 85 . 9
3 , 262 . 5
3 , 281 . 8
3 , 287 . 7
Percent
4.9
9.2
1 1 .0
15.3
34. 7
50. 7
64 . 8
76 . 1
84. 8
92.8
97. 0
99 . 4
99.9
1 00. 0
1 1 .9
lIKounded to who l e numbers.
Table 3i -Stam pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative vol ume per acre, treatment 7 at end o f
perlod-1 978
Trees
O . b. h.
c l ass
a
-
Total
Average
15.5
14.5
13.5
12.5
11.5
10.5
9.5
8. 5
7.5
6.5
6.5
4.5
3.5
5
10
7
18
22
45
48
33
25
12
17
7
2
5
15
22
40
62
1 07
1 55
188
213
225
242
248
250
Vol ume
per
tree
C u b i c feet
43.4
36 . 0
30 . 0
25.6
20 . 5
16.3
12.8
9.2
6.6
4.4
2.9
2.0
1.1
250
lIRounded t o Who l e numbers.
40
Cumul a t i ve
trees
per acre
- - - Number - - -
I nches
14.6
13.6
12.6
1 1 .6
10.6
9.6
8.6
7.6
6.6
5.6
4.6
3.6
2.6
l1
14.5
Va 1 ume per acre
Cubi c feet
217.1
359 . 8
Perce nt
468 . 7
445 . 2
7 32 . 2
61 7 . 2
308 . 2
166.1
51 . 0
4B.5
13.1
1 .8
6.0
9.9
5.5
12.9
12.3
20 . 2
17.0
8.5
4.6
1 .4
1.3
.4
.1
3 ,6 28 . 9
1 00 . 0
200 . 0
Cumu l a t i ve vol ume per acre
Cubic feet
21 7 . 1
576 . 9
7 7 6. 9
1 , 245 . 6
1 , 690 . 8
2 ,4 2 3 . 0
3 ,040 . 2
3 , 348 . 4
3 , 51 4 . 6
3 , 565 . 6
3 , 61 4 . 1
3 , 627 . 1
3 , 6 28 . 9
Percen t
6.0
15.9
21 . 4
34 . 3
46.6
66 . 8
83.8
92. 3
96.8
98 . 3
99.6
99.9
1 00 . 0
Table 32-Stam pede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, vol u m e per tree,
volume per acre, and cumula tive volume per acre, t reatment 8 at end of
perlod-1 978
Cumul Bti ve
trees
per acre
Trees
n . b . h.
c l ass
a
I nches
l1
•
16.6 · 17.6
1 6. 6 • 16.5
14.6 • 15.6
13.6 • 14.5
12.0 • 13.5
1 1 .6 • 12.6
10.6 • 11 . 5
9 . 6 • 10. 5
8 . 6 • 9. 5
7.6 • 8.5
6.6 - 7.6
6.6 • 6 . 6
4.t5 • 6 . 5
3.6 • 4 . 6
2.6 • 3 . 6
•
•
Number
2
2
6
8
2l
15
2&
30
32
22
23
12
18
17
2
Total
Average
•
•
•
2
3
8
17
38
63
70
108
1 40
162
185
197
215
232
233
233
Vol ume
per
tree
Vol ume per acre
Cumu l at i ve vol ume per acre
C u b i c feet
Cubi c feet
Percent
Cubi c feet
59.7
50.0
44.0
36 . 8
31 . 5
24.9
20.2
1 ij . 7
12.4
9.1
6.1
4.6
2.6
1.3
99 . 5
83.3
220 . 2
306 . 8
682 . 7
373 . 7
504 . 4
470 . 0
391 . 2
197.9
143.5
53.8
47 . 1
22.0
1.3
2.8
2.3
6.1
8.5
19.0
10.4
14.0
13.1
10.9
5.5
4.0
1.5
1.3
.6
99. 5
182.8
403 . 0
709 . 7
1 , 392 . 4
1 , 7 66 . 1
2 , 2 70 . 5
2 , 740 . 4
3 , 1 31 . 6
3 ,3 2 9 . 5
3,473.0
3,526.8
3,573.9
3,595.9
3,597.2
3 , 597 . 2
1 00 . 0
.8
15.4
.0
Percent
2.8
5.1
1 1 .2
19.7
38. 7
49 . 1
63 . 1
76.2
87.1
92 . 6
96.6
98 . 0
99.4
100.0
100.0
lIRounded t o whol e numbers.
Table 33-Stampede C reek: live trees per acre by d.b.h. class, volume per tree,
volume per acre, and cumulative volume per acre, t reatment 9 (control) at
end of perlod-1 978
D . Il . ll .
c l ass
Inches
16.6
1 5. 6
1 4. 0
1 3. 6
1 2. 6
1 1 .6
1 0. 6
9.6
8.6
7.6
6.6
5.6
4.u
3.6
- 17.0
•
16.5
•
16.6
• 1 4 . 5
- 13.6
•
12.6
- 11.6
• 10. 6
- 9.5
•
8.5
•
7.6
- 6.5
I'
5. 0
•
•
4.6
2 . D .. 3. 5
1 .6 • 2.0
Totdl
Average
Trees per
acre 1 /
•
•
C u m u l ati v e
t rees
per acre
Number -
-
2
2
2
0
2
2
8
20
42
37
62
50
60
70
95
92
130
227
3
5
13
33
75
112
163
21 3
273
343
438
530
660
887
887
Vol ume
per tree
Cubi c feet
69 . 3
0
46 . 9
37 . 5
31 . 3
26 . 0
20 . 7
16.1
12.8
9.5
6.7
4.7
2.8
1.5
.8
.3
6.5
VA 1 ume per acre
Cubi c feet
Percent
9a . 8
0
76. 5
62.4
2 58 . 9
5 20 . 7
8 62 . 7
589 . 0
6 58 . 9
473. 5
4 03 . 0
326 . 1
262 . 9
1 41 . 5
1 01 . 5
6B.6
2.0
0
1 .6
1.3
5.3
10.6
17.6
1 2. 0
13.3
9.6
8.2
6.6
5.4
2.9
2.1
1 .4
4 , 904 . 9
100.0
Cumu l a t i ve vol ume per acre
C u b i c fe
98. 8
98.8
1 75.3
237 . 7
496 . 6
1 , 01 7 . 3
1 , 880 . 0
2 , 46 9 . 0
3 , 1 27 . 8
3 , 601 . 3
4 , 00 4 . 3
4 , 3 30 . 4
4 , 59 3 . 4
4 , 7 34 . 8
4 , 836 . 3
4 , 904 . 9
Perc e n t
2.0
2.0
3.6
4.8
10.1
20 . 7
38. 3
50 . 3
63. 8
73.4
81 . 6
88 . 3
93 . 6
96. 5
98 . 6
1 00 . 0
lIiloundea to whol e numbers.
41
Study area
Cooperator
Skykomish
Western Forestry Research Department
Weyerhaeuser Company
Centralia, Washington
Hoskins
School of Forestry
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Rocky Brook
USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station
Portland, Oregon
Clemons
Western Forestry Research Department
Weyerhaeuser Company
Centralia, Washington
Francis
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Olympia, Washington
Iron Creek
USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station
Portland, Oregon
Stampede Creek
USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station
Portland, Oregon
Sayward Forest
Canadian Forestry Service
Department of the Environment
Victoria, British Columbia
Shawnlgan Lake
Canadian Forestry Service
Department of the Environment
Victoria, British Columbia
Consultative services have been provided by the University of Washington, Seattle,
and the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
42
WI LLIAMSON, R ICHARD L.; CURTIS, ROBERT O. Levels-of-growlng-stock
cooperative study In Douglas-fir: Report No. 7-Pre l i m i nary results. Stampede
Creek, and some comparisons with I ron Creek and Hoskins. Res. Pap.
PNW·32 3 . Portland, OR: U . S . Department of Ag riculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station ; 1 984. 42 p.
Results of the Stampede Creek LOGS study In southwest O regon are
summarized, and results are compared with two more-advanced LOGS studies
and, In general , are s i m i lar. To age 43, t h i n n i n g In this low site I I I Doug las-fir
(Pseudotsugs menzlesll ( M l rb.) Franco) stand resulted I n some reduction In
vo lume growth and moderate gains In diameter growth . Growth was strong l y
related t o level of g rowing stock. Desirable density levels a r e recommended for
young Doug las-fir stands.
KEYWORDS: G rowi ng stock (-I ncrement/yield, Increment -) g rowi n g stock
management, stand density, t h l n n l ngs, Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menzlesl/,
southwest O regon, Oregon (southwest ) , series-Doug las-fir LOGS.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of
Ag riculture 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. Throug h 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 g reater service
to a g rowing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Ag riculture Is an Equal
Opportunity Employer. A pplicants for all Department
p ro g rams will be given equal consideration without
regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national
origin.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station
319 S.w' Pine St.
P.O. Box 3890
Portland: Oregon 97208