Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
Stand Management Cooperative Fall Meeting
Little Creek Casino Resort, Kamilche, WA
September 18-19, 2012
ATTENDEES
Bureau of Land Management, George McFadden; Campbell Group, Dave Hamlin, Dave Rumker;
Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, Cosmin Filipescu; Green Crow, Harry Bell; Green Diamond Resource
Company, Randall Greggs, Steve Loy; Hampton Resources, Dennis Creel; Hancock Forest Management,
Bruce Ripley, Dean Stuck; International Forestry Consultants, Brandon Mohler; Lone Rock Timber Co.,
Chris Sexton; Longview Timberlands LLC, Andy Hopkins; Olympic Resource Management, Sean Garber,
Scott Holmen; Oregon Department of Forestry, Tod Haren; Oregon State University, Doug Maguire; Plum
Creek Timber Co., Steve Gravelle; Port Blakely Tree Farms, Kim Littke, Mike Warjone; Quinault Indian
Nation, Julie Biermann, Jim Hargrove, Ron Hongell, Pat McCory, Jim Plampin; Rayonier Forest Resources,
Candace Cahill, Mark Hebert, Jessica Josephs, Brad Marlow, Greg Nesgoda, Alex Thompson; Roseburg
Forest Products, Sara Lipow; Stimson Lumber Co, Roger Van Dyke; TimberWest, Andres Enrich; University
of Washington, Greg Ettl, Jed Bryce, Kevin Ceder, Jeff Comnick, Megan O’Shea, Eric Turnblom, Randy
Collier, Betsy Vance, Erika Knight; USFS PNW RS, Connie Harrington, Eini Lowell; Washington DNR, Scott
McLeod; West Fork Timber CO, Gene McCaul, Kati Rahkonen; Weyerhaeuser Company, Greg Johnson,
Dave Marshall;
The meeting was held at the Little Creek Casino Resort began at 9:00 with the agenda in Appendix A.
There were 49 attendees from 25 organizations. Policy Committee Chair Dave Rumker opened the
meeting and welcomed the attendees. He stressed the need to balance budgetary issues with the very
successful long-term program of the SMC. Greg Ettl thanked Dave for extending his term to 3-years in
order to assist with the search and transitioning to a new SMC Director. Megan O’Shea presented Dave
with a traditional SMC engraved cedar box. Dean Stuck was welcomed as the new Policy Chair, Candace
Cahill as the Vice Chair. The new Vice Chair election will be in the fall of 2013.
Greg Ettl outlined the meeting goals:
•
•
•
•
Approve Bylaw changes
Review operations and budget, vote on 2013 dues
Review PAC, Measurement Review Committee (RMC) and Installation Review Committee (IRC)
meetings and outline follow up actions
Break into TAC groups to identify and vote on research priorities; task appropriate TACs with
refining the 2 highest ranked proposals. The results of the TACs findings will be summarized and
distributed to the full Policy Committee for feedback. A portion of the spring meeting in April
(Date TBA) will be devoted to the strategic plan.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Greg Ettl reviewed accomplishments to date. A few highlights
•
3 Policy Advisory Committee Meetings
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 1 Measurement Review Committee Meeting
• 1 Installation Review Committee Meeting
• A number of one-on-one meetings with members
Degrees completed: 2 PhD, 3 MS
Current students: 3 PhD, 3 MS
Completed measurements
• Type I: 7 complete measurements, 4 RD check;
• Type II: 2 full measurements;
• Type III: 9 full measurement, 2 partial measurement, 2 thin;
• Type IV: 3 full measurements
• Type V: 38 full measurements & weather data, 11 foliage
The database update with 11/12 field data was delivered to members in June
15
N fertilization project –CAFS funded
Wood quality of Type IV—CAFS funded ($40,000)
Long-term site productivity -NCASI funded ($40,000)
Began redefining research agenda and how we accomplish SMC business
BYLAW CHANGES
The Policy Advisory Committee met on February 15, 2012 to review the September 2008 Strategic Plan
and identify and recommend changes. The proposed change in the Mission Statement takes into account
the broader goal for the SMC to move forward towards region-wide verification of basic research results
and new process models. The other 3 proposed bylaw changes make clear that only Land Managing
Organizations have voting rights, membership for non-Land Managing Organizations must be requested
on a yearly basis, and only Land Managing Organizations will take delivery of the SMC Database, Research
Tools and Services.
1.
ARTICLE II Mission Statement
•
•
2.
Current: The Mission of the SMC is “To provide a continuing source of high-quality data and
information on the longterm effects of silvicultural treatments and treatment regimes on stand
and tree growth and development and on wood and product quality”.
Proposed change: The Mission of the SMC is “To provide a continuing source of high-quality data,
analysis, and outputs on the long-term effects of silvicultural treatments and treatment regimes
on stand and tree growth and development, and on wood and product quality.
ARTICLE VI: Fees & Continuing Membership
Dues and fees are established by the Policy Committee
•
•
Current: Analytic, Institutional, and Supplier Organizations
Annual dues are not assessed. Continuing membership is maintained through an annual vote by
the Policy Committee based on active participation and contribution to the SMC mission.
Proposed change: Analytic Organizations and Suppliers must submit a yearly request form to
maintain active membership in the SMC. The Policy Committee will vote on membership based on
active participation and contribution to the SMC mission.
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
3.
ARTICLE VII: Voting and Representation
•
•
4.
Current: Organizations under ARTICLE V, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, are voting members of the SMC
Policy Committee.
Proposed: Voting members of the SMC Policy Committee are only organizations under ARTICLE V,
paragraph 1.
ARTICLE VIII: Receipt of SMC Database, Research Tools and Services
•
•
Current:
1. Each Land Managing Organization member receives
a.
an annual updated version of the complete SMC database.
b.
copies of the SMC Annual Report and Quarterly Newsletter.
c.
one free printed copy of research papers and technical reports with a discount for
additional printed copies (electronic copies are free from the SMC website).
d.
unlimited access to SMC staff for questions and technical support “as available” in
consideration of their institutional obligations.
2. Each Analytical Organization member receives
a.
an annual updated version of the complete SMC database.
b.
copies of the SMC Annual Report and Quarterly Newsletter.
c.
one free printed copy of research papers and technical reports with a discount for
additional printed copies (electronic copies are free from the SMC website).
d.
unlimited access to SMC staff for questions and technical support “as available” in
consideration of their institutional obligations.
3. Each Institutional and Supplier Organization member receives
a.
copies of the SMC Annual Report and Quarterly Newsletter.
b.
one free printed copy of research papers and technical reports with a discount for
additional printed copies (electronic copies are free from the SMC website).
Proposed:
1. Each Land Managing Organization member receives
a.
an annual updated version of the complete SMC database
b.
electronic copies of the SMC Annual Report and Quarterly Newsletter
c.
electronic copies of research papers and technical reports
d.
unlimited access to SMC staff for questions and technical support “as available” in
consideration of their institutional obligations.
2. Each Analytical Organization member receives
a.
electronic copies of the SMC Quarterly Newsletter
3. Each Institutional and Supplier Organization member receives
a.
electronic copies of the SMC Annual Report and Quarterly Newsletter
b.
electronic copies of research papers and technical reports
ByLaw changes passed with 20 Land Managing Organizations voting.
Request form for Analytic Organizations and Suppliers to apply for, or maintain active membership in the
SMC is posted on the SMC Members web page:
http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.smc/pages/members.html
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
SMC RESOURCES
BUDGET
The 2012 budget with a breakdown of expenses was reviewed, total funds available for 2012 was
$619,309, this includes a 2011 ending balance forward, ($10,721) Member dues, ($591,730), individual
contracts with King County and Pacific Denkman, ($12,500), and in-kind credits ($600). Almost all
members are back to full dues, DNR is at 50%, and the only cooperator who has not paid their 2012 dues
($8,442) is Renewable Resources LLC. which is based out of Boston, MA. Harry Bell with Green Crow will
forward their most current contact information so Megan can contact them. Other institutional and
members provided the equivalent of about $55,000 in the form of salaries of scientists, facilities, student
teaching assistants, administrative support. External grants and research assistant funding from the
University of Washington totaled $263,000.
The projected balance at the end of 2012 is $65,181; this exceeds the end of the year target of $20,000
established at the fall 2012 meeting. This surplus is a result of not hiring a 2012 summer crew to take
vegetation measurements and by supporting the students on the Corkery and on Rob’s and Eric’s research
grants as RA’s. It should be noted that since we couldn’t come to a consensus on research priorities at the
spring meeting Greg felt it prudent to wait and allocate the extra funds when the members were in
agreement. Project revenue from dues for 2013 is $577,730; this updated amount includes a $7,000
decrease in dues for WEYCO as a result of a shift in acreage and a $7,000 decrease for the BLM, whose
dues are based on the dues cap of the largest member. Projected expenses are $554,128; the projected
ending balance would be $48,783 if we add a veg crew, $88,783 without a crew. Members felt there
should be more discussion regarding the need for a veg crew at the spring meeting. Candace Cahill
suggested Sierra Pacific as a potential new member; Greg will follow up and get back to members at the
Spring meeting.
It was moved and seconded that the dues will not be raised 2013. The motion was approved by a vote of
18 in favor and 1 opposed.
Dave Rumker commented while he is in support of not raising the dues, the members will have to at some
point commit to raising them in order to further the SMC’s research, otherwise it’ll be like a noose around
our necks.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Review Measurements Approach (RMA)
Conference call July 3, 2012
As a proactive measure for when Bob Gonyea and Bert Hasselberg retire, a committee with Connie
Harrington, USFS PNWRS as Chair formed to review methods for future data collection and quality
assurance. Other attending members included Sean Garber and Scott Holmen, Olympic Resource
Management, Louise de Montigny, BC Ministry of Forest, and Megan O’Shea, SMC. The committee’s task
was to provide some options to get SMC members to brainstorm and suggest ideas on how we should be
organized moving forward. The challenge is to continue to collect high quality, long-term data while also
increasing the emphasis on analysis. It’s worth mentioning the SMC Field crew covers a member land base
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
exceeding 6 million acres in the US alone, and does occasionally help with activities in BC, another 13+
million acres. Distance traveled to obtain all measurements may reach 50,000 miles in a single year.
The committee laid out 5 methods to accomplish SMC measurements after Bert and Bob retire, that is, in
the future how do we replace the data acquisition/maintenance needs, still get high quality of data and
also retain the flexibility to complete more analyses of the data
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hire 2 replacements for Bert and Bob
Contract out all remeasurements and other desired field work
Mix of in-house at UW and contracting
Work with other regional coops
Members do measurements on their land
All 5 methods will require someone to oversee the process and in some cases, not only a
manager/coordinator but also someone to provide the data and check the measurements (particularly if
contractors or non-SMC crews are used). We discussed that this topic might be broadened to think of the
roles of other SMC employees also. Thus, current SMC employees could take on some needed roles so
that even if one or more new SMC employees are hired, they may be tasked with a different mix of tasks
than Bob and Bert have had.
Since the future measurement load will have an impact on any decision in regards to replacing Bob and
Bert it doesn’t make too much sense to come up with a definite plan until the Installation Review
Committee has finalized theirs. The next step for the RMA will be to generate a cost structure for the 5
methods, which could prove quiet difficult since members are reticent to share this information.
Installation Review Committee (IRC) Meeting
Vancouver WA July 26, 2012
The IRC tasks were to review all installations, rank the installation measurement priorities and develop a
tactical plan for sun-setting or decreasing the frequency of measurements on priority installations. Eric
Turnblom, SMC, served as Chair, other attending members included Greg Ettl, SMC, Bob Gonyea, SMC,
Bruce Ripley, Hancock Forest Management, Jim Vander Ploeg, Hancock Forest Management, Dave Hamlin,
Campbell Group, Dave Marshall, Weyerhaeuser Co., George McFadden, BLM, Randall Greggs, Green
Diamond, Eini Lowell, USFS, and Sean Garber, Olympic Resource Management.
The committee came up with 6 main points for discussion
1. Where is SMC money best spent? Can we drop measurements of any particular installation or can
we increase the time between measurements?
2. Can we do a power analysis to see if we have enough plots and/or measurements to answer the
questions we set out to answer?
3. The question was raised whether we should be taking additional data; not necessarily interested
in collecting data just because we are there—data should be tied to member objectives. This
refers to some of the measurements our research team has been collecting while visiting the
installations.
4. Does the idea of sun-setting plots allow opportunities to collect more wood quality data?
5. We have invested so much money in the installations, we should just keep measuring.
6. Hoping the meeting will help us make sure we aren’t losing track of any long-term measurements.
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
Eric went over the measurement efforts highlighting
1.
2.
3.
4.
Time spent measuring the various installations
Relevance of each installation
New Additional Installation Opportunities
Have we looked at the variation in the plots to know if we need either more or fewer plots going
forward?
Discussion of the Installations
1. Type I:
•
2. Type III
Established to get a jump on the Type III, does that assumption hold, do they still have
value? Relative height, etc. do they overlap—are they tracking together. Should we grab
some wood quality data, keep some plots across public and private lands, hemlock verses
Douglas-fir
We should consider using ORGANON and running it against the database, and then run
back the results against the residuals, by treatment, broad geographies, etc. See where
the model is working well or not? Is there an opportunity for another wood quality study?
Could we run a multivariate analysis of the data for the installations to see where any gaps in the
data exist(perhaps gaps in growth information)? (Nick Smith approach?)
Could we produce a value index for the installations, knowing what we know now? We might
assign priorities to the information we can (have) gotten from different installations [Dick Miller
value index of plots.]
We need to make a list of owner and location of plots as a GIS layer available to the members.
We should have a summary of the Density Management Thinning by now as we have a lot of
information on this.
We need a more complete discussion of possible redeployment of work force if we change our
measurement efforts. What happens if we move to 6 y measurement cycle? What is the risk of
doing this? What capacity do we gain and how would we use that capacity?
•
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The general consensus at the meeting was that Eric needs to work on a summary of all installation types,
summarized sequentially by number, sorting by species or species mixture as applicable within each
installation type, Douglas-fir first. The Spring Meeting is the target date for the analysis to be completed
by and presented.
RESEARCH
We currently put the vast majority of our resources into measuring plots and maintaining the SMC
database, leaving little membership dues left over to pay for research analyses. The research efforts are
led primarily by the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs): Wood Quality: Eini Lowell; Modeling: Dave
Marshall; Nutrition: Rob Harrison; and Silviculture: Eric Turnblom. The silviculture and nutrition TAC
leaders receive the equivalent of 2 months of salary support each for research efforts. The wood quality
and modeling TAC have been without steady funding for a number of years. One approach is to
reorganize the database management. Make the primary responsibility of the database staff data
analyses. Train student workers to enter data and then database manager will transfer it to database and
compile the information.
Over-arching Research Needs
1. Determine utility of installations and data collection efforts
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
2.
3.
4.
5.
Summarize growth and yield responses from SMC data
Use data to compare to and refine growth model outputs
Identify potential new installation needs
Channel funding to much needed analyses
Members broke out into TACs for an hour to discuss and identify research needs and priorities for SMC
over the next 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. Each TAC took 10 minutes to present their top 2 research projects to
the members for vote, the 8 ideas were then narrowed down to the 2 highest ranked ideas.
Wood Quality
1. Additional measurements on existing installations (e.g. stem form, ramicorn, branches) 2 Votes
2. Disc cut from logs when sun setting installations collect wood quality data 2 Votes
Nutrition
3. Extensions and expansion of the paired-tree project 7 Votes
4. Analysis of RFNRP and SMC installations fertilization data 2 Votes
Silviculture
5. Short Term: 9 Votes
• PCT analysis to illuminate what stands yield response to a different intensity of thinning by
site description and final stand goals, including how well Type I’s and III’s are tracking and
how dimensions of trees are impacted
6. Long Term: 3 Votes
• Revisit and re-evaluate design and need for additional genetic gain and spacing trials, or
more generally a new installation type that may include species mixture
Modeling
7. Analysis of SMC database 12 Votes
– Comparison of Type I and type III installations
– Comparison of models with database
• Evaluate current data
• Identify current database strengths and weaknesses
– Future data needs and resource allocations
• Consider sources of variation (e.g. weather)
• Future modeling efforts and data needs
• Next generation model directions
8. Productivity 3 Votes
– limits of site index (top height and carrying capacity) for growth potential
– Verification of methods (Type III)
• Flewelling site index (density adjusted)
• Arney 10m method
– Soil-site (weather) relationships (Type III)
Modeling number 7, Analysis of SMC database received the highest vote, number 5, Silviculture‘s short
term project ranked second. Both projects were then sent back to the Modeling and Silviculture TAC for
refinement. The results of the TACs findings will be summarized and distributed to the full Policy
Committee for feedback. A portion of the spring meeting in April (Date TBA) will be devoted to the
strategic plan.
Draft Minutes 2012 SMC Fall Meeting
TECHNICAL SESSION
The following five technical presentations can be downloaded from the SMC website
(http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.smc/pages/events.html)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Update on the Type I installations field sampling, Doug Maguire
Report on Paired Fertilization Study, Kim Littke
Type I Summary, Eric Turnblom
Type III Summary, Kevin Ceder
Final Report Effects of Planting Density on Branch Size, Jed Bryce
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS
1.
2.
Schedule the spring 2013 meeting approximately mid-April
Each of the TAC’s will be scheduling a meeting later this fall. Three key items to discuss will be
a. Evaluate and refine the 2 highest ranked research ideas selected by members at the fall
meeting, define question, tasks, identify likely partners and contributions, funding needs
b. Should we continue vegetation sampling
c. Eric’s IRC summary and the RMA costs analysis
d. Summary of the Density Management Thinning-is there one????
e. Other??????
3.
The Strategic Planning Committee will hold meetings to
a. Evaluate TACs summaries of the top 2 highest ranked research ideas
b. Review Eric Turblom’s IRC summary and RMA’s costs analysis
c. Discuss the number and frequency of SMC Annual Meetings and newsletters, is there a
better way to stay informed
d. Recommend research priorities for discussion in preparation for the CAFS meeting in April
9-13, 2013, normally we discuss RFP at the spring meeting, but because the CAFS meeting
is so early this year we will need member feedback prior to the SMC spring meeting
e. Evaluate and recommend on suggestions concerning restitution for unpaid dues and
potential new members
f. Begin discussions concerning closer coordination between CIPS, PFC, and SMC
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 with a dinner that evening at Xinh’s restaurant.
The following day 28 members attended a field trip to the Genetic Gain and Spacing Installations, see
Appendix B for handouts.
Appendix A
STAND MANAGEMENT COOPERATIVE FALL MEETING
Little Creek Casino Hotel Kamilche, WA September 18-19, 2012
18 Sept
8:30
9:00
9:10
9:20
9:30
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
12:00
1:10
1:30
1:50
2:10
2:30
2:45
3:05
3:25
4:30
4:45
6:00
19 Sept
8:00
10:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
1:00
2:30
4:00
AGENDA
BUSINESS MEETING
Registration, Coffee & Rolls
Welcome & Introductions, Dave Rumker, Policy Committee Chair
Accomplishments Overview, Greg Ettl
Review Changes to By Laws/Vote, Greg Ettl
PAC Summary Report and Budget Overview, Dues Vote, Greg Ettl
Measurement Review Committee, Connie Harrington
Installation Review Committee, Bob Gonyea
Coffee Break
Research Goals, Greg Ettl
TAC Groups break-out to discuss research priorities
Working Lunch with TACs discussing research
Update on the Type I installations field sampling, Doug Maguire
Report on Paired Fertilization Study, Kim Littke
Type I Summary, Eric Turnblom
Type III Summary, Kevin Ceder
Coffee Break
Final Report Effects of Planting Density on Branch Size, Jed Bryce
Sun Scald Report, Eric Turnblom
TAC Reports Refined Research Priorities-10 minutes each, TAC Leaders
Voting on Research Priorities, Greg Ettl
Adjourn
Dinner at Xinh’s Clam and Oyster House, Shelton, WA
FIELD TRIP
Depart from Little Creek Casino for the Donkey Creek Genetic Gain/Type IV
Installation
Arrive at Donkey Creek
Leave Donkey Creek
Arrive Brittain Creek
Lunch
Tour Inst. 919, Brittain Creek
Leave Brittain Creek
Arrive back at Casino
For Registration and other information contact Megan O’Shea 206-543-9744 moshea@u.washington.edu)
Directions to meeting: Little Creek Casino Resort 91 W State Route 108, Shelton WA.
Appendix B
SMC 2012 Annual Fall Meeting
Field Trip - Genetic Gain and Spacing Trial Installations
Depart Casino 8:00 AM
•
•
•
•
•
Heading east on Highway 108 to highway 8
Highway 8 West to hwy 101 (in Aberdeen)
Hwy 101 North to Promised Land Park (approx. 30 miles)
Go East on Donkey Creek RD, (USFS RD #22)
East on #22 about 8 miles to Rayonier gate, one mile to installation and Stop #1. (Approximately
2 hrs.)
STOP 1: Installation 601, “Donkey Creek”. Installation 601 in a Type IV SMC/NWTIC Genetic Gains Trial.
A short walk will take us through Plots 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Plot 1 is a 10X10 “High Genetic Gain” , Complete Veg. control, plot
• Plot 2 is a 15X15, Unimproved stock, complete veg control
• Plot 3 is a 10X10, unimproved Genetic Gain, Complete Veg Control plot
• Plot 4 is a 7X7, High Genetic Gain, “Standard Practice Veg Control”
• Stop will be approx. 1 ½ hrs.
Drive back to Hwy 101, South to East Humptulips Rd. East to Brittain Creek rd. and Inst. 919, 920, and
921, (Approx. ½ hr.)
LUNCH
STOP 2: Inst. 919, Brittain Creek DF. Inst. 919 is a SMC Type III “Spacing Trial” (with Type IIIpa, auxiliary
plots).
•
•
•
•
•
•
A trail there leads us through
Plots 1 (100TPA)
Plot 7 (100TPA pruned)
Plot 12 (1210TPA thinned to 440 then 200 TPA)
Plot 6 (1210 TPA)
Plot 3 (300TPA)
Plot 9 (300TPA, Pruned with “followers”).
If time or interest allows we can stop at Inst. 921, (Western Hemlock/Douglas fir mixed) or Inst. 920,
(Western Hemlock)
Return to Casino approx. 4:30 PM
8:00
10:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
1:00
2:30
4:30
Leave Casino
Arrive Inst. 601, Donkey Creek
Leave Donkey Creek
Arrive Brittain Creek
Lunch
Tour Inst. 919, Brittain Creek
Leave Brittain Creek
Arrive back at Casino
Grays Harbor Genetic Gain / Type IV Spacing Trials: Site 601 –
Donkey Creek 2
EC Turnblom (SMC)
KJS Jayawickrama, T Ye (NWTIC)
JB St. Clair (USFS)
Introduction
Silviculturists, forest managers, financial planners, and others who fund tree improvement and use
its results desire data and information on realized genetic gain and how genetically improved
materials respond to different silvicultural treatments (e.g., stand density, weed control, etc.). The
majority of existing realized gain trials are single-tree-plot progeny tests, which do not serve the
purpose of understanding how stand dynamics are affected by genetically improved material very
well. The effects of these stand treatments on deployed genetically improved material can only be
evaluated in large, block-plot trials.
This Genetic Gain / Type IV (GGTIV) trial was the first large block-plot testing effort in the public
domain for Douglas-fir in the Washington coastal area (see Fig. 1) and was established through the
collaboration of the SMC, NWTIC and the US Forest Service PNW Research Station. It is a unique
multifactor experiment for simultaneously testing effects of genetics, planting spacing, and
vegetation control both singly and in combination with each other. Findings at age 7 years from all
sites in the trials are reported; similarities or differences that occur at Donkey Creek 2 from the
overall trends are noted where applicable.
Figure 1. Location of Genetic Gain / Type IV (GGTIV) sites within
the Grays Harbor Breeding Zone (bold outline surrounding the sites).
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
1
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Objectives
The primary objectives for this study are:
(1) To understand the long-term effects on productivity, quality, and diversity of Douglas-fir trees
and stands when the latest advances in genetics, seedling culture, and early vegetation
management are deployed in combination;
(2) To demonstrate volume gains on an area basis;
(3) To provide data to modify / update growth models for effects caused by genetic selection,
intensive weed control and different spacing;
(4) To compare the growth of genetically selected trees to unselected woods-run trees; and
(5) To compare the predicted genetic gains derived from progeny tests with realized gains in
independent block plot trials.
Experimental Design & Treatments
The trials include six sites, with three sites established in 2005 and three more in 2006 (Fig. 1); oneyear old containerized seedlings grown at Sylvan Vale nursery in British Columbia were used for all
sites. Three factors are examined in this study, as described in Table 1.
Table 1. Description of experimentally manipulated factors in the Grays Harbor GGTIV trials.
Factor
Factor Levels
Genetic Gain (G)
1. Unimproved (woods run) stock; random sample of 50 wild trees
distributed throughout the Grays Harbor breeding zone
2. Intermediate; mix of pair crosses among 20 parent trees chosen to
represent an intermediate level of genetic gain. This seedlot is only
tested in the genetic gain trial portion (i.e., at 10’ spacing with
standard vegetation control).
3. Elite; mix of crosses among clones of the 20 best parent trees in
each breeding unit designed to represent a high level of genetic
gain
Spacing (S)
1. 15 × 15’ (200 Seedlings Per Acre, i.e., SPA, Low density)
2. 10 × 10’ (440 SPA, Intermediate density)
3. 7 × 7’ (889 SPA, High density)
Vegetation Control (V)
1. Standard; operational – single application as site prep
2. Complete; 80% or better bare ground for five years
Table 2 contains a general description of the Treatment Regimes used in the overall GGTIV trials.
There are 22 plots contained within every single study site, and each plot was randomly assigned
one of the general treatment combinations in Table 2A. Nineteen of the 22 plots are common to all
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
2
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
sites and have received complete weed control to maintain at least 80% bare ground until crown
closure. These 19 plots at each site form a response surface design with greatest replication of all
gain levels at 10’ spacing. The remaining three plots received standard weed control (i.e., one
complete weed kill during site preparation and no weed control thereafter). These plots form a
randomized incomplete block design. Fig. 2 shows a schematic of how a general GGTIV site might
be laid out.
Table 2. Nomenclature of the Grays Harbor GGTIV treatment regimes.
Initial Density (SPA)
Treatment Regime
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Woods run stock, complete weed control
Elite gain stock, complete weed control
Woods run stock, complete weed control (5 plots)
Intermediate gain stock, complete weed control (5 plots)
Elite gain stock, complete weed control (5 plots)
Woods run stock, complete weed control
Elite gain stock, complete weed control
Either elite gain or woods run stock, single herbicide
application, no single site contains all combinations (3 plots)
200
200
440
440
440
900
900
200,440,900
Figure 2. General schematic of plot arrangement at a GGTIV site. Each gain level is
represented by ten (10) trees each of ten (10) families. (G1, G2, G3 – unimproved,
intermediate and elite seedlot, respectively; V1, V2 – standard and complete weed control,
respectively; S1, S2, S3 – 15x15’, 10x10’, and 7x7’, respectively).
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
3
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Displayed in Figure 3 is how site 601 is actually laid out, given the spatial boundaries of the unit
and any topographical constraints that may have existed. Also displayed are the actual treatment
regimes deployed at this particular site, by plot number.
Figure 3. Actual 22-plot layout at Donkey Creek 2 (site 601) as installed with key to treatment regimes in
box at right hand side of map.
Findings
Site productivity and among-site variation
There is strong evidence that differences exist among all the test sites for all the traits measured at
2
age 7 years. Estimated site productivity, based on volume index (DBH x H) at age 7, established
the following ranking: Donkey Creek 2 (601) > Boxcar (604) > Crane Creek 2 (603) > Left Court
(605) / Donaldson Creek (602) > Wynoochee (606).
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
4
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Survival Response
Survival rate varied among sites, ranging from 72% to 90%. Higher-productivity sites appeared to
have higher survival rate. Some evidence was observed (p = 0.05) that survival was better on the
plots receiving complete vegetation control, but no significant effect of spacing on survival was
observed. Survival at Donkey Creek 2 in particular tops 90%.
DBH Response
Figure 4 shows how DBH responded to genetic gain level (p = 0.001) and the spacing factor (p =
0.05). While there was no significant difference between intermediate (mid-) and elite gain levels,
they outperformed woods-run by 12.5% and almost 12.2%, respectively. Trees were about 4%
thicker in the 7 x 7’ and 10 x 10’ spacings than in in the 15 x 15’ spacing. Note that although DBH
in the narrowest spacing is beginning to fall behind the 10 x 10’ at age 7 (unlike at age 5), the
pattern with respect to spacing is still somewhat consistent with the so-called “crossover” effect,
observed in other density trials with Douglas-fir, cross all sites, DBH in complete weed control
stands edged past the stands receiving a single application of herbicides (p = 0.05).
At Donkey Creek 2 in particular, elite and intermediate gain levels are about 0.1 in. larger in DBH
at age 7 than the unimproved. Even though DBH was on average larger in the widest spacing than
in the narrower ones and larger with complete weed control (0.1 in.) it was not significantly so in
either case. The table in the appendix lists mean DBHs and standard deviations for all plots at
Donkey Creek 2, as well as other tree attributes for two populations: all live trees, which may
include trees that are shorter than 4.5 foot, and “large” trees.
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
5
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
2
1.8
DBH (in.)
1.6
1.4
1.2
unimproved
1
intermed.
0.8
elite
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
7x
10x
Square Spacing (ft.)
15x
Figure 4. Mean DBH (inches) at age 7 years averaged across all sites as affected by genetic gain
level and spacing. Error bars indicate +/- 1 standard error of the mean.
Height Response
Figure 5 exhibits how height responded to genetic gain level (p < 0.001) and planting spacing (p =
0.072). As with DBH, the intermediate gain could not be statistically distinguished from the elite
gain level, but each outperformed the unimproved stock level by about 10% and 10.7%,
respectively, slightly smaller responses than for DBH on a relative basis. Trees planted at the
narrower spacings were on average taller than at the widest spacing by about 5%. Note again that
as with DBH, the pattern in height with respect to spacing is still consistent overall with the socalled “crossover” effect, though certainly not as pronounced as it was at age 5 years. As with
DBH, the overall response to weed control was not significant, even though complete weed control
did edge past single herbicide application on average by about 0.3 ft.
At Donkey Creek 2 in particular, genetic gain level was the only factor significantly affecting height
at age 7; unimproved trees are about a foot shorter than the improved stock types. The table in the
appendix lists mean heights and standard deviations for all plots at Donkey Creek 2, as well as other
tree attributes. The table in the appendix lists mean heights and standard deviations for all plots at
Donkey Creek 2, as well as other tree attributes for two populations: all live trees, which may
include trees that are shorter than 4.5 ft, and “large” trees.
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
6
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
16
14
Height (ft)
12
10
unimproved
8
intermed.
6
elite
4
2
0
7x
10x
Square Spacing (ft)
15x
Figure 5. Mean Height (ft) at age 7 years averaged across all sites as affected by genetic gain level
and spacing. Error bars indicate +/- 1 standard error of the mean.
Volume Index Response
For volume index, realized gains were 27.6% for the intermediate stock and 29.5% for the elite
stock (p < 0.001). As with DBH and height, no significant difference was found between
intermediate and elite. Paralleling the DBH response, there was a significant effect of spacing on
volume index (p = 0.057) with greater individual tree volumes associated with closer spacings.
Vegetation control did not seem to impact volume index.
At the Donkey Creek 2 site in particular, volume index for the intermediate stock edged past the
elite, both averaging about 16% greater than the unimproved stock. Spacing effects were not
observed to be significant at age 7 at the Donkey Creek 2 site.
Forking, Ramicorn branching, Sinuosity Responses
Overall, forking was not affected by any of gain level, spacing, or vegetation control intensity.
Ramicorn branching incidences, though, occurred less often in the improved seedlots (p = 0.001);
on average about 1% less than in the unimproved seedlot. Neither spacing nor vegetation control
seemed to impact ramicorns. Sinuosity was slightly elevated in the elite seedlot, but occurred
slightly less often in the intermediate when compared with the unimproved seedlot.
The Donkey Creek 2 site follows these trends in general, though here, it was found that sinuosity
also decreases slightly as spacing gets tighter.
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
7
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Next Steps
Present plans are to continue measuring these sites, switching them to a four-year cycle (from two)
after age 9 years, as the trees will by then be approaching similar sizes to the Type III’s when their
measurement cycle was set back to four years. This will continue for the foreseeable future, again,
if the Type III’s are any indication and barring any major changes in forest practices with respect to
rotation ages, this will mean measuring them for up to the next 20 to 30 years.
Given the limited number of sites and the fact that not all treatment combinations exist on any given
site, and most are not replicated within site, overlaying any other treatments, such as thinning or
fertilization, seems inadvisable at this stage.
Over the next two years, wood quality will be assessed in these plantations (at age 9 years from
seed) using non-destructive methods including the SMC branch measurement protocol for knot
index, the TreeSonic for acoustic velocity for a stiffness index, and the Resistograph for density /
specific gravity. A member voted NSF/CAFS funding allocation will help pay for this assessment
effort.
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
8
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
APPENDIX.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to DG Briggs, who helped shepherd this project along, contributing to both its design and
implementation; to Bob Gonyea and Bert Hasselberg for their extremely valuable measurements
and plot maintenance (especially fences in this case); to RL Collier who assisted with developing
tables for this report; and to GJ Ettl and RL Collier for their assistance in reviewing and editing.
GGTIV site 601 – Donkey Creek 2
9
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Brittain Creek #1 Site – Part of the SMC Type III Network
Eric Turnblom, Randol Collier, and Kevin Ceder
Introduction
Establishment of the Stand Management Cooperative’s Type III installations beginning in the late
1980s / early 1990s provides a regional network of plots, from southern Oregon to northern
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada, and the Cascade foothills to the Pacific Coast (Figure A1,
Appendix). All of the installations, including Brittain Creek #1, examine the effects of planting
density on stand dynamics, tree and stand growth and yield, and tree and wood quality. With a
larger than typical spatial range and measurements stream over the life of the stands, data from
these installations provide information about the effects of initial planting density and the longevity
thereof. Brittain Creek #1 is a pure Douglas-fir plantation, situated next to a pure western hemlock
plantation and a 50-50 mixed fir-hemlock plantation.
One surprising effect of initial planting density for Douglas-fir, is that between five or six and to
eight or nine years after planting, trees at higher planting densities (1,200 trees per acre, i.e., TPA)
had higher early growth rates resulting in larger trees than their counterparts in lower density plots
(750, 550, 360, 240, 120 TPA). This effect runs somewhat counter to existing theory that suggests
smaller trees result from higher planting densities. If these increases in tree size stay persistent in
the stand to rotation, this would result in more, larger trees with increases in yield at harvest, though
there is some evidence that this effect begins diminish by age 12. Broad examinations of Type III
data suggest this effect is region-wide, though differences in heights and diameters narrowed
through time with the expectation that lower density stands will catch up with and surpass trees in
higher density stands. An analysis of yield across all Type III installations has been completed and
will be reported under separate cover in the (SMC)2. Report, a.k.a. the “Performance Report.”
Here, the focus is mainly on local outcomes.
Stand density also impacts tree, log, and subsequent wood quality. Stem, or standing tree quality is
also routinely assessed in the Type III installations every time they are measured, as well as all the
other the SMC installation Types. Diameter of the Largest Limb at Breast Height as been found to
be quite a useful index of stem quality, and the first analysis of these measurements has just been
completed. Certainly, if results existed from only a single location and if data were available from
only very young plantations, future planting effects would be only speculation.
Objectives
The objectives of SMC Silviculture Project Type III installations (21 are Douglas-fir, five are
western hemlock, three are 50-50, fir-hemlock mixtures) are:
(1) to provide plantations suitable for future installation of silvicultural research studies, with a
wide range of initial spacings;
(2) to provide areas for future destructive testing of wood grown under a wide range (100 to 1210)
of initial spacings;
(3) to provide an opportunity to assess results of the best currently available stand establishment
practices, over a wide range of densities;
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
1
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
(4) to provide relatively large areas for visual demonstration of effects of six spacings; and
(5) secondarily,
(i) to determine the effects of very early and frequent density control on general stand
dynamics, tree and stand growth and yield, and subsequent wood quality and product value
(three densest plots, i.e., 440, 680, and 1210 target densities); and
(ii) to determine the effects of early and frequent pruning in very young stands on subsequent
tree and stand growth and yield, wood quality, and product value (three least dense plots,
i.e., 100, 200, and 300 target densities).
Experimental Design & Treatments
The Douglas-fir portion of the Type III trials consists of 21 active sites in which the six basic
planting densities are arranged in a randomized complete block statistical design. Planting stock
types vary somewhat from site to site, including 1-1, 2-0, and 2-1, as well as varying site
preparation techniques. Varying stock types and site prep techniques were permitted in order to
maximize landowner participation and minimize installation establishment difficulty and other
logistical constraints. Each site contains a single replicate of the six basic spacings. Auxiliary
treatment (pruning and thinning) plots were installed at many of the Type III Douglas-fir sites
following a randomized incomplete statistical block design. Displayed in Table 1 are the general
descriptions of the treatment regimes used across all Douglas-fir Type III installations.
Table 1. Type III Douglas-fir treatment regimes. (Note: The “Basic 6 Spacing” regimes are numbered 1
through 6, corresponding to densities of 100, 200, 300, 440, 680, and 1210 TPA, with no thinning planned.)
Supplemental thinning treatments are triggered by an attained average Relative Spacing (RS), which is the
ratio of spacing (assumed to be square) to dominant height. Supplemental pruning treatments are triggered
by an attained average dominant height.
Initial Density (TPA)
Treatment Regime
1 – 6. 100 – 1210
7. 440,680,1210
No thinning.
Early, Light Thinning:- when RS=0.27, thin to next wider
spacing in Type III series, until 200 TPA is reached (EL)
Early, Heavy Thinning:- when RS=0.27, thin to 2nd wider
spacing in Type III series, until 200 TPA is reached (EH)
Late, Light Thinning:- when RS=0.17, thin to next wider
spacing in Type III series, until 200 TPA is reached (LL)
Late, Heavy Thinning:- when RS=0.17, thin to 2nd wider
spacing in Type III series, until 200 TPA is reached (LH)
Thin Late Once, when RS=0.12, thin to 200 TPA (LO)
Prune all trees up to 22’ in two ~10’ fixed height lifts, when
stand reaches ~20’ and ~30’ (P)
Prune all trees up to 22’ in two 2.5” fixed top caliper lifts,
when stand reaches ~20’ and ~30’ (P)
Prune 100 or 200 trees up to 22’ in two ~10’ fixed height lifts,
when stand reaches ~20’ and ~30’, leaving followers (P)
8. 440,680,1210
9. 440,680,1210
10. 440,680,1210
11. 680
12. 100,200,300
13. 100,200,300
14. 200,300
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
2
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
The Brittain Creek (919) Site
This Brittain Creek (919) site is approximately 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, with an
altitude of 360 feet. There is minimal slope so there is no real aspect. The site index as estimated
from the soil information is 125 ft at 50 yr b.h. age (King). The trees were 1-1 stock planted in
1990 giving the fir trees on site a birth year of 1988. The initial plots were established in 1993 (age
5 years), while the plots with additional treatments were established in 1997 (pruning and thinning)
and in 1999 (thinning). All trees had attained “tree size” (> 10 ft. in height) at the next
measurement in 1995 (age 7). The latest measurements were taken in 2011 at age 23 years. The
physical arrangement of plots at this site are displayed in Figure 1 below, which contains in the
lower left sidebar a description of the exact treatments occurring at this particular site. Sufficient
within stand uniformity allowed the installation of nine (9) auxiliary treatment plots; three pruning
plots and six thinning plots.
Figure 1. Actual plot layout at Brittain Creek #1 (site 919) as installed with key to treatment regimes in box
at lower left side of map.
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
3
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Findings
Survival Responses
Aside from slightly higher initial mortality in the least dense (100 TPA) plots at all Type III sites,
mortality has been fairly consistent between spacings, amounting to about 0.5% per year, regardless
of site quality or stand density.
QMD Responses
The development of QMD over time, from age 7 (1995) to 23 (2011), is displayed in Figure 1 for all
six differently spaced, untreated plots. Expected trends are observed, with the widest spacing
producing the largest QMD and narrowest spacing producing the smallest. QMD in the narrowest
spacing has been slowing for the last three measurements, while the widest is beginning to do so.
QMD of Untreated Plots at Brittain Creek #1
16
14
12
QM D (in)
21X21
10
15X15
12X12
8
10X10
8X8
6
6X6
4
2
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Growth Year
Figure 1. Evolution of QMD over time, all spacings, from age 7 (1995) to age 23
(2011). Error bars are placed on the 21 x 21’ (100 TPA), 12 x 12’ (300 TPA), and 6 x
6’ (1210 TPA) spacings representing +/- 1 standard error.
As an indication of how QMD is responding at this site to pruning, Figure 2 displays QMD in the
untreated 100 TPA stand (plot 1) compared with QMD in its pruned counterpart (plot 7). At this
installation, all trees in plot 7 were pruned to leave no more than 50% of the live crown, in no more
than three lifts, to a maximum pruned height of 22 feet.
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
4
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Figure 2. Evolution of Quadratic mean DBH in two 100 TPA stands, one without
pruning, one with pruning. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error.
It should be noted that the pruned 100 TPA stand had significantly more animal damage and top
damage than the unpruned plot which may be contributing to the reduced rate of increase in QMD.
As an indication of how QMD is responding to pruning the same number of trees (100 TPA), but in
a denser stand at this site, Figure 3 displays QMD in the untreated 300 TPA stand (plot 3) over time
compared with QMD in its pruned counterpart (plot 9). On plot 9, only 100 trees per acre (out of
300) were pruned (leaving 200 “followers” per acre) using the same fixed-lift regime as in the 100
TPA (plot 1) stand.
Figure 3. Evolution of Quadratic mean DBH in two 300 TPA stands, one without
pruning, one with pruning. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error.
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
5
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
It seems that the QMDs in these two plots are tracking much more closely than in the 100 TPA
stand, probably due in part to there being relatively more unpruned follower trees that remained as a
component in this pruned stand.
As an indication of how QMD is responding to thinning for a very dense stand at this site, a
comparison between QMD in the densest plot with and without thinning is displayed in
Figure 4. At this site, the densest (1210 TPA) plot was assigned the Early / Heavy thinning
regime (see Table 1, Treatment Regime 8 description).
Figure 4. Evolution of Quadratic mean DBH in two 6 x 6’ (1210 TPA) stands, one without
thinning, one with thinning. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error
It is quite evident that the QMD of the thinned plot is larger than the unthinned plot, partly due to
the “chainsaw” effect.
Volume Responses
The development of cubic-foot volume including top and stump over time, from age 7 (1995) to 23
2011), is displayed in Figure 5 for all six untreated plots. Expected trends are generally observed,
with the widest spacing producing the least volume and the narrowest spacing producing the most.
However, it seems that for this volume metric at this site, the 8 x 8’ foot spacing appears to be
producing the most volume with the four middle spacings producing about the same volume as each
other.
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
6
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Untreated Plot Volumes at Brittain Creek #1
Plot Volum e (Cubic feet per acre)
5000
4500
4000
3500
21X21
3000
15X15
12X12
2500
10X10
2000
8X8
1500
6X6
1000
500
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Growth Year
Figure 5. Evolution of volume over time, all spacings, from age 7 (1995) to age 23
(2011). Error bars are placed on the 21 x 21’ (100 TPA), 12 x 12’ (300 TPA), and 6 x
6’ (1210 TPA) spacings representing +/- 1 standard error.
As an indication of how pruning is affecting volume development in the least dense stand (plot 1,
100 TPA), Figure 6 shows the development of volume in the untreated stand compared with volume
in its pruned counterpart. Again, at this installation, all trees in plot 7 were pruned to leave no less
than 50% of the live crown, in no more than three lifts, to a maximum pruned height of 22 feet.
Figure 6. Evolution of Quadratic mean DBH in two 100 TPA stands, one without
pruning, one with pruning. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error.
Again, it should be noted that the pruned 100 TPA stand had more animal damage and top damage
than the unpruned plot which may contribute to the reduced rate of increase in volume, as well as
QMD.
Figure 7 displays volume over time in the untreated 300 TPA stand (plot 3) compared with volume
in its pruned counterpart (plot 9). On plot 9, only 100 trees per acre (out of 300) were pruned using
the same fixed-lift regime as in plot 7 (leaving 200 “followers” per acre).
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
7
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Figure 7. Evolution of volume in two 300 TPA stands, one without pruning, one with
pruning. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error.
The pruned plot with followers is again closely following the unpruned plot, likely due in part to the
relatively large component of unpruned trees.
As an indication of how thinning is affecting stands at this site, volume in the untreated 1210 TPA
stand (plot 6) is compared with volume in its thinned counterpart (plot 12) in Figure 8. Standing
volume in the thinned plot is quite evidently less than in the unthinned plot at all ages after
thinning, though it seems to be keeping pace in terms of a comparable growth rate.
Figure 8. Evolution of volume in two 6 x 6’ (1210 TPA) stands, one without thinning,
one with thinning. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
8
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
Tree / Stem Quality Responses
During the regular measurement season, the diameter of the largest limb at breast height is
measured on a subset of trees on each plot. At this location, the SMC branch measurement protocol
was implemented first when the stand was 11 years old.
As might be expected, at closer spacings, branches on neighboring trees abrade one another sooner
than at wider spacings due to proximity, crowns close in sooner shading out lower branches, and
consequently branches senesce, cease growth, and die sooner. Figure 9 shows the cumulative
distribution of DLLBH (Diameter of Largest Limb at Breast Height) in plot 6 (1210 TPA) at two
points in time, 11 years and 19 years.
Figure 9. Cumulative distribution of breast height branch diameters in plot 6 (1210
TPA) at ages 11 and 19 years. Red vertical line denotes the mean DLLBH.
By age 19, mean DLLBH has already peaked somewhere near 6-tenths of an inch and is decreasing
with time, as indicated by the decreasing mean over time (marked by red vertical line). This is due
to breast height branches having died and being over grown by the tree stem. At age 11, 40% of the
breast height branches are smaller than 0.6” and at age 19 a little over 60% of them are smaller than
0.6 inches.
For comparison, Figure 10 shows the cumulative distribution of DLLBH in plot 3 (300 TPA) at two
points in time, 11 years and 19 years. At age 11, about 40% of breast height branches are less than
about 0.8 inches and this proportion is about the same at age 19. The mean DLLBH is slightly
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
9
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
smaller at age 19, indicating that the canopy has recently closed and branches are being shaded out
and are dying.
Figure 9. Cumulative distribution of breast height branch diameters in plot 3 (300
TPA) at ages 11 and 19 years. Red vertical line denotes the mean DLLBH.
Next Steps
Current plans for Type III installations are to continue gathering high quality data for the next 20
years on average, or until any particular installation is harvested.
Future analyses should include the tracking and analysis of mortality to discover at what point and
how site quality and density act both singly and in combination in the onset of self-thinning, as well
as how treatments impact it.
Analyses should also include how density and the auxiliary treatment factors impact live crown
ratio, and to the extent possible, crown widths.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Gonyea and Bert Hasselberg for measurement and other auxiliary data collection;
Jed Bryce for generation of DLLBH distributions; and Greg Ettl for helpful comments.
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
10
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
APPENDIX.
Figure A1. Geographical distribution of Type III Douglas-fir installations.
Brittain Creek #1 – SMC Type III network
11
SMC Policy Committee Field Tour, 18 Sep 2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
1
DF
Size
0.496
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
3
1997
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 100 tpa (21X21)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.28
22
22
1.76
1.76
1.75
1.75
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
1.75
1.75
0.4
0.4
3
3
5
1.84
85
85
2.51
2.51
2.47
2.47
15.4
15.4
17.0
17.0
2.88
2.88
2.9
2.9
23
23
1999
7
3.62
89
89
3.83
3.83
3.77
3.77
21.7
21.7
23.7
23.7
4.36
4.36
7.1
7.1
71
71
2001
9
6.05
89
89
5.38
5.38
5.32
5.32
29.0
29.0
31.2
31.2
6.07
6.07
14.0
14.0
174
174
2003
11
9.15
89
89
7.10
7.10
7.04
7.04
36.3
36.3
39.1
39.1
7.86
7.86
24.4
24.4
364
364
2005
13
12.19
87
87
8.73
8.73
8.66
8.66
42.5
42.5
45.7
45.7
9.56
9.56
36.0
36.0
609
609
2007
15
15.66
87
87
10.31
10.31
10.25
10.25
48.3
48.3
50.8
50.8
11.22
11.22
50.3
50.3
941
941
2009
17
19.11
87
87
11.78
11.78
11.71
11.71
55.0
55.0
58.0
58.0
12.78
12.78
65.6
65.6
1379
1379
2011
19
22.36
87
87
13.08
13.08
13.01
13.01
62.0
62.0
64.4
64.4
14.15
14.15
80.8
80.8
1903
1903
RD
0.00
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
2
DF
Size
0.331
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
3
1997
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 200 tpa (15X15)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.95
79
79
1.70
1.70
1.68
1.68
12.0
12.0
12.4
12.4
1.81
1.81
1.2
1.2
9
9
5
5.35
227
227
2.66
2.66
2.62
2.62
16.9
16.9
19.2
19.2
3.19
3.19
8.7
8.7
75
75
1999
7
9.99
233
233
3.96
3.96
3.92
3.92
23.2
23.2
25.5
25.5
4.69
4.69
19.9
19.9
209
209
2001
9
16.09
233
233
5.44
5.44
5.39
5.39
30.6
30.6
33.4
33.4
6.33
6.33
37.5
37.5
491
491
2003
11
21.92
227
227
6.80
6.80
6.75
6.75
37.1
37.1
39.8
39.8
7.95
7.95
57.2
57.2
882
882
2005
13
28.32
227
227
8.07
8.07
8.01
8.01
44.0
44.0
47.6
47.6
9.37
9.37
80.4
80.4
1448
1448
2007
15
34.40
227
227
9.19
9.19
9.12
9.12
49.3
49.3
53.1
53.1
10.68
10.68
104.3
104.3
2075
2075
2009
17
39.96
227
227
10.15
10.15
10.07
10.07
55.2
55.2
59.5
59.5
11.82
11.82
127.3
127.3
2825
2825
2011
19
44.59
227
227
10.92
10.92
10.82
10.82
62.6
62.6
67.5
67.5
12.79
12.79
147.4
147.4
3712
3712
RD
0.00
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
3
DF
Size
0.268
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
3
1997
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 300 tpa (12X12)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1.65
123
123
1.82
1.82
1.81
1.81
12.6
12.6
13.9
13.9
2.06
2.06
2.2
2.2
17
17
5
6.70
276
276
2.70
2.70
2.66
2.66
17.7
17.7
21.2
21.2
3.42
3.42
11.0
11.0
99
99
1999
7
11.86
287
287
3.85
3.85
3.80
3.80
23.8
23.8
28.2
28.2
4.82
4.82
23.3
23.3
258
258
2001
9
18.19
287
287
5.13
5.13
5.06
5.06
30.7
30.7
36.1
36.1
6.25
6.25
41.2
41.2
558
558
2003
11
24.49
287
287
6.25
6.25
6.18
6.18
37.5
37.5
43.2
43.2
7.59
7.59
61.2
61.2
991
991
2005
13
31.41
287
287
7.38
7.38
7.30
7.30
44.2
44.2
50.2
50.2
8.85
8.85
85.3
85.3
1598
1598
2007
15
37.84
287
287
8.35
8.35
8.27
8.27
50.6
50.6
57.3
57.3
10.08
10.08
109.4
109.4
2321
2321
2009
17
42.30
280
280
9.16
9.16
9.07
9.07
56.5
56.5
62.9
62.9
11.05
11.05
128.0
128.0
2999
2999
2011
19
46.60
280
280
9.77
9.77
9.66
9.66
63.4
63.4
70.4
70.4
11.91
11.91
145.7
145.7
3833
3833
RD
0.00
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
4
DF
Plot
5
DF
Size
0.230
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
3
1997
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 440 tpa (10X10)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.86
70
70
1.72
1.72
1.71
1.71
12.0
12.0
12.5
12.5
1.83
1.83
1.1
1.1
9
9
5
5.81
257
257
2.58
2.58
2.54
2.54
16.2
16.2
19.9
19.9
3.27
3.27
9.3
9.3
79
79
1999
7
10.82
270
270
3.78
3.78
3.72
3.72
22.1
22.1
26.1
26.1
4.69
4.69
21.1
21.1
217
217
2003
11
23.10
265
265
6.34
6.34
6.26
6.26
35.4
35.4
39.6
39.6
7.66
7.66
58.2
58.2
871
871
2007
15
36.13
265
265
8.54
8.54
8.43
8.43
47.7
47.7
52.5
52.5
10.33
10.33
105.6
105.6
2081
2081
2011
19
46.41
265
265
10.10
10.10
9.95
9.95
59.8
59.8
64.6
64.6
12.40
12.40
147.5
147.5
3611
3611
Size
0.248
acres
RD
0.00
Species Mix
Treatment Regime
All
Main
Plant 680 tpa (8X8)
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
4
1.25
105
105
1.68
1.68
1.67
1.67
11.9
11.9
12.4
12.4
1.84
1.84
1.6
1.6
13
13
1997
5
10.76
581
581
2.26
2.26
2.22
2.22
15.1
15.1
19.2
19.2
3.12
3.12
16.2
16.2
134
134
1999
7
20.18
2003
11
38.94
2007
15
56.57
669
669
681
681
673
673
3.13
3.13
4.79
4.79
6.19
6.19
3.06
3.06
4.68
4.68
6.04
6.04
20.7
20.7
33.3
33.3
44.5
44.5
26.0
26.0
41.4
41.4
51.3
51.3
4.42
4.42
6.64
6.64
8.69
8.69
35.7
35.7
85.2
85.2
140.7
140.7
364
364
1294
1294
2769
2769
2011
19
67.40
669
669
6.99
6.99
6.78
6.78
55.0
55.0
64.4
64.4
9.88
9.88
178.1
178.1
4378
4378
RD
0.00
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
6
DF
Plot
7
DF
Size
0.212
acres
Brittain Creek #1
Species Mix
Treatment Regime
All
Main
Plant 1210 tpa (6X6)
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
4
2.16
179
179
1.70
1.70
1.69
1.69
11.9
11.9
12.6
12.6
1.87
1.87
2.8
2.8
22
22
1997
5
14.39
792
792
2.23
2.23
2.20
2.20
15.3
15.3
19.9
19.9
3.11
3.11
21.5
21.5
180
180
1999
7
23.55
835
835
2.99
2.99
2.94
2.94
20.6
20.6
24.7
24.7
4.13
4.13
40.7
40.7
409
409
2003
11
38.63
759
759
4.43
4.43
4.35
4.35
32.1
32.1
37.0
37.0
6.18
6.18
81.3
81.3
1186
1186
2007
15
51.26
708
708
5.61
5.61
5.47
5.47
41.5
41.5
46.5
46.5
7.86
7.86
121.4
121.4
2238
2238
2011
19
62.02
693
693
6.45
6.45
6.27
6.27
51.4
51.4
57.7
57.7
9.20
9.20
157.6
157.6
3602
3602
Size
0.496
acres
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Main
RD
0.00
Treatment Regime
Plant 100 tpa, Prune all trees by 50% of crown but leave at least 3 whorls, 22' maximum
prune height
Growth
Year
1997
Pruned
BH
Age
5
RD
2.18
Stem
/acre
97
97
QMD
inche
2.58
2.58
DBH
inche
2.54
2.54
Height
feet
15.3
15.3
HT40
feet
17.1
17.1
D40
inche
2.93
2.93
Basal
sq ft/a
3.5
3.5
Volum
cu ft/a
28
28
1999
7
3.19
99
99
3.27
3.27
3.24
3.24
19.5
19.5
21.6
21.6
3.64
3.64
5.8
5.8
54
54
2001
Pruned
9
5.13
99
99
4.49
4.49
4.47
4.47
25.0
25.0
26.9
26.9
4.93
4.93
10.9
10.9
119
119
2003
11
6.96
99
99
5.50
5.50
5.47
5.47
30.9
30.9
33.1
33.1
6.05
6.05
16.3
16.3
216
216
2005
Pruned
13
9.02
97
97
6.64
6.64
6.60
6.60
36.8
36.8
39.0
39.0
7.28
7.28
23.2
23.2
357
357
2007
15
10.39
2009
17
11.91
2011
19
13.90
95
95
93
93
93
93
7.39
7.39
8.22
8.22
9.10
9.10
7.34
7.34
8.15
8.15
9.03
9.03
41.3
41.3
46.1
46.1
53.3
53.3
44.5
44.5
50.0
50.0
57.7
57.7
8.14
8.14
9.07
9.07
10.07
10.07
28.2
28.2
34.1
34.1
41.9
41.9
485
485
651
651
924
924
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
8
DF
Plot
9
DF
Size
0.331
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 200 tpa, Prune all trees by 50% of crown but leave at least 3 whorls
Growth
Year
1997
Pruned
BH
Age
5
RD
4.65
Stem
/acre
193
193
QMD
inche
2.69
2.69
DBH
inche
2.64
2.64
Height
feet
15.8
15.8
HT40
feet
19.3
19.3
D40
inche
3.31
3.31
Basal
sq ft/a
7.6
7.6
Volum
cu ft/a
62
62
1999
7
6.30
193
193
3.29
3.29
3.25
3.25
20.1
20.1
23.4
23.4
3.90
3.90
11.4
11.4
110
110
2001
Pruned
9
9.80
196
196
4.37
4.37
4.33
4.33
25.1
25.1
28.9
28.9
5.11
5.11
20.5
20.5
231
231
2003
11
12.43
190
190
5.23
5.23
5.18
5.18
30.4
30.4
33.9
33.9
6.12
6.12
28.4
28.4
377
377
2005
Pruned
13
16.19
190
190
6.24
6.24
6.19
6.19
36.5
36.5
40.5
40.5
7.26
7.26
40.5
40.5
631
631
2007
15
18.55
187
187
6.91
6.91
6.84
6.84
41.3
41.3
46.5
46.5
8.04
8.04
48.8
48.8
858
858
2009
17
21.63
187
187
7.65
7.65
7.57
7.57
46.9
46.9
53.4
53.4
8.94
8.94
59.9
59.9
1196
1196
2011
19
25.19
187
187
8.47
8.47
8.37
8.37
53.9
53.9
59.5
59.5
9.96
9.96
73.3
73.3
1674
1674
Size
0.268
acres
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Main
Treatment Regime
Plant 300 tpa, Prune 100 trees by 50% of crown but leave at least 3 whorls, 22' maximum
prune height
Growth
Year
1997
Pruned
BH
Age
5
RD
7.74
Stem
/acre
302
302
QMD
inche
2.80
2.80
DBH
inche
2.76
2.76
Height
feet
17.0
17.0
HT40
feet
20.5
20.5
D40
inche
3.51
3.51
Basal
sq ft/a
13.0
13.0
Volum
cu ft/a
112
112
1999
7
11.77
310
310
3.65
3.65
3.60
3.60
22.5
22.5
26.2
26.2
4.47
4.47
22.5
22.5
237
237
2001
Pruned
9
17.33
306
306
4.76
4.76
4.70
4.70
28.8
28.8
32.6
32.6
5.84
5.84
37.8
37.8
485
485
2003
11
22.86
302
302
5.77
5.77
5.69
5.69
34.9
34.9
38.3
38.3
7.19
7.19
54.9
54.9
833
833
2005
Pruned
2007
13
29.13
15
35.50
2009
17
40.15
2011
19
44.60
302
302
302
302
299
299
295
295
6.78
6.78
7.74
7.74
8.47
8.47
9.16
9.16
6.68
6.68
7.61
7.61
8.31
8.31
9.00
9.00
41.5
41.5
47.7
47.7
52.8
52.8
61.2
61.2
46.2
46.2
53.4
53.4
57.8
57.8
67.0
67.0
8.49
8.49
9.82
9.82
10.91
10.91
11.83
11.83
75.9
75.9
98.8
98.8
116.9
116.9
135.0
135.0
1350
1350
2005
2005
2610
2610
3474
3474
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
10
DF
Size
Species Mix
0.250
acres
All
Main
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 440 tpa, Thin Early and Light (EL)
Growth
Year
1997
BH
Age
5
RD
5.54
Stem
/acre
252
252
QMD
inche
2.53
2.53
DBH
inche
2.49
2.49
Height
feet
14.9
14.9
HT40
feet
18.9
18.9
D40
inche
3.27
3.27
Basal
sq ft/a
8.8
8.8
Volum
cu ft/a
70
70
1999
7
9.34
272
272
3.41
3.41
3.33
3.33
20.8
20.8
26.3
26.3
4.35
4.35
17.2
17.2
175
175
2003
11
20.44
280
280
5.64
5.64
5.49
5.49
33.6
33.6
38.5
38.5
7.12
7.12
48.5
48.5
728
728
2005
13
25.79
276
276
6.65
6.65
6.48
6.48
39.8
39.8
44.6
44.6
8.33
8.33
66.5
66.5
1157
1157
2006
14
28.69
276
276
7.13
7.13
6.96
6.96
43.0
43.0
49.0
49.0
8.91
8.91
76.6
76.6
1430
1430
2006
Thinned
14
23.15
200
200
7.67
7.67
7.59
7.59
45.6
45.6
49.0
49.0
8.91
8.91
64.1
64.1
1220
1220
2007
15
25.70
200
200
8.22
8.22
8.14
8.14
48.8
48.8
51.3
51.3
9.59
9.59
73.7
73.7
1488
1488
2011
19
35.65
200
200
10.22
10.22
10.03
10.03
61.0
61.0
65.5
65.5
12.50
12.50
114.0
114.0
2817
2817
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
11
DF
Size
Species Mix
0.250
acres
All
Main
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 680 tpa, Thin Early and Light (EL)
Growth
Year
1997
BH
Age
5
RD
8.98
Stem
/acre
436
436
QMD
inche
2.43
2.43
DBH
inche
2.38
2.38
Height
feet
14.3
14.3
HT40
feet
17.4
17.4
D40
inche
3.18
3.18
Basal
sq ft/a
14.0
14.0
Volum
cu ft/a
107
107
1999
6
15.45
500
500
3.18
3.18
3.11
3.11
19.9
19.9
23.6
23.6
4.22
4.22
27.5
27.5
267
267
2002
9
28.56
508
508
4.74
4.74
4.65
4.65
29.5
29.5
33.9
33.9
6.25
6.25
62.2
62.2
818
818
2002
Thinned
10
25.72
440
440
4.86
4.86
4.79
4.79
30.1
30.1
33.9
33.9
6.25
6.25
56.7
56.7
751
751
2003
11
29.47
440
440
5.32
5.32
5.25
5.25
33.2
33.2
37.7
37.7
6.86
6.86
68.0
68.0
985
985
2004
12
34.63
440
440
5.93
5.93
5.85
5.85
36.8
36.8
41.2
41.2
7.58
7.58
84.3
84.3
1336
1336
2004
Thinned
12
25.74
300
300
6.28
6.28
6.23
6.23
38.0
38.0
41.2
41.2
7.58
7.58
64.5
64.5
1037
1037
2006
14
31.06
300
300
7.12
7.12
7.07
7.07
42.6
42.6
46.0
46.0
8.56
8.56
82.9
82.9
1474
1474
2006
Thinned
14
21.36
200
200
7.27
7.27
7.22
7.22
43.5
43.5
46.3
46.3
8.45
8.45
57.6
57.6
1042
1042
2007
15
23.81
200
200
7.81
7.81
7.76
7.76
46.0
46.0
49.4
49.4
9.10
9.10
66.6
66.6
1265
1265
2011
19
32.81
200
200
9.67
9.67
9.61
9.61
58.8
58.8
61.9
61.9
11.16
11.16
102.0
102.0
2444
2444
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
12
DF
Plot
13
DF
Size
Species Mix
0.250
acres
All
Main
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 1210 tpa, Thin Early and Heavy (EH)
Growth
Year
1997
BH
Age
5
RD
19.72
Stem
/acre
988
988
QMD
inche
2.37
2.37
DBH
inche
2.33
2.33
Height
feet
15.0
15.0
HT40
feet
19.2
19.2
D40
inche
3.44
3.44
Basal
sq ft/a
30.4
30.4
Volum
cu ft/a
247
247
1999
7
28.10
1048
1048
2.89
2.89
2.82
2.82
20.5
20.5
26.9
26.9
4.24
4.24
47.8
47.8
494
494
1999
Thinned
7
13.52
436
436
3.19
3.19
3.14
3.14
22.1
22.1
26.8
26.8
4.22
4.22
24.1
24.1
257
257
2002
10
22.84
436
436
4.52
4.52
4.46
4.46
30.5
30.5
36.1
36.1
5.92
5.92
48.6
48.6
670
670
2002
Thinned
10
11.49
200
200
4.80
4.80
4.75
4.75
31.8
31.8
36.1
36.1
5.86
5.86
25.2
25.2
357
357
2003
11
13.22
200
200
5.28
5.28
5.22
5.22
34.3
34.3
38.2
38.2
6.40
6.40
30.4
30.4
457
457
2007
15
21.43
196
196
7.38
7.38
7.31
7.31
45.6
45.6
49.3
49.3
8.85
8.85
58.2
58.2
1115
1115
2011
19
29.24
192
192
9.20
9.20
9.11
9.11
58.7
58.7
62.5
62.5
10.95
10.95
88.7
88.7
2157
2157
Size
Species Mix
0.250
acres
All
Main
Treatment Regime
Plant 440 tpa,Thin Early and Heavy (EH)
Growth
Year
1999
BH
Age
7
RD
11.97
Stem
/acre
308
308
QMD
inche
3.70
3.70
DBH
inche
3.62
3.62
Height
feet
22.3
22.3
HT40
feet
26.7
26.7
D40
inche
4.80
4.80
Basal
sq ft/a
23.0
23.0
Volum
cu ft/a
242
242
2003
11
24.21
316
316
5.82
5.82
5.64
5.64
34.1
34.1
38.9
38.9
7.62
7.62
58.4
58.4
879
879
2005
13
30.74
2005
Thinned
2007
13
22.45
15
27.74
312
312
200
200
200
200
6.88
6.88
7.51
7.51
8.65
8.65
6.69
6.69
7.44
7.44
8.57
8.57
40.9
40.9
43.3
43.3
49.4
49.4
45.7
45.7
45.7
45.7
50.1
50.1
8.91
8.91
8.91
8.91
10.24
10.24
80.6
80.6
61.5
61.5
81.6
81.6
1423
1423
1099
1099
1633
1633
2011
19
36.83
200
200
10.45
10.45
10.36
10.36
62.6
62.6
63.3
63.3
12.24
12.24
119.0
119.0
2994
2994
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
14
DF
Size
Species Mix
0.250
acres
Growth
Year
1999
All
Main
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 680 tpa, Thin Early and Heavy (EH)
BH
Age
7
RD
24.72
Stem
/acre
720
720
QMD
inche
3.41
3.41
DBH
inche
3.35
3.35
Height
feet
22.0
22.0
HT40
feet
28.1
28.1
D40
inche
4.79
4.79
Basal
sq ft/a
45.6
45.6
Volum
cu ft/a
483
483
1999
Thinned
7
11.58
300
300
3.69
3.69
3.64
3.64
23.4
23.4
28.2
28.2
4.70
4.70
22.2
22.2
243
243
2003
11
23.46
300
300
5.90
5.90
5.85
5.85
36.0
36.0
42.4
42.4
7.23
7.23
57.0
57.0
884
884
2004
12
27.77
300
300
6.60
6.60
6.54
6.54
39.7
39.7
44.7
44.7
8.08
8.08
71.4
71.4
1199
1199
2004
Thinned
12
19.73
200
200
6.89
6.89
6.84
6.84
40.5
40.5
44.9
44.9
8.05
8.05
51.8
51.8
880
880
2007
15
26.54
200
200
8.40
8.40
8.35
8.35
48.7
48.7
54.0
54.0
9.66
9.66
76.9
76.9
1543
1543
2011
19
35.58
200
200
10.21
10.21
10.16
10.16
61.2
61.2
67.4
67.4
11.59
11.59
113.7
113.7
2834
2834
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 919
Plot
15
DF
Size
Species Mix
0.250
acres
Growth
Year
1999
All
Main
Brittain Creek #1
Treatment Regime
Plant 1210 tpa, Thin Early and Light (EL)
BH
Age
7
RD
23.59
Stem
/acre
832
832
QMD
inche
3.00
3.00
DBH
inche
2.92
2.92
Height
feet
19.8
19.8
HT40
feet
25.3
25.3
D40
inche
4.28
4.28
Basal
sq ft/a
40.9
40.9
Volum
cu ft/a
407
407
1999
Thinned
7
20.44
680
680
3.12
3.12
3.06
3.06
20.6
20.6
25.3
25.3
4.28
4.28
36.1
36.1
364
364
2000
8
24.76
680
680
3.55
3.55
3.48
3.48
23.9
23.9
29.0
29.0
4.82
4.82
46.6
46.6
529
529
2000
Thinned
8
17.17
440
440
3.71
3.71
3.65
3.65
24.6
24.6
29.0
29.0
4.82
4.82
33.1
33.1
381
381
2002
10
24.78
440
440
4.74
4.74
4.67
4.67
31.3
31.3
35.0
35.0
6.04
6.04
54.0
54.0
753
753
2002
Thinned
10
18.16
300
300
4.97
4.97
4.92
4.92
32.1
32.1
35.0
35.0
6.04
6.04
40.5
40.5
571
571
2003
11
21.00
300
300
5.48
5.48
5.43
5.43
35.0
35.0
38.7
38.7
6.61
6.61
49.2
49.2
748
748
2005
13
27.31
300
300
6.53
6.53
6.47
6.47
41.1
41.1
44.2
44.2
7.84
7.84
69.8
69.8
1222
1222
2005
Thinned
13
19.55
200
200
6.85
6.85
6.81
6.81
42.3
42.3
44.2
44.2
7.84
7.84
51.2
51.2
909
909
2007
15
23.94
196
196
7.95
7.95
7.90
7.90
48.3
48.3
49.4
49.4
9.06
9.06
67.5
67.5
1345
1345
2011
19
33.02
196
196
9.84
9.84
9.79
9.79
62.2
62.2
64.3
64.3
11.20
11.20
103.6
103.6
2633
2633
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 921
Plot
1
OT
Plot
2
OT
Size
0.496
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
4
1997
Brittain Creek #3
Treatment Regime
Plant 100 tpa (21X21)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.34
24
22
1.89
1.92
1.87
1.90
12.7
12.5
12.7
12.5
1.87
1.90
0.5
0.4
4
3
5
1.44
54
40
2.87
3.05
2.79
2.99
17.2
17.2
18.0
17.2
3.10
2.99
2.4
2.0
20
17
1999
7
3.07
71
44
3.99
4.43
3.81
4.32
22.0
23.2
24.8
24.1
4.69
4.54
6.1
4.8
63
50
2003
11
7.74
75
44
7.13
8.07
6.84
7.95
33.3
36.7
38.6
37.7
8.46
8.23
20.7
15.8
300
233
2007
15
14.28
77
44
10.53
11.74
10.21
11.62
42.4
46.1
47.0
46.8
12.27
11.99
46.3
33.3
786
567
2011
19
20.36
75
42
13.58
14.89
13.26
14.76
55.8
60.7
60.8
61.2
15.48
15.00
75.0
51.2
1638
1129
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
Size
0.331
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Species Mix
All
Main
BH
Age
1995
RD
0.00
Treatment Regime
Plant 200 tpa (15X15)
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
0.00
0
0
QMD
inche
1997
5
1.88
112
109
2.12
2.13
2.10
2.11
14.3
14.3
15.6
15.6
2.43
2.43
2.7
2.7
22
21
1999
7
4.77
2003
11
13.83
2007
15
25.26
187
124
214
124
218
124
2.79
3.16
5.19
6.09
7.68
8.82
2.66
3.08
4.98
6.02
7.47
8.74
18.5
19.8
29.3
32.9
39.4
43.5
22.0
22.0
36.5
36.5
46.9
46.9
3.69
3.69
6.97
6.97
9.99
9.99
8.0
6.8
31.5
25.1
70.0
52.6
72
64
420
349
1183
913
2011
19
36.23
221
124
9.68
11.03
9.40
10.94
53.3
58.6
62.7
62.7
12.49
12.49
112.7
82.2
2574
1912
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 921
Plot
3
OT
Plot
4
OT
Size
0.268
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
4
1997
Brittain Creek #3
Treatment Regime
Plant 300 tpa (12X12)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
2.10
138
138
1.98
1.98
1.96
1.96
13.6
13.6
15.1
15.1
2.36
2.36
3.0
3.0
24
24
5
7.26
272
198
2.88
3.18
2.77
3.12
18.7
19.5
22.5
22.5
3.99
3.99
12.3
10.9
113
103
1999
7
13.63
336
201
3.81
4.46
3.62
4.38
23.7
26.5
29.8
29.8
5.46
5.46
26.6
21.8
304
260
2003
11
28.92
347
201
6.16
7.16
5.90
7.07
35.7
39.8
43.0
43.0
8.51
8.51
71.8
56.3
1155
933
2007
15
44.63
347
201
8.22
9.41
7.95
9.31
46.8
50.5
53.8
53.8
11.14
11.14
128.0
97.4
2572
1975
2011
19
56.55
343
201
9.70
11.05
9.38
10.91
61.4
64.9
68.7
68.7
13.29
13.29
176.1
134.3
4610
3501
Size
0.230
acres
Species Mix
All
Main
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
1995
4
1997
RD
0.00
Treatment Regime
Plant 440 tpa (10X10)
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.11
9
9
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
1.80
1.80
0.2
0.2
1
1
5
2.89
165
157
2.17
2.19
2.14
2.17
14.4
14.3
16.2
16.2
2.59
2.59
4.3
4.1
34
33
1999
7
6.50
2003
11
18.01
2007
15
30.63
222
183
309
183
317
183
3.07
3.23
4.85
5.84
6.79
8.17
2.99
3.17
4.52
5.77
6.32
8.02
19.8
20.1
29.5
34.1
39.5
44.4
22.2
22.2
37.1
37.1
47.9
47.9
3.92
3.92
6.95
6.95
9.69
9.69
11.4
10.4
39.7
34.0
79.8
66.4
109
100
564
499
1436
1219
2011
19
41.83
309
183
8.51
10.06
8.00
9.86
54.3
59.7
63.2
63.2
11.95
11.95
122.1
100.9
2955
2477
RD
0.00
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 921
Plot
5
OT
Plot
6
OT
Size
0.248
acres
Brittain Creek #3
Species Mix
Treatment Regime
All
Main
Plant 680 tpa (8X8)
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
3
0.46
40
40
1.64
1.64
1.63
1.63
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
1.63
1.63
0.6
0.6
5
5
1997
5
4.63
234
194
2.36
2.47
2.30
2.42
15.7
15.6
18.7
18.7
3.16
3.16
7.1
6.4
58
53
1999
7
11.06
367
234
3.13
3.54
2.99
3.45
20.4
21.4
24.5
24.5
4.62
4.62
19.6
15.9
191
160
2003
11
28.37
468
246
4.98
5.99
4.68
5.85
31.2
34.8
39.0
39.0
7.58
7.58
63.3
48.1
926
723
2007
15
46.68
480
246
6.83
8.20
6.42
8.05
42.1
46.7
51.0
51.0
10.18
10.18
122.0
90.3
2340
1750
2011
19
60.23
484
246
8.05
9.71
7.52
9.50
54.9
60.9
66.3
66.3
12.29
12.29
170.8
126.5
4306
3200
Size
0.212
acres
RD
0.00
Species Mix
Treatment Regime
All
Main
Plant 1210 tpa (6X6)
Growth
Year
1993
BH
Age
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
4
6.59
429
363
1.99
2.03
1.97
2.01
14.1
13.9
16.0
15.8
2.44
2.44
9.3
8.1
72
64
1997
5
20.66
764
443
2.91
3.23
2.83
3.18
20.1
20.5
23.3
23.3
4.06
4.06
35.2
25.2
335
247
1999
7
33.80
2003
11
56.15
2007
15
72.13
797
439
802
439
788
425
3.92
4.29
5.48
5.92
6.56
7.05
3.83
4.23
5.34
5.82
6.37
6.92
26.4
27.9
39.0
40.5
48.3
49.7
30.5
30.4
43.8
43.8
53.0
53.0
5.40
5.39
7.76
7.76
9.56
9.56
66.9
44.0
131.5
83.8
184.7
115.2
813
552
2307
1479
3985
2453
2011
19
80.47
750
410
7.29
7.74
7.09
7.59
62.0
63.1
68.2
67.6
10.66
10.66
217.2
134.2
6020
3646
RD
0.00
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 920
Plot
1
WH
Size
0.496
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Plot
2
WH
Species Mix
All
Main
BH
Age
Brittain Creek #2
Treatment Regime
Plant 100 tpa (21X21)
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
1995
0.00
0
0
1997
0.85
50
50
2.12
2.12
2.10
2.10
17.4
17.4
17.9
17.9
2.21
2.21
1.2
1.2
9
9
1999
2.28
85
85
2.90
2.90
2.82
2.82
20.5
20.5
23.4
23.4
3.42
3.42
3.9
3.9
37
37
2003
5.81
85
85
5.41
5.41
5.31
5.31
30.3
30.3
33.8
33.8
6.17
6.17
13.5
13.5
187
187
2007
11.29
85
85
8.43
8.43
8.32
8.32
40.7
40.7
43.0
43.0
9.43
9.43
32.8
32.8
592
592
2011
17.31
85
85
11.20
11.20
11.09
11.09
52.5
52.5
54.8
54.8
12.41
12.41
57.9
57.9
1324
1324
Size
0.331
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Species Mix
All
Main
BH
Age
Treatment Regime
Plant 200 tpa (15X15)
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
0.03
3
3
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
1.60
1.60
0.0
0.0
0
0
1997
0.64
39
39
2.08
2.08
2.03
2.03
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
2.03
2.03
0.9
0.9
7
7
1999
2.64
2003
8.59
2007
17.49
115
115
169
169
166
166
2.61
2.61
4.42
4.42
7.19
7.19
2.51
2.51
4.16
4.16
6.89
6.89
19.2
19.2
26.2
26.2
35.2
35.2
22.4
22.4
34.0
34.0
42.6
42.6
3.31
3.31
6.11
6.11
9.42
9.42
4.3
4.3
18.1
18.1
46.9
46.9
39
39
239
239
784
784
2011
26.60
169
169
9.40
9.40
9.01
9.01
46.6
46.6
55.2
55.2
12.10
12.10
81.6
81.6
1786
1786
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 920
Plot
3
WH
Size
0.268
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Plot
4
WH
Species Mix
All
Main
BH
Age
Brittain Creek #2
Treatment Regime
Plant 300 tpa (12X12)
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
0.05
4
4
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
1.80
1.80
0.1
0.1
0
0
1997
1.65
112
112
1.94
1.94
1.91
1.91
17.0
17.0
19.1
19.1
2.27
2.27
2.3
2.3
17
17
1999
6.03
265
265
2.59
2.59
2.51
2.51
20.4
20.4
27.0
27.0
3.62
3.62
9.7
9.7
94
94
2003
17.44
325
325
4.60
4.60
4.42
4.42
28.1
28.1
35.5
35.5
6.37
6.37
37.4
37.4
504
504
2007
33.48
336
336
6.94
6.94
6.73
6.73
38.4
38.4
45.3
45.3
9.21
9.21
88.2
88.2
1583
1583
2011
47.24
336
336
8.73
8.73
8.51
8.51
52.4
52.4
59.4
59.4
11.27
11.27
139.6
139.6
3368
3368
Size
0.230
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Species Mix
All
Main
BH
Age
Treatment Regime
Plant 440 tpa (10X10)
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
0.79
57
57
1.87
1.87
1.86
1.86
15.2
15.2
15.4
15.4
1.94
1.94
1.1
1.1
7
7
1997
6.76
300
300
2.57
2.57
2.50
2.50
18.5
18.5
22.6
22.6
3.61
3.61
10.8
10.8
91
91
1999
15.54
2003
34.20
2007
52.40
387
387
387
387
387
387
3.79
3.79
6.40
6.40
8.51
8.51
3.65
3.65
6.24
6.24
8.29
8.29
24.5
24.5
36.5
36.5
48.0
48.0
30.3
30.3
42.9
42.9
53.2
53.2
5.38
5.38
8.35
8.35
11.01
11.01
30.2
30.2
86.5
86.5
152.9
152.9
351
351
1456
1456
3330
3330
2011
62.82
383
383
9.68
9.68
9.40
9.40
61.8
61.8
67.3
67.3
12.60
12.60
195.4
195.4
5520
5520
9/14/2012
PLOT SUMMARY
Installation 920
Plot
5
WH
Size
0.248
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Plot
6
WH
Brittain Creek #2
Species Mix
Treatment Regime
All
Main
Plant 680 tpa (8X8)
BH
Age
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
1995
3.94
274
274
1.91
1.91
1.88
1.88
15.7
15.7
17.8
17.8
2.53
2.53
5.4
5.4
37
37
1997
16.97
698
698
2.71
2.71
2.63
2.63
20.5
20.5
25.5
25.5
4.12
4.12
27.9
27.9
259
259
1999
29.95
734
734
3.83
3.83
3.72
3.72
26.7
26.7
32.4
32.4
5.58
5.58
58.6
58.6
724
724
2003
51.60
718
718
5.58
5.58
5.44
5.44
36.7
36.7
42.5
42.5
7.86
7.86
121.9
121.9
2071
2071
2007
67.99
694
694
6.86
6.86
6.67
6.67
48.9
48.9
54.8
54.8
9.59
9.59
178.1
178.1
4033
4033
2011
78.93
681
681
7.67
7.67
7.44
7.44
61.0
61.0
69.2
69.2
10.92
10.92
218.6
218.6
6241
6241
DBH
inche
Height
feet
HT40
feet
D40
inche
Basal
sq ft/a
0.0
0.0
Volum
cu ft/a
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
Size
0.212
acres
Growth
Year
1993
Species Mix
Treatment Regime
All
Main
Plant 1210 tpa (6X6)
BH
Age
RD
0.00
Stem
/acre
0
0
QMD
inche
1995
0.00
0
0
1997
5.39
363
363
1.95
1.95
1.92
1.92
16.7
16.7
19.2
19.2
2.57
2.57
7.5
7.5
55
55
1999
14.22
2003
32.92
2007
50.61
604
604
651
651
632
632
2.65
2.65
4.41
4.41
6.00
6.00
2.59
2.59
4.30
4.30
5.82
5.82
21.7
21.7
31.1
31.1
42.9
42.9
27.4
27.4
38.4
38.4
50.1
50.1
3.74
3.74
6.18
6.18
8.30
8.30
23.2
23.2
69.2
69.2
123.9
123.9
230
230
1007
1007
2494
2494
2011
64.21
637
637
6.99
6.99
6.76
6.76
55.5
55.5
63.8
63.8
10.01
10.01
169.8
169.8
4479
4479
9/14/2012