United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-537

March 2002

Levels-of-Growing-Stock Cooperative

Study in Douglas-fir:

Report No. 15–Hoskins: 1963–1998

David D. Marshall and Robert O. Curtis
Levels-of-growing-stock study treatment schedule, showing percentage of gross basal

area increment of control plots to be retained in growing stock

Treatment

Thinning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

First 10 10 30 30 50 50 70 70

Second 10 20 30 40 50 40 70 60

Third 10 30 30 50 50 30 70 50

Fourth 10 40 30 60 50 20 70 40

Fifth 10 50 30 70 50 10 70 30

Public and private agencies are cooperating in a study of eight thinning regimes in

young Douglas-fir stands. Regimes differ in the amount of basal area allowed to accrue

in growing stock at each successive thinning. All regimes start with a common level of

growing stock established by a conditioning thinning.

Thinning interval is controlled by height growth of crop trees, and a single type of

thinning is prescribed.

Nine study areas, each involving three completely random replications of each thinning

regime and an unthinned control, have been established in western Oregon and

Washington, U.S.A., and on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Site quality of

these areas ranges from II through IV.

This is a progress report on this cooperative study.

Background
Levels-of-Growing-Stock

Cooperative Study in

Douglas-Fir:

Report No. 15–Hoskins:

1963–1998

David D. Marshall, Research Forester

Robert O. Curtis, Scientist Emeritus

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Forestry Sciences Laboratory

Olympia, Washington

Research Paper PNW-RP-537

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

March 2002
Abstract

Summary

Marshall, David D.; Curtis, Robert O. 2001. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study

in Douglas-fir: report no.15-Hoskins: 1963–1998. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-537. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

80 p.

The cooperative levels-of-growing-stock (LOGS) study in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga

menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) was begun to study the relations between growing stock, growth,

cumulative wood production, and tree size in repeatedly thinned stands. This report

summarizes results from the Hoskins installation through age 55. Growing stock has

been allowed to accumulate for 19 years since the last treatment thinning was applied in

this high site class II natural stand. Volume and diameter growth were strongly related to

growing stock. Basal area growth-growing stock relations were considerably weaker.

Differences in tree size and volume distribution were considerable. Culmination of mean

annual increment has not occurred for any of the treatments, although the control has

culminated for total stem cubic volume and is near culmination for merchantable cubic

volume. Only small differences are seen in growth percentages between thinning treatments.

Results demonstrate potential flexibility in managing Douglas-fir to reach a range of

objectives.

Keywords: Thinning, growing stock, growth and yield, stand density, Douglas-fir,

Pseudotsuga menziesii, series-Douglas-fir LOGS.

The cooperative levels-of-growing-stock (LOGS) study in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga

menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) was begun in the early 1960s to study the relations between

growing stock, growth, cumulative wood production, and tree size in repeatedly thinned

stands. This report summarizes results for the LOGS installation most advanced in

development–the Hoskins installation in the Oregon Coast Range–through age 55 (19

years after the last thinning treatment was applied). The stand is of natural origin with an

estimated site index of 134 feet (site class II). Site index and height growth trends have

been stable on the control plots since about age 27, and estimated site index on thinned

treatments has increased an average of about 15 feet since the initial cut. Volume and

diameter growth were strongly related to growing stock; basal area less so. Relative

growth (growth percentage) has remained similar among the thinning treatments to date.

Substantial mortality in the controls has reduced their net growth. The lighter thinning

treatments have produced volumes similar to the controls as growing stock has

accumulated after the last treatment thinning. The different levels of growing stock have

produced marked differences in tree size distribution. Although net total stem volume

mean annual increment apparently has culminated on the controls, merchantable volume

has not. Culmination has not been reached on any of the thinning treatments. Past results

from the LOGS studies have generally been consistent with varying rates of development

by site class. Thus, these results may indicate the expected future development of other

LOGS installations. Results demonstrate tradeoffs between managing for tree size and

production in short rotations but suggest potential advantages in wood production and

other benefits from extended rotations and accumulation of growing stock.
Williamson, Richard L.; Staebler, George R. 1965. 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. 12 p.

Describes purpose and scope of a cooperative study investigating the relative merits of

eight different thinning regimes. Main features of six study areas installed since 1961 in

young stands also are summarized.

Williamson, Richard L.; Staebler, George R. 1971. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study on Douglas-fir: report no. 1–Description of study and existing study areas.

Res. Pap. PNW-111. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 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. 1972. Levels-of-growing stock cooperative study on

Douglas-fir: report no. 2–The Hoskins study, 1963-70. Res. Pap. PNW-130. Portland,

OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 19 p.

A calibration thinning and the first treatment thinning in a 20-year-old Douglas-fir stand at

Hoskins, Oregon, are described. Growth for the first 7 years after thinning was greater

than expected.

Diggle, P.K. 1972. 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. 46 p.

Describes the establishment and installation of the two LOGS studies established on

Vancouver Island at Shawnigan Lake and Sayward Forest.

Williamson, Richard L. 1976. Levels-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. 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. 1979. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study on

Douglas-fir: report no. 5–The Hoskins study, 1963-75. Res. Pap. PNW-257. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 29 p.

Other LOGS (Levelsof-Growing-Stock)

Reports
Growth data are presented for the first 12 years of management of young Douglas-fir

growing at eight levels of growing stock. The second and third treatment periods are

described.

Young Douglas-fir stands transfer growth from many to few trees. Some of the

treatments have the potential to equal the gross cubic-foot volume of the controls during

the next treatment periods.

Arnott, J.T.; Beddows, D. 1981. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglasfir: report no. 6–Sayward Forest, Shawnigan Lake. Inf. Rep. BC-X-223. Victoria, BC:

Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre. 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 treatment

thinning at Sayward Forest for a 4-year response period also are included.

Tappeiner, John C.; Bell, John F.; Brodie, J. Douglas. 1982. Response of young

Douglas-fir to 16 years of intensive thinning. Res. Bull. 38. Corvallis, OR: Forest

Research Laboratory, School of Forestry, Oregon State University. 17 p.

Williamson, Richard L.; Curtis, Robert O. 1984. 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. 42 p.

Results of the Stampede Creek LOGS study in southwest Oregon are summarized

through the first treatment period, and results are compared with two more advanced

LOGS studies and are generally similar.

Curtis, Robert O.; Marshall, David D. 1986. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study

in Douglas-fir; report no. 8–The LOGS study: twenty-year results. Res. Pap. PNW-356.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 113 p.

Reviews history and status of LOGS study and provides new analyses of data, primarily

from the site II installations. Growth is strongly related to growing stock. Thinning

treatments have produced marked differences in volume distribution by tree size. At the

fourth treatment period, current annual increment is still about double mean annual

increment. Differences among treatments are increasing rapidly. There are considerable

differences in productivity among installations, beyond those accounted for by site

differences. The LOGS study design is evaluated.

Curtis, Robert O. 1987. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: report

no. 9–Some comparisons of DFSIM estimates with growth in the levels-of-growingstock study. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-376. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.
Initial stand statistics for the LOGS study installations were projected by the DFSIM

simulation program over the available periods of observation. Estimates were compared

with observed volume and basal area growth, diameter change, and mortality. Overall

agreement was reasonably good, although results indicate some biases and a need for

revisions in the DFSIM program.

Marshall, David D.; Bell, John F.; Tappeiner, John C. 1992. Levels-of-growing-stock

cooperative study in Douglas-fir: report no. 10–The Hoskins study, 1963-83. Res.

Pap. PNW-RP-448. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 65 p.

Results of the Hoskins study are summarized through the fifth and final planned

treatment period. To age 40, thinnings in this low site I stand resulted in large increases

in diameter growth with reductions in basal area and cubic volume growth and yield.

Growth was strongly related to level of growing stock. All treatments are still far from

culmination of mean annual increment in cubic feet.

Curtis, Robert O. 1992. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: report

no. 11–Stampede Creek: a 20-year progress report. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-442.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 47 p.

Results of the first 20 years of the Stampede Creek study in southwest Oregon are

summarized. To age 53, growth in this site III Douglas-fir stand has been strongly related

to level of growing stock. Marked differences in volume distribution by tree sizes are

developing as a result of thinning. Periodic annual increment is about twice mean annual

increment in all treatments, indicating that the stand is still far from culmination.

Curtis, Robert O. 1994. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: report

no. 12–The Iron Creek study: 1966-89. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-475. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 67 p.

Results of the Iron Creek study in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, southern

Washington, are summarized through age 42 (completion of the 60 feet of height growth

comprising the planned course of the experiment). Volume growth of this mid-site II

plantation has been strongly related to growing stock; basal area growth much less so.

Different growing-stock levels have produced marked differences in the size distribution

and in crown dimension. Periodic annual volume increment at age 42 is two to three

times mean annual increment in all treatments.

Hoyer, Gerald E.; Andersen, Norman A.; Marshall, David D. 1996. Levels-of-growingstock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: report no. 13–The Francis study: 1963-90.

Res. Pap. PNW-RP-488. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 91 p.

Results of the Francis study, begun at age 15, are summarized together with results

from additional first-thinning treatments started at age 25. To age 42, total cubic-foot

volume growth on this mid-site II plantation has been strongly related to level of growing
stock. Close dollar values among several alternatives suggest that diverse stand structure

objectives can be attained at age 42 with little difference in wood product-value per acre.

Curtis, Robert O.; Marshall, David D.; Bell, John F. 1997. LOGS: a pioneering example

of silvicultural research in coast Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry. 95(7): 19-25.

Provides a general overview of the LOGS cooperative and presents the major results to

date.

Curtis, Robert O.; Marshall, David D. 2001. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study

in Douglas-fir: report no. 14–Stampede Creek. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-543. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

77 p.

Results of the Stampede Creek study are summarized from establishment at total age

33 through the final planned treatment period at age 63 in a estimated site class III stand

in southwest Oregon. Results to date are generally similar to the higher site LOGS

installations, although development is slower. Volume growth is strongly related to growing

stock, but basal area growth is weaker. Thinning has resulted in marked differences in

tree size distribution and periodic annual increment is still two to three times greater

than mean annual increment.
Contents 1 Introduction

2 Objectives

2 Methods

2 Description of Study Area

3 Experimental Design

4 Stand Treatments

7 Data Collection and Summarization

8 Analyses

9 Results

9 Live Stand Development

18 Cumulative Volume Production

21 Volume Distribution by Tree and Log Size Classes

22 Periodic and Mean Annual Increments

36 Growth Percentage

39 Discussion

39 Stand Development

39 Basal Area Growth

40 Volume Growth

40 Diameter Growth

40 Mean Annual Increment

41 Cumulative Volume and Tree Size

42 Growth Percentage
43 Management Implications

43 Benefits of Thinning

44 Rotations and Timing of Final Thinnings

44 Evaluation of the Study

45 Metric Equivalents

45 Literature Cited

47 Appendix
Introduction

1

The Hoskins levels-of-growing-stock (LOGS) installation is one of nine installations in a

regional thinning study established in young Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)

Franco) stands according to a common work plan (Curtis and others 1997, Williamson

and Staebler 1971) (fig. 1). This study is a cooperative effort involving the Canadian

Forest Service, the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Oregon State University, USDA

Forest Service, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and Weyerhaeuser

Company. The objective of the study is to compare growth-growing stock relations,

cumulative wood production, and tree size development under eight thinning regimes

begun before the onset of severe competition and differing in the amount of growing

stock they retain after thinning. The original study plan was developed at Weyerhaeuser

Company, Centralia, Washington. Procedural details were developed by the Pacific

Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Detailed progress reports on individual installations (fig. 1) are contained in the series of

LOGS publications listed at the beginning of this report. Curtis and Marshall (1986) give

an overall summary of results for the first 20 years of the study. To date, all but two of

the lowest productivity site installations have completed the prescribed treatment

schedules and have been put on a maintenance remeasurement schedule.

Figure 1—Locations of the nine installations of the levels-of-growing-stock

cooperative study in Douglas-fir.
2

The Hoskins LOGS study was established in 1963 by Oregon State University in

western Oregon on lands owned by Starker Forests of Corvallis, Oregon, and is the

most developed of the LOGS installations. Intermediate results for this installation were

reported by Bell and Berg (1972) for the calibration (1963-66) and the first treatment

(1966-70) periods, Berg and Bell (1979) for the second (1970-73) and third (1973-75)

treatment periods, Tappeiner and others (1982) for the fourth treatment period (1975-79),

and Marshall and others (1992) for the fifth and final treatment period (1979-83). This

report provides an update for the Hoskins installation to 1998 (stand age 55), including

development over the 15 years since the final treatment period (Marshall and others

1992) and 19 years since the final thinning in 1979.

The LOGS cooperative studies evolved from work in the late 1950s by George Staebler

(1959, 1960). Staebler argued that thinning would transfer increment to the remaining

faster growing trees and increase relative growth (or growth percentage) through reduction

of growing stock, while largely eliminating mortality losses. He also recognized that the

implied assumption of near-constant gross increment over a wide range of stocking had

not been tested. The objectives of the LOGS studies, as stated in the 1962 plan,1

 were

“to determine how the amount of growing stock retained in repeatedly thinned stands for

Douglas-fir affects cumulative wood production, tree size, and growth-growing stock

ratios.” Treatments were designed to include a wide range of growing stock so that the

results would show “how to produce any combination of factors deemed optimum from a

management standpoint.” The study was not designed as a test of specific operational

thinning regimes but was intended to define the quantitative relation between growth and

growing stock for a closely controlled initial stand condition and kind of thinning.

The Hoskins LOGS study was established in a uniform, even-aged 20-year-old Douglasfir stand that had regenerated naturally after wildfire in the Oregon Coast Range. The

stand is near Hoskins, Oregon (fig. 2), about 22 mi west of Corvallis (fig. 2) in Benton

County (sec. 27 of T. 10 S., R. 7 W., Willamette Meridian). The breast height age, based

on boring 54 trees (two per plot) during plot establishment in 1963, was 13 years. On the

unthinned control plots, the initial number of trees ranged from 1,610 to 1,885 per acre,

initial basal area from 120 to 160 ft2 per acre, and initial average diameter from 3.6 to

4.2 in. Heights-to-live-crown were uniform and near 8 ft at the time of plot establishment,

and crown ratios were about 80 percent. All trees in the plots were Douglas-fir.

Annual precipitation in the area is about 65 to 75 in and falls primarily as rain. The

temperature averages 50 °F with 160 to 190 frost-free days per year (Knezevich 1975).

The soils are described by Knezevich (1975) as deep, well-drained silty clay loams of

the Apt series that formed in colluvium from mixed sedimentary and igneous rocks. The

surface layer is about 10 in thick and a very dark grayish-brown silty clay loam. The

subsoil is about 60 in deep and a dark brown, dark yellowish-brown, or strong brown silty

clay and clay. The water-holding capacity ranges from 7 to 10 in. Slopes range from 10

to 40 percent on a southerly aspect at an elevation of about 1,000 ft on the upper onethird of the slope.

Objectives

Methods

Description of Study Area

1 Staebler, G.R.; Williamson, R.L. 1962. Plan for a level-of-growing-stock

study in Douglas-fir. Unpublished study plan. On file with: Forestry

Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512.
3

Figure 2—Location of the Hoskins levels-of-growing-stock installation.

Initially there was no understory vegetation in the area due to the dense overstory. The

thinned plots have since developed a range in amount and species present in the understory. Major species present in the thinned plots include sword-fern (Polystichum munitum

(Kaulf.) Presl) and salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) on the lighter thinning treatments,

ocean-spray (Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim) in the intermediate densities, and

hazel (Corylus cornuta var. californica (DC.) Sharp) on the most heavily thinned (lowest

density) plots. Since the early 1990s, the control plots have developed a small amount

of understory. The climax plant association is Tsuga/Gaultheria/Polystichum (Franklin

1979).

The estimated site index, based on the controls, is about 134 ft at 50 yr breast height

age, or a high site class II according to King (1966).

This experiment compares eight thinning treatments, designed to achieve a wide range

in growing stock. Each of the eight treatments and an unthinned control are replicated

three times on 27 1/5-acre square sample plots in a completely randomized design (fig. 3).

The experiment consists of five periodic thinnings in each treatment in a split-plot-intime or repeated-measures design. The experiment was designed to last for five treatment

periods after an initial calibration period. The final treatment period was completed at

Hoskins after the 1983 growing season.

Experimental Design
4

The criteria for initial stand selection were:

1. A high degree of uniformity in stocking and site quality over an area sufficient to

accommodate the approximately 9-acre installation.

2. Stand 20 to 40 ft in top height.

3. Stand vigorous and of density such that individual tree development had not been

strongly influenced by competition, as evidenced by live crown extending over most

of the bole.

4. At least 80 percent of the basal area in Douglas-fir.

The Hoskins installation met all these criteria, although not all the plots are contiguous.

Because of space limitations, five plots had to be located on closely adjacent but

similar areas. Buffer strips were maintained around the installation but not between

plots.

The prescribed treatments were rigidly controlled to provide for compatibility among

installations on different sites.

Selection of crop trees—Crop trees were selected before the initial calibration thinning

at a rate of 16 per plot (80 per acre). These trees were well formed and vigorous, with at

least 13.5 ft between adjacent crop trees and four crop trees on each plot quarter. Crop

trees were numbered 1 through 16 and painted with a white ring at breast height to

distinguish them from noncrop trees, which were painted with other colors representing

the treatments. The study plan called for crop trees to be retained on the treated plots

until all noncrop trees had been cut. This was not necessarily the case, as will be

discussed below under the description of the thinning treatments.

Calibration thinning—All 24 plots assigned to receive thinning treatments also

received a calibration or preparatory thinning. This initial thinning was intended to reduce

the variation in the original growing stock and allow the trees time to adjust, thereby

resulting in more uniform growth potential for all the treated plots (see Marshall and

others 1992 for more discussion on the results of the calibration thinning).

Figure 3—Arrangement of plots in the Hoskins LOGS installation.

Stand Treatments
5

The study plan called for stands to be thinned to an initial spacing based on the D+ rule

(Smith and others 1997: 125) as follows:

S = 0.6167*D + 8 ,

where S is the average square spacing in feet and D is the quadratic mean d.b.h.

(diameter at breast height), in inches, of the remaining trees. The calibration thinning

was controlled by the specifications that the average d.b.h. of the leave trees be within

±15 percent of the installation mean and the leave tree basal areas be within ±3 percent

of the mean, as recommended by the study plan for stands where the estimated

average d.b.h. of leave trees was greater than 4.5 in, as at Hoskins. (Stands of smaller

diameter were controlled by using numbers of trees instead of basal area.)

The calibration thinning was a precommercial thinning done as a training exercise by a

state of Oregon Forestry Department emergency crew. The trees were felled and the

crowns lopped in place. The crew used axe handles to break off all dead branches on

live trees (5 to 6 ft off the ground) to facilitate marking.

Thinning treatments—Plots were thinned at intervals of 10 ft of crop tree height growth

(Staebler 1960). This standard was intended to give close control of growing stock and

adjust thinning intervals to rate of height growth and crown expansion. Treatment thinnings were made at Hoskins in 1966, 1970, 1973, 1975, and 1979 at total ages of 23,

27, 30, 32, and 36 years, respectively. For unknown reasons, the 1975 measurement

and treatment were premature, occurring after only about half of the required periodic

height growth of 10 ft. This may have resulted in some inconsistent results in periodic

annual increment trends for this short period.

Thinning treatments were defined in terms of gross basal area growth on the controls

and predetermined percentages of the control gross basal area increment to be retained

for each thinning regime (see table on inside front cover and table 1). This assumed that

gross basal area growth of the controls represented the productive capacity of the site.

Specifications were designed to produce a wide range in densities.

Basal area to be left after thinning on each plot was calculated with the following

formula:

 BAp = BAp-1 + GBAG(Pt p ) ,

where BAp

 = basal area (square feet/acre) retained after thinning at the beginning of the

treatment period (p), BAp-1 = basal area (square feet/acre) at the beginning of the

preceding treatment period (p-1), GBAG = average gross basal area growth on the

controls (that is, the increase in basal area of the live trees plus the mortality) during the

preceding period, and Ptp = predetermined percentage of gross basal area growth on the

controls to be retained for the respective period (p) and treatment (t) (see table on inside

front cover).
6

Table 1—Treatments defined by percentage of gross basal area increment of

control retained after thinning (calibration thinning excluded)

Thinning

Treatment First Second Third Fourth Fifth

Percent retention

Fixed:

1 10 10 10 10 10

3 30 30 30 30 30

5 50 50 50 50 50

7 70 70 70 70 70

Increasing:

2 10 20 30 40 50

4 30 40 50 60 70

Decreasing:

6 50 40 30 20 10

8 70 60 50 40 30

Unthinned:

C — — —— —

The expected trends in residual basal area created by the eight treatments are shown in

figure 4.

The eight treatments all accumulated basal area growing stock throughout the

experiment (that is, all treatments increased in basal area) but at fixed, increasing, or

decreasing rates. The four fixed-percentage treatments (1, 3, 5, and 7) always retained

growing stock at four constant percentages of the control plots’ gross basal area growth.

The levels are 10, 30, 50, and 70 percent, representing heavy to light thinnings,

respectively. The variable-percentage treatments represent two increasing- and two

decreasing-percentage treatment regimes. The increasing treatments accumulated

Figure 4—Idealized trends in basal area for the eight thinning regimes in the LOGS

study.
7

growing stock slowly at first through heavier cuts and then more rapidly with lighter

subsequent cuts. The percentages of growing stock retained progressed from 10 to 50

percent and from 30 to 70 percent for treatments 2 and 4, respectively. The decreasing

treatments did just the opposite, accumulating growing stock faster at first through light

initial thinnings and then at decreasing rates through heavier cuts, with retained

percentages progressing from 50 to 10 and from 70 to 30 for treatments 6 and 8,

respectively.

The thinning guidelines for tree removal were:

1. No crop trees were to be cut until all noncrop trees had been cut. In actuality, some

crop trees were replaced (see discussion below on crop tree selection).

2. The average diameters of trees removed at each thinning (d) were to approximate

average diameter of the noncrop trees before thinning (D) (that is, d/D = 1.0 for the

noncrop trees only) so long as noncrop trees were available for cutting. This resulted

in d/D ratios of less than 1.0 for all trees and approximated a crown thinning.

3. After all noncrop trees had been cut, average diameter of cut trees should

approximate average diameter of all remaining trees.

4. Trees removed in a thinning were to be distributed across the entire diameter range

of trees available for cutting.

The actual range of treatment mean d/D ratios at Hoskins was from 0.83 (fourth

treatment thinning in treatment 4) to 1.03 (fourth treatment thinning in treatment 2) and

averaged 0.93 for all thinnings.

The intention was to cut no crop trees until all noncrop trees had been harvested. In

reality, this did not happen at Hoskins. Of the 384 crop trees initially selected on the

treated plots, 23 (6 percent) were replaced early during the study, primarily for slow

growth (one was cut after it developed a dead top). These replacements were distributed

throughout the treatments. Of the replaced crop trees, two survived through the fifth

treatment period after being replaced, one died (treatment 7), and the rest were cut in

the period after being replaced. During the last two treatment periods, 17 and 3 crop

trees were cut in treatments 1 and 2, respectively, after all noncrop trees had been cut.

In addition, one crop tree was cut from both treatments 3 and 5 for unknown reasons. In

the control plots, two crop trees died during the study and one was later replaced. See

discussion in Marshall and others (1992) for a comparison of growth rates of crop trees

and the 80 largest trees.

During the five treatment thinnings, trees were bucked and unmerchantable material and

tops were left on the plots. Merchantable logs were removed by horse and tractor (by

winching to skid trails). Logging damage was minimal.

Immediately after the calibration thinning (1963), and at all subsequent measurement

dates (1966, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998), diameters of all

tagged trees were measured to the nearest 0.1 in for trees 1.6 in and larger. Heights

were measured on a sample of these trees at the same time (sample size differed but

was not less than 12 trees per plot and usually was more) distributed across the range

of diameters. Height to the base of live crown also was measured on all height sample

Data Collection and

Summarization
8

trees beginning in 1983. Heights and height-to-live-crown were measured on most of the

felled trees. The heights-to-crown-base were estimated in 1963 from the dead branch

“pruning” at plot establishment.

Volumes are summarized for total stem cubic feet (CVTS), merchantable cubic feet to a

6-in top diameter inside bark (CV6), and for Scribner board feet (SV632). Individual tree

volumes were computed by using equations requiring diameters and heights for each

tree. Missing tree heights were computed from height-diameter curves fit to each measurement by combining plot data for each treatment and using the methods of Flewelling

(1994). Tree volumes in total stem cubic feet inside bark (CVTS) were computed with

the Bruce and DeMars (1974) equation from measured diameters and actual or predicted

tree heights. Merchantable cubic-foot volume (to a 6-in top diameter) was computed by

using tarif equations (Brackett 1973, Chambers and Foltz 1979). Scribner board-foot

volume was computed with a Douglas-fir taper equation2 and Scribner volume factors

(Bell and Dilworth 1997; table 1). For each tree, the taper equation was used to compute

the small-end diameter inside bark of each log. A log length of 32 ft was used with a

minimum top log length of 16 ft to a 6-in top diameter inside bark. For each log, the

specific Scribner volume factor for the log’s small-end diameter was used to multiply

by the log length to get Scribner log volume. The individual log volumes were summed

to get a tree volume. Per-acre estimates for each plot were obtained by adding up the

volumes for the trees on the plot and multiplying by the plot “blow-up” or expansion

factor (1.0/plot area).

Basal area and volume growth are defined as periodic annual increment (PAI) and mean

annual increment (MAI). Net PAI is computed as the difference between the live standing

volume at the end of the period (before thinning treatments) and the live standing volume

at the start of the period (after thinning treatments), which is divided by the period length.

Gross PAI also includes the volume in mortality during the period. Net MAI is the total

volume of the live stand plus the cumulative volume removed in thinnings, divided by

the stand age. Gross MAI adds the cumulative volume of mortality to the live and

thinning volumes. Diameter growth is summarized as both net PAI and as the growth

on trees surviving the period (Curtis and Marshall 1989).

The original study plan specified analysis of variance (ANOVA) as the method of analysis.

This analysis was done for the specified five treatment periods and the results presented

by Marshall and others (1992). Since the last treatment period, growing stock has been

allowed to accumulate and comparisons of the ANOVA are less meaningful. Also, many

aspects of the experiment are more meaningfully presented and interpreted through

simple graphic comparisons, which will be given in the following sections.

The underlying numerical values are summarized in a series of tables given in the

appendix (tables 2-26). All tables are in English units with the stand development tables

for each treatment (tables 20-26) also given in metric units.

Analyses

2 Flewelling, J.W. 1994. Stem form equation development notes.

Northwest Taper Cooperative. Unpublished report based on the

methods of Flewelling and Raynes (1993). On file with: Dr. James

Flewelling, 26724 51st Place S, Kent, WA 98032.
9

Top height (H40) and site index—Top height, defined as the mean height of the 40 largest

trees per acre by d.b.h., is a useful measure of height development and was used as a

basis for computing site index (table 2). From the initial stand tables, it appears that the

calibration thinning removed some of the top-height trees and significantly (p = 0.002)

reduced the initial top height of the thinned treatments compared to the control (fig. 5).

Between 1963 and 1998, top-height growth of the thinned treatments significantly (p =

0.0007) exceeded the top height growth on the controls, with a mean difference of 8

percent (range, 4 to 10 percent) (fig. 6). There was no relation between the thinning

Results

Live Stand Development

Figure 5—Observed H40 trend of the treatments (mean of eight thinning treatments)

and control compared with trends predicted by King (1966).

Figure 6—Thirty-five-year increment in H40 expressed as a ratio of H40 increment of

the controls, by treatment.
10

treatments and height growth. In 1998, the top height of the control was 3 ft less than

the average of the treatments, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.13).

Site index estimates for the control plots seem to have stabilized since stand age 27

(breast height age 20) at about 134 ft (fig. 7). Those for the thinned plots have increased

since the calibration thinning and now have an average site index of 137 ft.

Mean diameters of the top height trees (largest 40 per acre) are shown in table 3.

Trees per acre—The calibration thinning reduced the number of trees per acre (TPA)

from an average of 1,718 (range, 1,595 to 1,885) on the controls to 330 on the treated

plots (range, 305 to 395) (fig. 8, table 4). The range in initial TPA on the thinned plots

reflects differences in average diameters and the fact that calibration density was

controlled by basal area. The calibration cut removed mostly trees from the lower

diameter classes but also may have cut some of the largest trees (fig. 9, table 5). In the

35 years after establishment, TPA on the controls was reduced 82 percent, to an

average of 307, by suppression-related mortality (fig. 8a). Mortality on the 24 treated

plots has been low, ranging from 9.5 percent of the initial trees on the lightest thinning

treatment (treatment 7) to 0.6 percent on the heaviest thinning treatment (treatment 1).

On treatments 3 through 8, 80 percent of the mortality has occurred since the last

thinning. The thinning treatments have produced a range in TPA from 202 to 52 at stand

age 55 (fig. 8b).

Figure 7—Thirty-five-year trends in estimated site index (King 1966) for the control

and treatments (mean of eight thinning treatments).
11

Figure 8—Trends of live trees per acre over stand age, by treatment: (A) control, and

(B) treatments.
12

Basal area per acre—The initial basal area on the control plots averaged 138.0 ft2/acre.

By stand age 55, the control plots had increased to 299.9 ft2/acre. Most of this increase

(97 percent) occurred by stand age 40, after which mortality increased sharply and

resulted in decreased basal area growth (fig. 10, table 6).

Figure 9—Frequency distribution of trees per acre by 1-inch d.b.h. classes, by treatment, after the

calibration thinning and in 1998.
13

Basal area controlled the calibration thinning which reduced the 24 thinned plots to a

uniform 49.8 ft2/acre (standard deviation of 0.9 ft2/acre). By stand age 55, the basal

areas ranged from 157.2 ft2/acre on the heaviest thinning regime (treatment 1) to 312.9

ft2/acre on the lightest thinning (treatment 7) (fig. 10). As of the last measurement,

treatment 7 has 4.3 percent more basal area than the control. If the control maintains its

low net growth rates (less than 1 ft2 • acre-1 • year-1), treatment 7 is on a trajectory to

increase this difference; and treatment 8 could have a basal area very close to the

control at the time of the next scheduled measurement, 5 years hence.

Figure 10—Trends in basal area per acre over stand age, by treatment.

Figure 11—Trends in quadratic mean diameter over stand age, by treatment.
14

Quadratic mean diameter—Prior to the calibration thinning, quadratic mean diameter

at breast height (QMD) (Curtis and Marshall 2000) averaged 3.8 in on the control plots

(table 7). The calibration thinning increased the QMD to an average of 5.2 in on the 24

treated plots. Thus, the d/D ratio (average diameter of the thinned trees/average diameter

of all trees before thinning) of the calibration thinning was about 0.90, causing the 1.4-in

increase in QMD. At stand age 55, the QMD of the control plot was 13.5 in, compared to

16.9 in for the lightest thinning (treatment 7) and 23.6 in for the heaviest thinning

(treatment 1) (fig. 11).

Relative density measures—Many diameter-based measures of relative stand density

have been developed, with most more or less equivalent. Two widely used measures of

density in the Douglas-fir region are Reineke’s (1933) stand density index (SDI)

SDI = TPA*(QMD/10)1.605 ,

and Curtis’ (1982) relative density index (RD)

RD = BAPA/QMD0.5 ,

where BAPA is the basal area per acre.

Trends over time in stand density, measured as SDI and RD, are shown in figures 12

and 13, respectively. The initial stand, based on the controls, had an SDI of 364 and a

RD of 71. After increasing rapidly for the first 10 years, SDI reached a plateau between

ages 30 and 40. The maximum SDI of the stand seems to be 558, which occurred at

stand ages 30 and 36. The maximum RD was 100 and occurred at stand age 30. These

Figure 12—Trends in stand density index (Reineke 1933) over stand age, by

treatment.
15

Figure 13—Trends in Curtis (1982) relative density index over stand age, by

treatment.

Figure 14—Stand density management diagram (after Long and others 1988) for 35-

year stand development, by treatment.

values were apparently unstable, and after the maximum was reached, SDI and RD

decreased to values of 497 and 82 at the last measurement.

The calibration thinning reduced the stand to SDI 116 and RD 22. At the last measurement,

values for thinned treatments ranged from SDI 469 and RD 76 for the lightest thinning

(treatment 7) to SDI 206 and RD 32 for the heaviest thinnings (treatment 1).
16

Figure 14 shows development of the control and treatments on a stand density management diagram (after Long and others 1988). For reference, this diagram has the published

maximum SDI value of 600 and a line at 60 percent of maximum SDI representing the

approximate lower limit of self-thinning (where competition-related mortality is expected

to begin) (Long 1985). The suppression mortality of the controls have produced a typical

self-thinning trajectory up to a measured maximum SDI of 558. After this, the control

falls away from the maximum size-density line for the last four measurements. Thinnings

maintained all the treatments between 20 and 60 percent of published maximum SDI.

Since the last thinning, density has increased, and the highest density plots (treatments

5, 6, 7, and 8) have reached or exceeded the approximate lower limit of self-thinning (60

percent of the published maximum SDI of 600) and have begun experiencing mortality.

Figure 15—Trends in crown ratio (CR40) over stand age, by treatment: (A) fixed

treatments, and (B) variable treatments.
17

Crown ratio—Stand heights (H40) and crown ratios (CR40) of the largest 40 trees per

acre by d.b.h. (8 per plot) were calculated as means of the measured or estimated

values of all trees in this category. Missing tree heights were estimated from the heightdiameter curve for treatment and measurement. Missing crown ratios were computed by

using the Douglas-fir height-to-crown base model in Zumrawi and Hann (1989) calibrated

from an intercept correction based on measured values available at each measurement.

The CR40s computed for each treatment were smoothed over stand age with a thirddegree polynomial weighted by the number of measured crowns at each measurement.

The average crown ratio of the 40 largest trees by diameter (CR40) was 0.8 on the

control plots at the time of plot establishment. The calibration cut slightly decreased the

CR40 to 0.77. Subsequent crown recession was rapid, and by the next measurement, 3

years later, average CR40 was 0.68 (fig. 15). By stand age 34, CR40 on the control was

below 0.40 and at the last measurement was 0.21. Even though the trees were quite

open after the calibration, crown recession continued in the thinned treatments, although

at a slower rate than in the controls. As expected, CR40 is related to the level of growing

stock, with the higher stocking levels having shorter live crowns. The lightest thinning

(treatment 7) reached a CR40 of 0.40 at about stand age 44 and is currently at 0.30. The

heaviest thinning (treatment 1) had a CR40 of 0.43 at the last measurement. Although

the heavier thinning treatments have shown a much slower rate of crown recession

during the thinnings, they are resuming higher rates of crown recession as growing stock

accumulates after the last thinning treatment.

Standing total stem volume per acre—The initial total stem volume (CVTS) of the

control plots was 1,996 ft3

/acre (table 8) with only 138 ft3/acre of that in merchantable

volume to a 6-in top (CV6). At the last measurement, the controls contained 14,312 ft3/

acre in CVTS and 12,924 ft3/acre in CV6. The calibration thinning removed an estimated

1,248 ft3/acre in CVTS and about 69 ft3/acre in CV6. The control has had more standing

Figure 16—Trends in standing total stem cubic-foot volume (CVTS) per acre over

stand age, by treatment.
18

CVTS than all thinning treatments up to stand age 50 (fig. 16). By stand age 50, the

lightest thinning (treatment 7) had the same standing CVTS as the control, and at the

last measurement, treatment 7 contained nearly 8 percent more CVTS than the control.

The control still contained nearly 50 percent more CVTS than the heaviest thinning

(treatment 1).

Standing merchantable volume per acre—At the end of the calibration period (3 years

after the calibration cut), the thinned plots and control had similar standing CV6. Subsequent thinning has reduced standing CV6 volumes of all treatments, except the lightest

(treatment 7), to less than the control (fig. 17, table 9). Treatment 7 surpassed the controls

at about age 40. At the last measurement, the control contained nearly 47 percent more

standing merchantable volume than the heaviest thinning (treatment 1), whereas the

lightest thinning (treatment 7) contained 13 percent more than the control and the next

lightest thinning (treatment 8) had nearly the same volume as the control.

Standing Scribner volume per acre—Scribner board-foot volumes (SC6) are shown in

table 10.

Mortality and cut—Numbers, diameters, basal areas, and volumes of mortality trees

and cut trees are shown in tables 11 and 12.

Cumulative volume production is standing live volume plus volume removed in all

previous thinnings. Volume removed in the calibration thinning is not included.

Total stem volume—Cumulative total production of the controls in net total cubic volume

(CVTS) exceeded the net cumulative production of all thinning treatments (not including

the volume removed in the calibration thinning) until stand age 45, when cumulative

Figure 17—Trends in standing merchantable cubic-foot volume to a 6-inch top (CV6)

over stand age, by treatment.

Cumulative Volume

Production
19

Figure 19—Trends in cumulative net merchantable cubic-foot volume (CV6) per acre

production (live standing + thinnings) over stand age, by treatment. Volumes for

thinning treatments do not include about 69 ft3/acre in the calibration thinning.

Figure 18—Trends in cumulative net total stem cubic-foot volume (CVTS) per acre

production (standing volume + thinnings) over stand age, by treatment. Volumes for

thinning treatments do not include about 1,248 ft3/acre in the calibration thinning.

production of the lightest thinnings (treatments 7 and 8) exceeded the controls (fig. 18).

By stand age 55, treatment 7 had about 16 percent more net total stem volume than the

control, and treatment 8 had about 9 percent more. At the last measurement, the control

had similar cumulative volumes to the three lightest thinnings (treatments 5, 8, and 7). If

the approximately 1,248 ft3/acre removed in the calibration thinning is included, only the

three heaviest thinnings (treatment 1, 2, and 3) would not meet or exceed the
20

cumulative volume on the control. For all the thinning treatments, volume production

decreases with decreasing growing stock.

Merchantable volume—Cumulative net merchantable cubic volume (CV6) production

of the lightest thinning (treatments 7 and 8) have exceeded the cumulative production of

the control since the calibration thinning (fig. 19). By stand age 55, treat-ment 7 had nearly

20 percent more net merchantable volume than the control, whereas treatment 8 had

nearly 12 percent more. Since the initial thinning treatment, the net volume production on

the control has been similar to that of treatment 5. Inclusion or exclusion of the approximately 69 ft3/acre removed in the calibration would not alter the rankings. For the

thinning treatments, volume production decreases with decreasing growing stock.

Figure 20—Distribution of standing live total cubic-foot volume (CVTS), by tree

diameter size class and treatment in 1998: (A) volume, and (B) percentage of total

volume.
21

Volume Distribution by

Tree and Log Size Classes

Figure 21—Distribution of cumulative net production (standing live + thinnings) of total

cubic-foot volume (CVTS), by tree diameter size class and treatment in 1998: (A)

volume, and (B) percentage of total volume. Does not include about 1,249 ft3/acre

removed in the calibration thinning.

Currently there are no live standing trees, or volume, smaller than the 7.6-in diameter

class on any of the treatments or the controls. All thinning treatments have over 85

percent of their standing live cubic-foot volume (CVTS) in trees 15.6 in or larger,

compared to about 50 percent for the controls (fig. 20, table 13). Nearly all standing

volume on the thinning treatments is in trees greater than 11.6 in. On the control, the

11.6- to 15.6-in class contains about 37 percent of the volume, and the 7.6- to 11.6-in

class contains about 13 percent. Comparing figures 20 and 21 shows that the trees

removed in all thinning treatments contributed relatively small volumes, which came

mostly from trees with d.b.h. of less than 12 in.
22

Figure 22 and tables 14 and 15 show the distribution of merchantable cubic-foot volume

in 32-ft logs by scaling diameter (diameter inside bark at the small end of the log with a

minimum log length of 16 ft). Tables 16 and 17 show corresponding values for Scribner

board-foot volumes. The heavier treatments produced a greater percentage of volume in

larger diameter logs. The heaviest thinning treatments (treatments 1, 2, and 3) have from

50 to 30 percent of their standing volume in logs with scaling diameters 16 in or greater

(minimum diameter for special mill grade), although quality premiums from these larger

logs would be reduced by the number and size of branches along the bole (fig. 22a)

(Christensen 1997).

Net periodic annual increment (PAI) for basal areas and volumes was calculated from

the differences in live standing basal areas and volumes at the start and end of the

growth period. The gross PAI is the net PAI plus any mortality that occurred during the

period. Mortality has been minor in the thinning treatments, and thus gross PAI and net

PAI (excluding mortality) are nearly the same for the treatments. Mortality has been

substantial on the controls so that both net and gross PAI are presented for the controls.

The analysis of variance on PAI through the fifth and final treatment period (Marshall and

others 1992) showed that gross periodic annual growth in basal area, volume, and

quadratic mean diameter did not depart significantly from linear trends across the range

of growing stock levels of the eight treatments (excluding the control). Graphical

Figure 22—Percentage of distribution of live merchantable volume, by log diameter class: (A) cubic

volume (CV6) in fixed treatments and control in 1998, (B) cubic volume (CV6) in variable treatments and

control in 1998, (C) cubic volume removed in fixed treatments, and (D) cubic volume removed in thinnings

in variable treatments.

Periodic and Mean Annual

Increments
23

analysis allows for the inclusion of the controls and the expected curvilinear relation

between growth and growing stock for a wider range of growing-stock values.

Basal area PAI—Figure 23 shows gross growth versus growing stock defined as basal

area per acre, and figure 24 shows growth in relation to relative density (Curtis 1982).

Net and gross PAI in basal area growth were nearly identical and approximately linear

across the range of growing stock for the eight thinning treatments. The maximum PAI

occurred at the lightest thinning treatment (treatment 7) with mortality causing a decrease

in net PAI for the control. For gross basal area growth (figs. 23b and 24b), the control’s

PAI was similar to that of the lightest thinning treatment (treatment 7) in all but the

Figure 23—Basal area periodic annual increment in relation to midperiod basal area,

by period (TP = treatment period and MP = measurement period): (A) net, and (B)

gross.
24

calibration and first treatment period. Mortality in the controls reduced net growth (figs.

23a and 24b) to levels at or below the growth of all the thinning treatments after the

calibration period, which caused a peak in net PAI at the higher densities of the lightest

thinning treatments.

Figure 24—Basal area periodic annual increment in relation to midperiod relative

density (Curtis 1982), by period (TP = treatment period and MP = measurement

period): (A) net, and (B) gross.
25

Figure 25—Net basal area periodic annual increment in relation to stand age, by

treatment: (A) fixed percentage treatments and control (net and gross), and (B)

variable percentage treatments and control (net and gross).

The reduction in growing stock by the calibration thinning reduced the calibration period

PAI of the thinned treatments by about 15 percent from the controls (fig. 25). Other than

the first treatment period where the lighter thinning treatments showed an increase in PAI

over the calibration period, PAI has decreased for all treatments over time. Heavy mortality

in the controls reduced net PAI of the control to near zero for the last three periods.
26

Total volume (CVTS) PAI and MAI—Figure 26 shows net and gross total stem cubicfoot-volume (CVTS) PAI versus growing stock defined as basal area per acre, and figure

27 shows PAI in relation to relative density (Curtis 1982). As with basal area, there was

little difference between net and gross PAI for the eight thinning treatments. The PAI

trend also is generally linear across the range of growing stock levels of the eight

thinning treatments. Volume PAI, however, maintained a stronger relation (steeper slope)

between growth and growing stock than did basal area. For all but the first two treatment

Figure 26—Total stem cubic-foot-volume (CVTS) periodic annual increment in relation

to midperiod basal area, by period (TP = treatment period and MP = measurement

period): (A) net, and (B) gross.
27

Figure 27—Total stem cubic-foot-volume (CVTS) periodic annual increment in relation

to midperiod relative density (Curtis 1982), by period (TP = treatment period and MP =

measurement period): (A) net, and (B) gross.

periods, net PAI peaked with the highest density thinning treatment (7) as mortality

reduced the net growth of the controls (figs. 26a and 27a). Gross PAI increased with

growing stock, up to and including the control (figs. 26b and 27b). In the early periods,

inclusion of the higher growing stock levels of the controls gave a curvilinear relation. In

the later periods, as growing stock of the thinning treatments increased, gross PAI of the

light thinning (treatment 7) was similar to the control, and there was a more nearly linear
28

relation between gross PAI and growing stock across the range of growing stock

represented by all treatments and the control. Net PAI showed an increase for the first

two to three periods after the calibration thinning and has been generally decreasing

since (fig. 28).

The MAI continues to increase for all treatments and seems to have culminated at age

42 for net growth on the control, but it is not close to culmination for any of the thinning

treatments. Over all thinning treatments, PAI values average about 40 percent greater

than MAI, although PAI is decreasing on all but the two heaviest thinnings (treatments 1

and 2).

Figure 28—Mean annual increment (MAI) and periodic annual increment (PAI) in net

total stem cubic-foot volume (CVTS) in relation to stand age and treatment: (A) fixed

percentage treatments and control (net and gross), and (B) variable percentage

treatments and control (net and gross).
29

Merchantable volume (CV6) PAI and MAI—Net and gross merchantable volume (CV6)

growth shows trends similar to those for total stem volume. The difference was in the

early periods when there was little merchantable volume in the controls and the growth

rate of trees on controls was low, which slowed recruitment while the higher growth rate

of trees on the treatments plot brought trees into merchantability sooner. This caused

net growth of the lighter thinning treatments to exceed the control for the first two

periods. In later periods, all the trees reached the merchantability limits, and mortality on

the control caused net growth to be less than the higher density treatments (figs. 29a

and 30a). Figure 29 shows growth versus growing stock defined as basal area per acre,

and figure 30 shows growth in relation to relative density (Curtis 1982).

Figure 29—Merchantable cubic-foot-volume (CV6) periodic annual increment in

relation to midperiod basal area, by period (TP = treatment period and MP =

measurement period): (A) net, and (B) gross.
30

Figure 30—Merchantable cubic-foot-volume (CV6) periodic annual increment in

relation to midperiod relative density (Curtis 1982), by period (TP = treatment period

and MP = measurement period): (A) net, and (B) gross.

Net MAI in merchantable volume has not culminated for any treatment or the control

(net or gross), although values suggest that net growth on the control will culminate in

the next period (about 12 years later than for total stem volume). As with total stem

volume, all treatments except the two lightest thinnings are decreasing in PAI but less

than for total stem volume (fig. 31).
31

Figure 31—Mean annual increment (MAI) and periodic annual increment (PAI) in net

merchantable cubic-foot volume to a 6-in top diameter inside bark (CV6) in relation to

stand age and treatment: (A) fixed percentage treatments and control (net and gross),

and (B) variable percentage treatments and control (net and gross).
32

Figure 32—Mean annual increment (MAI) and periodic annual increment (PAI) in net

Scribner board-foot volume (SV6) in relation to stand age and treatment: (A) fixed

percentage treatments and control (net and gross), and (B) variable percentage

treatments and control (net and gross).

Scribner volume (SV6) PAI and MAI—Figure 32 shows the MAI/PAI trends for net

Scribner board-foot volume as measured to a 6-in top in 32-ft logs (16-ft top log

minimum). Although these trends appear more erratic than for merchantable cubic

volume as logs jump to successively larger diameter classes, the MAI trends for all

treatments are still increasing.
33

Figure 33—Periodic annual quadratic mean diameter growth in relation to midperiod

basal area, by period (TP = treatment period and MP = measurement period): (A) net,

and (B) survivor.

Diameter PAI—Average growth in quadratic mean diameter of surviving trees increased

165 percent on the thinned plots after the calibration thinning compared to unthinned

control. Diameter growth continues to be strongly related to growing stock. Figure 33

shows growth versus growing stock defined as basal area per acre, and figure 34 shows
34

Figure 34—Periodic annual quadratic mean diameter growth in relation to midperiod

relative density (Curtis 1982), by period (TP = treatment period and MP =

measurement period): (A) net, and (B) survivor.

growth in relation to relative density (Curtis 1982). There was little difference between

net and survivor growth for the thinned plots. Net growth on the control was about twice

the survivor growth, because of mortality in smaller trees. Growth on the controls was

relatively constant, while diameter growth for all thinning treatments decreased with age

(fig. 35). The increased growth at lower stocking and its relation to growing stock also is

evident in the largest trees (fig. 36).
35

Figure 35—Periodic annual survivor quadratic mean diameter growth by treatment

and stand age (includes net periodic growth of the controls).

Figure 36—Thirty-five-year diameter increments of the 40 largest trees per acre, by

treatment, expressed as a ratio to the increment on the controls.
36

Growth percentage is an expression of growth relative to growing stock. The argument

that one should seek maximum return (growth) on growing stock, one expression of

which is net growth percentage, had an important place in the thinking that led to the

LOGS study.

Values of growth percentage for a growth period were calculated as:

where PAI is the periodic annual increment and Xp-1 and Xp

 are the growing stock at the

beginning and end of the growth period, respectively.

Basal area growth percent—For all treatments and the control, net basal area growth

percentage declined over time (fig. 37) from initial values after the calibration of about 18

and 9.5 percent, respectively. The growth percentages of the thinning treatments were

similar, with differences among the treatments of less than 2.8 percentage points for all

periods. The higher density treatments had lower growth percentages at a given age,

even though their growth rates (PAI) were higher because of their greater growing stock

(larger denominator). On the controls, mortality reduced the net growth and therefore the

growth percentage.

Figure 37—Trends in net basal area growth percentage over time, by treatment.

Growth Percentage

PAIp

(Xp-1 + Xp)/2 growth percentage = 100 ,
37

Total volume (CVTS) growth percentage—Like basal area, net total stem volume

growth percentage also declines over time (fig. 38). Initial values for the thinning treatments and the control were about 24.5 and 17 percent, respectively. Period differences

among the thinning treatments were less than 2.5 percentage points. As with basal area,

the treatments with greater growing stock had lower growth percentages, and mortality in

the control reduced the growth percentage, although less so than for basal area. At stand

age 55, all the thinning treatments have growth percentages of less than 5 percent and

the control is now 2 percent.

Figure 38—Trends in net total stem cubic-volume (CVTS) growth percentage over

time, by treatment.
38

Merchantable volume (CV6) growth percentage—Net growth percentages of

merchantable volume decrease with age and have less spread between treatments than

those for total stem volume (fig. 39), with all thinning treatments within 2 percentage

points for each period. The initial growth percentages for the thinning treatments were

about double the values for CVTS (between about 50 and 55 percent), but they were

nearly the same in later periods because all trees grew into the merchantable size class.

There also was less difference between the growth percentage of the control and the

Figure 39—Trends in net merchantable cubic-volume (CV6) growth percentage over

time, by treatment.

Figure 40—Trends in net Scribner board-foot-volume (SV6) growth percent over time,

by treatment.
39

thinning treatments than for CVTS, which reflects the initially small amount of growing

stock (little merchantable volume) and the high merchantable growth rates on the

heavier thinnings.

Scribner volume (SV6) growth percentage—Net growth percentages of Scribner

volume (SV6) decrease with age and have a spread between treatments similar to CV6

(fig. 40), with all thinning treatments within 2 percentage points. The initial growth

percentages were about 25 percent greater than for CV6 but were similar for the

measurement period. There also was less difference between the growth percentage of

the control and the treatments, which reflects the initially small amount of growing stock

(little merchantable volume) and the high merchantable growth rates on the heavier

thinnings.

Because of its age and high site index, the Hoskins LOGS installation is the most

advanced in development of all the LOGS installations. As of the 1998 remeasurement,

it had completed 19 years of growth since the final treatment thinning and was at an age

some would consider for a final harvest. Curtis and Marshall (1986) and subsequent

reports in the LOGS series have shown that the installations are, in general, developing

similarly, though at different rates corresponding to differences in site quality. These

results therefore suggest that the other installations may develop similarly as they

accumulate growing stock after the last thinning treatment.

After age 25, the estimated site index on the control plots stabilized at around 134 ft

(50-year base). Fluctuations above and below this of about 1 ft represent measurement

error and probably weather factors. Before age 25, however, site index estimates were

lower. Any differences in height at these young ages can result in large differences in

estimated site. Also, the King (1966) site curves were constructed for unmanaged

natural stands, and estimates of site index in thinned stands are influenced by changes

in stand structure. Thus, these changes are not indications of changes in the productive

capacity of the site.

Mortality has been considerable on the high-density controls but minimal for all thinning

treatments. The control plots began experiencing mortality about the time of plot

establishment at a density level of about 60 percent of the published maximum SDI.

However, it appears that the actual maximum SDI for the Hoskins site is 558, less than

the published value of 600. As the plots have developed since the maximum was

reached, the controls seem to be tracking a self-thinning slope less than would be

suggested by the Reineke (1933) slope of -0.623. As densities on the thinned plots have

been allowed to accumulate after the last thinning treatment, indications are that

competition mortality may be beginning in the lightest thinning treatments but before the

lower limit of self-thinning (60 percent of maximum SDI) is reached, thereby giving

further evidence that the actual maximum self-thinning line for Hoskins would be lower

and have a different slope than the published curves (Long and others 1988).

Both net and gross growth increased in a generally linear trend with growing stock

through the range of the thinned treatments, with the maximum basal area growth

occurring at the densest treatment. For gross growth, the treatments with the highest

densities had growth similar to the control. Suppression-related mortality markedly

reduced the net growth rates on the controls to near zero in the last two growth periods.

Discussion

Stand Development

Basal Area Growth
40

Thinned plots have had little mortality to date. In the latest periods, growing stock on the

lightest thinning (treatment 7) has caught up to the controls.

The low net basal area growth on the controls produced a nearly constant basal area of

300 ft2

/acre for the last 19 years, while basal areas on the thinning treatments continued

to increase. This has resulted in a crossover in standing basal area, with the lightest

thinning (treatment 7) having an average of 12 ft2/acre more basal area than the controls

at stand age 55 (19 years after the last thinning treatment).

Like basal area growth, net and gross volume growth have increased with growing stock

in a generally linear trend across the range of growing stock of the thinning treatments.

The relation for volume was considerably stronger. This was expected given the strong

prolonged height growth pattern of Douglas-fir and the importance of height growth in

determining volume growth, as shown by Curtis and Marshall (1986) for the LOGS

studies. Unlike gross basal area growth, however, gross total stem volume growth has

not demonstrated a maximum within the range of growing stock attained by the thinned

treatments. This includes the later measurement periods where growing stock of the

lightest thinning matched the control’s growing stock. Mortality in the control reduced net

volume growth below that of the densest thinning treatment.

Both gross and net merchantable cubic-foot volume have shown maximum growth at the

lightest thinning treatments in the early periods. Greater merchantable growth on these

plots compared to the controls or more heavily thinned treatments was due to the trees

in the thinned plots reaching the merchantability limits faster than the control, while the

higher growing stock kept stand growth high compared to the lighter thinnnings. In later

periods, growth in merchantable volumes behaved much like total stem volume as all of

the trees reached the merchantable limit.

Diameter growth (PAI) of surviving trees (Curtis and Marshall 1989) is highly related to

growing stock and shows a strong decrease with increasing growing stock. After the

initial calibration thinning, quadratic mean diameter growth (PAI) of the surviving trees in

the thinned treatments showed a quick and dramatic increase of about 2.5 times over

the controls. Although net diameter growth was greater than the growth on the surviving

trees (reflecting the increase in average diameter from mortality in small trees), the

levels of both growth rates on the controls remained relatively consistent. Diameter

growth on the thinning treatments decreased after the first periods as growing stock

increased and crown ratio decreased in subsequent periods. This has resulted in a

shallower slope to the diameter growth to growing stock curve, but the diameter growth

for the heaviest thinning (treatment 1) is still two times growth of the control, which now

has growth rates similar to the lightest thinnings treatment of similar density.

Net PAIs for total stem cubic volume (CVTS) for the thinning treatments currently

exceed their MAI values by about 1.4 times, and MAI of the control appears to have

culminated at about 42 years. Gross volume PAI for the control is still much greater than

MAI; the difference reflects the heavy and increasing suppression-related mortality on

the control. Net merchantable cubic volume (CV6) PAIs for the thinning treatments

exceed MAI by about 1.5 times, and the net PAI for the control is about 10 percent

higher than the MAI, which appears likely to reach culmination in the next period.

Moving to higher merchantable standards, such as Scribner board-foot volume, seems

Volume Growth

Diameter Growth

Mean Annual Increment
41

to further extend culmination age. For the thinning treatments, the net board-foot PAIs

averaged about 170 percent of the MAI with the control PAI about 120 percent of the

MAI.

Thinnings produced more volume in large trees and larger logs, compared to the control.

At the last remeasurement (stand age 55), over 85 percent of the standing live volume

on the thinned plots was in trees 15.6 in and larger compared to 49 percent on the

controls (fig. 20), which had all volume in trees at least 7.6 in. Most thinning volume was

in smaller trees (fig. 21). In the lighter thinnings, this was mostly trees 7.6 in and

smaller, while in the heavier treatments, volume in the 11.6-in-and-larger diameter class

was removed.

As of stand age 55, 50 percent of the 32-ft log volume (CV6) had a scaling diameter on

the control of less then 10 in (fig. 22). For the heaviest thinning treatment (1), this value

was about 16 in, and in the lightest thinning treatment (7), it was about 12 in. About 80

percent of the thinning volume came from logs 7 in or less.

Contrary to expectations at the time the experiment was begun, differences in growth

percentages among thinning treatments are relatively small, generally less than 3

percent. This occurred because of the strong relation between stocking levels and

volume growth. Reduced stand growth associated with lower stocking levels more or

less offsets the effect of reduced volume in the divisor of the growth percentage

expression.

Thinning increased and maintained higher growth percentage values of the thinning

treatments over the control for basal area, CVTS, and initial merchantable volumes

(CV6 and SV6). Differences in growth percentages among CVTS, CV6, and SV6 were

generally less at recent measurements than at earlier measurements (fig. 41). This

occurred because, as trees become larger, values of CVTS, CV6, and SV6 become

more nearly proportional.

The trends in decreasing relative growth with time were primarily a result of PAI

decreasing with age rather than stocking differences. By the last treatment period (age

50-55 years), the growth percentages were generally around 3 to 5 percent for volume

growth of the treatments. This is, of course, volume growth percentage and not value

growth percentage, which one would expect might be greater.

The LOGS studies were not designed to test operational thinning regimes; the frequent

and light thinnings were used to provide close control of growing stock and would not be

operationally feasible in most situations. The information gained from the LOGS studies

is useful, however, in designing thinning regimes.

One of the primary objectives of the LOGS studies was to determine how growth is

related to growing stock in young Douglas-fir stands. A concept often cited at the time

the study was designed is referred to as the “Langsaeter hypothesis” (fig. 42), which

suggests that similar gross increment can be obtained over a wide range of growing

stock. To date, the LOGS studies have not supported this hypothesis in young Douglasfir; they have not shown a clear plateau. After thinning treatments were stopped and

Cumulative Volume and

Tree Size

Growth Percentage

Management

Implications

Benefits of Thinning
42

additional growing stock accumulated on the thinned plots, maximum growth still

occurred at the highest growing stock levels within the range of thinning treatments,

which is the lightest thinning (treatment 7). This is expected to continue until the

thinnings accumulate enough growing stock to be impacted by suppression mortality

and height growth rates are reduced (Curtis and Marshall 1986). The findings reported

here for this installation (figs. 26b and 27b), the most advanced in development of the

LOGS sites, suggest that this may be beginning to happen. Continued observations will

be required to see if, with the onset of mortality in the denser treatments, they develop

an extended plateau or a peak in growth over growing stock.

Figure 41—Net growth percentages in basal area, CVTS, CV6, and SV6 in the 1993-

98 growth period: (A) by treatment, and (B) in relation to midperiod basal area.
43

These results are consistent with findings from other long-term thinning studies that

show that thinning in Douglas-fir does not greatly increase cubic volume production.

Although small gains in volume may be attained, the major benefits from thinning are

from the following:

• Production of larger trees with correspondingly greater value per cubic foot

• Ability to forestall or salvage most mortality and enhance stand vigor

• Ability to produce wood while maintaining forest cover for extended periods

• Enhancement of aesthetic and wildlife values, with concomitant possible reductions

in user conflicts

Given initial spacing comparable to that achieved by the calibration cut, and relative

freedom from nonsuppression mortality, little additional volume production is gained

by repeated thinning of initially well-stocked stands until the stands approach relative

densities near the lower margin of the zone of competition-related mortality. This

corresponds roughly to an SDI of about 400 or an RD of about 60. Hence, the full

benefits of commercial thinning will be obtained only on moderate to long rotations

(>50 years on this high productivity site).

Two caveats need to be kept in mind as results of thinned vs. control and among LOGS

installations are compared:

1. LOGS installations were placed in stands carefully selected for uniformity and full

stocking. Conditions on the thinned plots were little different from those existing on

thousands of precommercially thinned acres. But the controls were in general denser

and more uniform than many unthinned stands and relatively free of hardwoods. One

therefore would expect higher volume production in early life on the controls than in

Figure 42—Relation between volume increment and growing stock as hypothesized

by Langsaeter (from Braathe 1957), with density types I-V denoted.
44

many unthinned stands, and gross volume gains from thinning therefore are probably

underestimated by simple comparisons of thinning vs. control treatments (Curtis and

others 1997).

2. Hoskins had an initially large number of trees compared to other LOGS installations.

One therefore would expect early volume growth on the control to be high and the

control to reach its upper density limit and undergo substantial mortality earlier than

in installations with a lower initial stocking.

Considerations of wildlife habitat or premiums for large diameters could, of course, alter

these generalizations. And, the ability to control species composition through thinning

also may have benefits not obvious in the uniform single-species-stand experiment

reported here.

The trends of net volume PAI and MAI-total, merchantable cubic, and Scribner-show

clearly that at age 55, this high productivity site stand is still considerably short of

culmination. A longer rotation would give increased volume and value production,

increased employment, and enhanced wildlife and aesthetic values. There clearly is

conflict among these possible objectives and the relatively short rotations that stem

from conventional financial analyses.

The clear relations between stocking and volume increment suggest that–from a timber

production standpoint–even–aged stand management regimes usually should aim to

produce relative densities near or slightly below the lower margin of the zone of competitionrelated mortality at time of final harvest. Thinning should be timed in relation to the

rotation to meet this objective.

The Hoskins study specifically and the other LOGS plots generally have been providing

valuable information on the development of young Douglas-fir for two and a half

decades. The installations have provided a clean and consistently measured data set for

several modeling projects. Further observations at Hoskins will provide important

information on the long-term growth response to thinning in terms of MAI trends and

stand development, as densities build up subsequent to the cessation of thinning and

the start of competition-related mortality in the thinning treatments.

Overall analysis across the nine LOGS installations and integration with results of other

thinning and spacing studies probably will best be done through generalized stand

modeling. This is still in the future. There are, however, a number of more limited topics,

not adequately covered in this summary report, that we hope to address in the near

future. These include an expanded analysis and discussion of PAI and MAI trends and

their significance, and an examination of relations between crown development,

treatment regime, and stand density.

Evaluation of the

Study

Rotations and Timing of

Final Thinnings
45

1 inch (in) = 2.54 centimeters

1 foot (ft) = 0.3048 meter

1 mile (mi) = 1.6093 kilometers

1 acre = 0.405 hectare

1 square foot (ft2

) = 0.09290 square meter

1 cubic foot (ft3) = 0.02832 cubic meter

1 square foot per acre (ft2/acre) = 0.2293 square meter per hectare

1 cubic foot per acre (ft3/acre) = 0.06997 cubic meter per hectare

1 tree per acre = 2.471 trees per hectare

(

o

F-32)/1.8 = oC

Bell, J.F.; Dilworth, J.R. 1997. Log scaling and timber cruising. Corvallis, OR: John Bell

& Associates, Inc.

Braathe, P. 1957. Thinnings in even-aged stands: a summary of European literature.

Fredericton, NB: University of New Brunswick, Faculty of Forestry. 92 p.

Brackett, M. 1973. Notes on tarif tree volume computation. Resour. Manage. Rep. 24.

Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 26 p.

Bruce, D.; DeMars, D.J. 1974. 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. 5 p.

Chambers, C.J.; Foltz, B.W. 1979. The tarif system-revisions and additions. DNR Rep.

27. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 8 p.

Christensen, G.A. 1997. Development of Douglas-fir log quality, product yield, and stand

value after repeated thinnings in western Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University. 176 p. M.S. thesis.

Curtis, R.O. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science. 28(1):

92-94.

Curtis, R.O.; Marshall, D.D. 1989. On the definition of stand diameter growth for

remeasured plots. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(3): 102-103.

Curtis, R.O.; Marshall, D.D. 2000. Why quadratic mean diameter? Western Journal of

Applied Forestry. 15(3): 137-139.

Flewelling, J.W. 1994. Considerations in simultaneous curve fitting for repeated heightdiameter measurements. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 24(7): 1408-1414.

Flewelling, J.W.; Raynes, L.M. 1993. Variable-shape stem-profile predictions for western

hemlock. Part I: Predictions from DBH and total height. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 23(3): 520-536.

Franklin, J.F. 1979. Vegetation of the Douglas-fir region. In: Heilman, P.E.; Anderson,

H.W.; Baumgartner, D.M., eds. Forest soils of the Douglas-fir region. Pullman, WA:

Washington State University: 93-112.

Metric Equivalents

Literature Cited3

3 Some references are to previous LOGS reports. Those citations

are given in the front matter and are not repeated here.
46

King, J.E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest.

Weyerhaeuser For. Pap. 8. Centrailia, WA: Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center.

49 p.

Knezevich, C.A. 1975. Soil survey of Benton County, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 119 p. In cooperation with:

Oregon Agriculture Experiment Station.

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle.

61(1): 23-37.

Long, J.N.; McCarter, J.B.; Jack, S.B. 1988. A modified density management diagram

for coastal Douglas-fir. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(3): 88-89.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of

Agricultural Research. 46: 627-638.

Smith, D.M.; Larson, B.C.; Kelty, M.J.; Ashton, P.M.S. 1997. The practice of

silviculture: applied forest ecology. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley. 537 p.

Staebler, G.R. 1959. Optimum levels of growing stock for managed stands. In: Proceedings

of the Society of American Foresters. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters:

110-113.

Staebler, G.R. 1960. Theoretical derivation of numerical thinning schedules for Douglasfir. Forest Science. 6(2): 98-109.

Tappeiner, J.S.; Bell, J.F.; Brodie, J.D. 1982. Response of young Douglas-fir to 16

years of intensive thinning. Res. Bull. 38. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,

School of Forestry. 17 p.

Zumrawi, A.A.; Hann, D.W. 1989. Equations for predicting the height to crown base of

six tree species in the central western Willamette Valley of Oregon. Res. Pap. 52.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forestry Sciences Laboratory. 9 p.
47

AppendixTable 2—Heights of the 40 largest trees per acre, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Height at start of period

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fixed:

1 3 39.5 49.2 49.1 61.6 60.2 71.5 69.5 75.0 74.9 86.2 86.0 97.4 97.4 108.9 108.9 121.2 121.2 132.3

8 40.9 49.3 49.2 63.8 63.6 72.7 70.8 76.8 76.0 88.4 86.8 98.6 98.6 109.9 109.9 119.7 119.7 128.320 39.3 49.5 49.0 62.2 62.0 70.8 70.9 76.4 76.4 87.2 87.1 99.3 99.3 110.6 110.6 123.8 123.8 134.5Avg. 39.9 49.3 49.1 62.5 61.9 71.7 70.4 76.1 75.8 87.3 86.6 98.4 98.4 109.8 109.8 121.6 121.6 131.7

3 7 38.6 49.4 49.4 62.8 61.9 71.5 71.2 77.1 76.2 88.4 88.4 98.7 98.7 111.3 111.3 122.9 122.9 133.4

11 38.0 47.4 47.1 61.0 60.6 70.3 71.5 76.9 76.9 89.1 89.1 98.1 98.1 111.6 111.6 124.4 124.4 133.321 37.7 48.9 48.9 60.7 60.9 72.2 71.9 78.2 78.2 90.2 88.8 98.6 98.6 110.9 110.9 124.0 124.0 131.5Avg. 38.1 48.6 48.5 61.5 61.1 71.3 71.6 77.4 77.1 89.2 88.8 98.4 98.4 111.3 111.3 123.8 123.8 132.7

5 9 39.8 50.7 50.7 62.2 62.8 72.6 72.3 78.9 78.9 90.3 90.3 101.0 101.0 112.8 112.8 126.4 126.4 133.6

24 38.8 49.4 48.7 62.3 62.3 71.7 71.8 78.1 78.1 89.6 89.6 101.8 101.8 114.6 114.6 129.6 129.6 134.327 39.1 48.5 48.5 61.0 60.9 69.5 69.2 76.9 76.4 86.9 86.9 100.3 100.3 111.7 111.7 124.9 124.9 131.6Avg. 39.2 49.5 49.3 61.8 62.0 71.3 71.1 77.9 77.8 88.9 88.9 101.0 101.0 113.0 113.0 127.0 127.0 133.2

7 12 39.1 48.6 48.6 62.5 61.6 71.3 71.3 76.8 76.8 88.0 88.0 100.1 100.1 111.7 111.7 125.0 125.0 133.5

14 38.5 49.8 49.8 63.2 62.6 72.1 72.1 78.2 78.2 89.0 89.0 100.6 100.6 113.3 113.3 124.6 124.6 135.119 38.1 47.5 47.5 60.7 60.8 70.9 70.9 76.6 76.6 88.1 87.7 100.3 100.3 112.1 112.1 124.2 124.2 134.4Avg. 38.5 48.6 48.6 62.1 61.7 71.4 71.4 77.2 77.2 88.4 88.2 100.3 100.3 112.3 112.3 124.6 124.6 134.3

Increasing:

2 4 37.3 47.2 47.5 60.8 60.4 70.4 70.0 75.5 75.8 86.6 86.4 96.9 96.9 108.4 108.4 121.4 121.4 132.7

15 39.1 50.5 50.5 65.1 65.5 75.5 75.5 82.3 82.3 92.3 92.1 102.6 102.6 113.0 113.0 124.1 124.1 138.617 38.0 47.7 47.0 61.3 61.9 72.6 72.4 78.3 78.2 89.3 89.3 101.2 101.2 112.4 112.4 123.0 123.0 133.6Avg. 38.1 48.4 48.3 62.4 62.6 72.8 72.7 78.7 78.8 89.4 89.3 100.2 100.2 111.3 111.3 122.8 122.8 135.0

4 5 38.7 48.8 48.6 61.3 61.0 70.1 71.0 75.7 75.7 85.9 85.9 97.2 97.2 110.2 110.2 121.5 121.5 128.5

18 38.8 50.2 49.9 63.8 63.0 73.7 73.7 79.8 79.8 91.8 91.8 102.8 102.8 114.3 114.3 126.4 126.4 138.423 41.9 53.2 52.8 65.6 64.9 75.1 74.9 81.4 81.4 92.5 92.5 103.0 103.0 114.0 114.0 128.3 128.3 138.3Avg. 39.8 50.8 50.5 63.5 63.0 73.0 73.2 79.0 79.0 90.1 90.1 101.0 101.0 112.8 112.8 125.4 125.4 135.1

Decreasing:

6 1 39.9 49.3 49.1 62.2 62.2 71.3 70.6 76.5 76.5 87.0 87.0 98.7 98.7 109.5 109.5 123.6 123.6 135.0

2 40.1 48.9 48.9 61.3 61.0 70.7 70.3 76.2 76.2 88.0 87.6 98.6 98.6 111.3 111.3 124.5 124.5 134.825 38.6 48.6 47.9 61.6 61.6 71.8 71.8 77.0 77.0 88.3 87.2 96.9 96.9 108.9 108.9 121.2 121.2 130.6Avg. 39.5 48.9 48.6 61.7 61.6 71.3 70.9 76.6 76.6 87.8 87.2 98.1 98.1 109.9 109.9 123.1 123.1 133.4

8 6 39.7 49.3 49.3 63.5 62.9 72.9 72.9 78.9 78.9 89.8 89.5 100.7 100.7 112.8 112.8 123.2 123.2 131.3

13 40.5 48.3 48.3 61.9 61.9 71.1 71.1 75.9 76.4 88.4 87.2 97.5 97.5 110.6 110.6 123.3 123.3 132.216 39.6 49.4 49.4 63.6 63.6 72.7 72.6 78.1 78.1 88.2 88.0 99.7 99.7 111.2 111.2 123.6 123.6 133.6Avg. 39.9 49.0 49.0 63.0 62.8 72.2 72.2 77.6 77.8 88.8 88.2 99.3 99.3 111.5 111.5 123.4 123.4 132.4

Unthinned:

C 10 40.7 50.0 50.0 63.1 63.1 72.3 72.3 77.7 77.7 87.0 87.0 95.7 95.7 106.9 106.9 118.5 118.5 125.1

22 44.1 52.3 52.3 66.4 66.4 76.0 76.0 82.1 82.1 91.5 91.5 102.0 102.0 114.1 114.1 126.3 126.3 134.926 41.6 51.0 51.0 65.4 65.4 74.9 74.9 80.9 80.9 90.3 90.3 99.5 99.5 110.6 110.6 121.9 121.9 130.7Avg. 42.1 51.1 51.1 65.0 65.0 74.4 74.4 80.2 80.2 89.6 89.6 99.1 99.1 110.5 110.5 122.2 122.2 130.2
48

Table 3—Diameters of the 40 largest trees per acre, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Diameter at start of period

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fixed:

1 3 7.1 9.2 9.0 11.9 11.2 13.3 13.1 14.3 14.3 16.6 16.4 18.6 18.6 21.1 21.1 23.1 23.1 24.9

8 7.1 9.1 9.0 11.7 11.6 13.6 13.4 14.6 14.4 16.4 16.3 18.6 18.6 21.0 21.0 23.2 23.2 24.920 6.9 9.0 8.9 11.6 11.3 13.3 13.3 14.4 14.4 16.7 16.1 18.2 18.2 20.3 20.3 22.0 22.0 23.5Avg. 7.0 9.1 9.0 11.7 11.4 13.4 13.3 14.4 14.3 16.6 16.3 18.5 18.5 20.8 20.8 22.8 22.8 24.4

3 7 7.2 9.2 9.1 11.7 11.2 12.9 12.7 13.8 13.2 15.0 15.0 16.8 16.8 18.8 18.8 20.6 20.6 21.9

11 7.0 9.2 9.1 11.8 11.7 13.5 13.2 14.3 14.3 16.2 16.2 18.1 18.1 20.3 20.3 22.2 22.2 23.821 7.3 9.5 9.5 12.2 12.1 13.9 13.7 14.8 14.8 16.5 16.1 17.7 17.7 19.3 19.3 20.6 20.6 21.8Avg. 7.2 9.3 9.3 11.9 11.7 13.5 13.2 14.3 14.1 15.9 15.8 17.5 17.5 19.4 19.4 21.1 21.1 22.5

5 9 6.5 8.5 8.5 11.0 11.0 12.7 12.4 13.4 13.4 15.2 15.2 16.8 16.8 18.4 18.4 19.8 19.8 21.1

24 7.1 9.4 9.3 11.9 11.9 13.7 13.4 14.6 14.6 16.3 16.3 17.8 17.8 19.3 19.3 20.6 20.6 21.227 6.8 8.7 8.7 11.3 11.1 12.6 12.5 13.5 13.5 15.4 15.4 17.2 17.2 19.1 19.1 20.7 20.7 22.1Avg. 6.8 8.9 8.8 11.4 11.3 13.0 12.8 13.8 13.8 15.6 15.6 17.3 17.3 19.0 19.0 20.4 20.4 21.4

7 12 7.3 9.3 9.3 11.5 11.2 12.7 12.7 13.5 13.5 15.0 15.0 16.5 16.5 18.0 18.0 19.5 19.5 20.8

14 7.2 9.3 9.3 11.9 11.9 13.5 13.5 14.4 14.4 15.8 15.8 17.3 17.3 18.8 18.8 20.1 20.1 21.319 7.2 9.2 9.2 11.6 11.4 12.9 12.9 13.7 13.7 15.1 15.1 16.4 16.4 17.9 17.9 19.1 19.1 20.3Avg. 7.2 9.3 9.3 11.6 11.5 13.0 13.0 13.8 13.8 15.3 15.3 16.8 16.8 18.2 18.2 19.6 19.6 20.8

Increasing:

2 4 6.7 8.7 8.5 11.5 11.1 13.1 13.0 14.3 14.2 16.2 16.1 18.0 18.0 20.1 20.1 21.7 21.7 23.1

15 7.3 9.6 9.6 12.6 12.5 14.8 14.8 16.2 16.1 18.3 18.0 20.1 20.1 22.4 22.4 24.2 24.2 25.817 7.0 9.1 8.7 11.2 11.0 12.9 12.8 14.0 13.9 16.0 16.0 17.9 17.9 19.9 19.9 21.3 21.3 22.8Avg. 7.0 9.1 8.9 11.8 11.6 13.6 13.5 14.8 14.7 16.8 16.7 18.7 18.7 20.8 20.8 22.4 22.4 23.9

4 5 6.8 8.7 8.7 11.2 11.1 12.8 12.6 13.5 13.5 15.3 15.3 16.8 16.8 18.3 18.3 19.6 19.6 20.3

18 6.7 8.8 8.7 11.3 11.0 12.8 12.8 13.9 13.9 15.8 15.8 17.5 17.5 19.2 19.2 20.7 20.7 22.123 7.7 9.8 9.8 12.5 12.4 14.3 14.1 15.2 15.2 17.0 17.0 18.6 18.6 20.2 20.2 21.6 21.6 22.9Avg. 7.1 9.1 9.1 11.7 11.5 13.3 13.2 14.2 14.2 16.0 16.0 17.6 17.6 19.3 19.3 20.6 20.6 21.8

Decreasing:

6 1 7.1 9.3 9.3 11.8 11.8 13.6 13.2 14.3 14.3 16.0 15.9 17.8 17.8 19.5 19.5 21.2 21.2 22.6

2 7.1 9.1 9.1 11.6 11.4 13.2 12.9 14.1 14.1 16.0 15.6 17.3 17.3 19.4 19.4 21.0 21.0 22.525 6.8 8.9 8.9 11.4 11.4 13.1 13.1 14.1 14.1 15.9 15.9 17.6 17.6 19.4 19.4 20.9 20.9 22.2Avg. 7.0 9.1 9.1 11.6 11.6 13.3 13.1 14.2 14.2 16.0 15.8 17.6 17.6 19.4 19.4 21.0 21.0 22.5

8 6 7.2 9.4 9.4 11.8 11.6 13.2 13.2 14.1 14.1 15.8 15.7 17.4 17.4 19.2 19.2 20.8 20.8 22.1

13 7.8 9.9 9.9 12.2 12.0 13.4 13.4 14.1 14.1 15.6 15.2 16.7 16.7 18.3 18.3 19.6 19.6 21.016 7.0 9.0 9.0 11.3 11.3 12.9 12.7 13.6 13.6 15.1 14.9 16.5 16.5 18.1 18.1 19.4 19.4 20.7Avg. 7.3 9.4 9.4 11.8 11.6 13.2 13.1 14.0 13.9 15.5 15.3 16.8 16.8 18.5 18.5 20.0 20.0 21.3

Unthinned:

C 10 7.3 8.6 8.6 10.2 10.2 11.2 11.2 11.7 11.7 12.7 12.7 13.7 13.7 14.9 14.9 16.0 16.0 17.2

22 8.0 9.4 9.4 11.3 11.3 12.5 12.5 13.3 13.3 14.7 14.7 16.1 16.1 17.8 17.8 19.4 19.4 21.026 7.4 9.2 9.2 11.1 11.1 12.3 12.3 13.0 13.0 14.1 14.1 15.1 15.1 16.3 16.3 17.5 17.5 18.8Avg. 7.6 9.1 9.1 10.9 10.9 12.0 12.0 12.7 12.7 13.8 13.8 15.0 15.0 16.3 16.3 17.6 17.6 19.0
49

Table 4—Number of trees per acre, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Number of trees per acre

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr)Fixed:

1 3 345 345 210 210 115 115 85 85 70 70 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

8 380 375 225 225 120 120 80 80 70 70 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5020 335 335 210 210 120 120 85 85 70 70 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55Avg. 353 352 215 215 118 118 83 83 70 70 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52

3 7 390 390 295 295 200 200 160 160 145 145 115 115 115 115 115 110 110 105

11 340 340 240 240 160 160 125 125 105 105 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 8521 300 295 220 220 165 165 135 135 120 120 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105Avg. 343 342 252 252 175 175 140 140 123 123 102 102 102 102 102 100 100 98

5 9 355 355 315 315 250 250 215 215 195 195 175 170 170 165 165 160 160 160

24 345 345 280 280 230 230 200 200 180 180 165 160 160 160 160 145 145 12527 395 390 340 340 270 265 225 220 205 205 170 165 165 160 160 155 155 150Avg. 365 363 312 312 250 248 213 212 193 193 170 165 165 162 162 153 153 145

7 12 330 330 330 330 300 300 275 275 260 255 240 235 235 230 230 215 215 210

14 325 325 310 310 270 270 245 245 230 230 210 210 210 190 190 190 190 19019 330 330 330 330 290 290 265 260 240 230 225 225 225 220 220 220 220 205Avg. 328 328 323 323 287 287 262 260 243 238 225 223 223 213 213 208 208 202

Increasing:

2 4 360 360 220 220 135 135 105 105 95 95 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

15 325 325 185 185 100 100 75 75 70 70 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 6517 345 340 215 215 140 135 110 110 105 105 90 90 90 90 90 85 85 85Avg. 343 342 207 207 125 123 97 97 90 90 80 80 80 80 80 78 78 78

4 5 390 390 285 285 205 205 180 180 160 160 155 155 155 150 150 145 145 135

18 320 320 245 245 185 185 165 165 150 150 145 145 145 140 140 130 130 12023 290 280 200 200 150 150 135 135 125 125 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110Avg. 333 330 243 243 180 180 160 160 145 145 138 138 138 133 133 128 128 122

Decreasing:

6 1 325 325 275 275 210 210 170 170 145 145 115 115 115 115 115 110 110 110

2 360 360 300 300 225 225 180 180 150 150 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 11525 330 330 275 275 295 195 155 155 130 130 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 90Avg. 338 338 283 283 210 210 168 168 142 142 110 110 110 110 110 105 105 105

8 6 375 370 360 360 300 300 260 260 240 240 200 195 195 190 190 170 170 170

13 330 330 320 320 270 270 240 235 220 215 190 185 185 180 180 170 170 16016 305 305 300 300 255 255 225 225 205 205 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170Avg. 337 335 327 327 275 275 242 240 222 220 187 183 183 180 180 170 170 167

Unthinned:

C 10 1885 1830 1830 1425 1425 1205 1205 1100 1100 885 885 735 735 540 540 410 410 345

22 1595 1430 1430 1110 1110 965 965 800 800 695 695 600 600 435 435 340 340 26526 1675 1650 1650 1280 1280 1090 1090 915 915 720 720 625 625 490 490 380 380 310Avg. 1718 1637 1637 1272 1272 1087 1087 938 938 767 767 653 653 488 488 377 377 307
50

Treatment 1 Treatment 3 Treatment 5 Treatment 7 Treatment 2 Treatment 4 Treatment 6 Treatment 8 Control

Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End Start End

D.b.h. 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998 1963 1998

class (20 hr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr) (20 yr) (55 yr)

Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Number per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Table 5—Number of trees per acre by 1-in d.b.h. classes, after the calibration (1963) and in 1998, by treatment and age (in par2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 03 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 482 04 30 0 43 0 45 0 33 0 43 0 35 0 32 0 32 0 470 05 122 0 100 0 105 0 75 0 75 0 78 0 87 0 83 0 357 06 105 0 97 0 118 0 92 0 122 0 105 0 117 0 110 0 225 07 58 0 68 0 77 0 85 0 67 0 72 0 62 0 68 0 113 08 35 0 23 0 17 0 33 0 33 0 38 0 40 0 33 0 48 79 2 0 8 0 3 0 10 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 8 0 5 1310 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 4312 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 0 3813 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 3314 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 8 0 3215 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 3316 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 12 0 5 0 12 0 5 0 13 0 2817 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 23 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 13 0 1318 0 0 0 3 0 18 0 27 0 2 0 13 0 8 0 28 0 1519 0 2 0 8 0 10 0 22 0 2 0 13 0 5 0 22 0 720 0 2 0 15 0 18 0 27 0 7 0 10 0 18 0 20 0 821 0 5 0 12 0 15 0 12 0 13 0 18 0 22 0 12 0 522 0 3 0 12 0 10 0 13 0 8 0 17 0 5 0 10 0 723 0 3 0 17 0 10 0 8 0 15 0 13 0 12 0 7 0 224 0 12 0 5 0 7 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 7 0 5 0 025 0 7 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 026 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 227 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 028 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 029 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 353 52 343 98 365 145 328 202 343 87 333 122 338 105 337 167 1,718 307

entheses)
Table 6—Basal area per acre, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Basal area

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Square feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fixed:

1 3 49.6 88.4 55.9 102.1 60.3 86.0 64.7 77.7 65.5 88.8 68.6 88.3 88.3 113.4 113.4 135.4 135.4 156.4

8 50.2 84.2 54.8 98.1 60.3 84.2 64.5 76.7 66.3 89.4 68.3 89.5 89.5 115.8 115.8 141.5 141.5 163.7

20 48.3 84.0 54.8 98.1 60.6 85.2 63.9 76.6 66.5 90.1 70.2 89.6 89.6 112.8 112.8 132.3 132.3 151.7Avg. 49.4 85.5 55.1 99.4 60.4 85.1 64.4 77.0 66.1 89.4 69.0 89.1 89.1 114.0 114.0 136.4 136.4 157.2

3 7 48.6 83.0 65.2 113.1 81.8 112.5 92.3 109.0 97.5 127.3 107.8 135.5 135.5 168.6 168.6 198.4 198.4 220.4

11 49.3 87.2 65.1 114.5 81.6 111.5 92.7 109.7 97.8 127.9 106.9 132.9 132.9 164.9 164.9 196.1 196.1 223.521 49.1 84.7 62.5 106.8 81.4 109.5 91.8 107.8 97.3 123.4 107.9 130.3 130.3 155.4 155.4 177.2 177.2 198.4Avg. 49.0 85.0 64.2 111.5 81.6 111.2 92.3 108.8 97.5 126.2 107.5 132.9 132.9 163.0 163.0 190.6 190.6 214.1

5 9 48.2 83.5 75.0 126.5 103.0 136.9 121.3 139.2 130.5 163.6 147.4 174.1 174.1 204.5 204.5 232.7 232.7 258.2

24 50.7 89.9 74.9 124.1 103.4 137.1 121.1 140.7 130.1 160.8 148.4 174.5 174.5 202.4 202.4 223.1 223.1 217.527 48.7 84.5 74.8 128.9 104.5 138.8 120.8 140.6 130.5 168.6 147.8 177.7 177.7 215.4 215.4 244.9 244.9 274.7Avg. 49.2 86.0 74.9 126.5 103.6 137.6 121.1 140.1 130.4 164.3 147.9 175.4 175.4 207.4 207.4 233.6 233.6 250.1

7 12 49.2 83.7 83.7 136.7 124.6 161.0 150.3 169.4 162.3 196.5 185.8 219.0 219.0 255.8 255.8 282.6 282.6 312.4

14 51.0 88.5 85.5 141.6 124.7 162.9 149.4 169.4 162.3 198.0 186.4 222.5 222.5 254.4 254.4 289.1 289.1 318.719 50.0 85.5 85.5 139.8 124.1 161.0 150.3 170.7 162.3 192.3 186.5 221.7 221.7 257.7 257.7 291.3 291.3 307.5Avg. 50.1 85.9 84.9 139.4 124.5 161.6 150.0 169.8 162.3 195.6 186.2 221.1 221.1 256.0 256.0 287.6 287.6 312.9

Increasing:

2 4 50.3 87.3 56.0 102.2 66.1 93.5 77.0 93.0 84.3 112.3 102.0 129.2 129.2 161.0 161.0 188.6 188.6 213.0

15 50.1 88.3 57.0 102.6 66.1 93.1 77.3 92.3 85.7 111.8 102.0 127.0 127.0 155.5 155.5 180.3 180.3 204.217 49.7 85.8 54.7 96.7 66.4 91.3 75.0 89.0 84.2 110.1 100.6 126.2 126.2 154.2 154.2 171.1 171.1 196.4Avg. 50.0 87.1 55.9 100.5 66.2 92.6 76.5 91.4 84.7 111.4 101.5 127.5 127.5 156.9 156.9 180.0 180.0 204.5

4 5 50.7 88.4 66.9 116.2 86.6 117.8 105.8 124.1 115.3 145.6 140.6 170.5 170.5 200.3 200.3 227.2 227.2 237.8

18 49.6 85.9 65.6 113.5 87.3 118.0 105.5 122.9 115.9 145.4 140.4 168.8 168.8 197.6 197.6 209.1 209.1 231.623 51.0 85.8 64.4 108.3 87.0 115.6 105.2 122.1 116.1 144.7 139.4 166.1 166.1 193.3 193.3 218.0 218.0 242.1Avg. 50.4 86.7 65.6 112.6 87.0 117.1 105.5 123.0 115.8 145.2 140.2 168.5 168.5 197.0 197.0 218.1 218.1 237.2

Decreasing:

6 1 50.2 87.2 75.2 125.9 98.1 131.0 107.8 126.1 111.8 141.6 115.4 143.7 143.7 175.0 175.0 202.0 202.0 227.6

2 50.5 89.1 75.1 128.2 97.6 131.8 108.1 127.4 111.4 144.7 115.0 145.0 145.0 182.3 182.3 213.7 213.7 243.325 48.8 87.6 75.0 128.1 97.9 131.6 108.9 127.8 111.6 143.0 114.4 140.3 140.3 169.1 169.1 178.5 178.5 202.6Avg. 49.9 88.0 75.1 127.4 97.8 131.5 108.3 127.1 111.6 143.1 114.9 143.0 143.0 175.4 175.4 198.1 198.1 224.5

8 6 51.2 88.8 86.7 141.5 118.8 154.2 136.7 154.9 145.7 179.9 154.7 187.7 187.7 226.0 226.0 253.9 253.9 282.2

13 51.0 88.1 85.6 137.2 118.6 152.8 136.3 153.9 143.9 175.4 154.4 183.1 183.1 212.8 212.8 237.2 237.2 259.116 49.0 86.6 85.2 139.1 118.6 155.4 137.4 157.9 144.1 180.1 153.7 188.4 188.4 228.4 228.4 262.2 262.2 292.4Avg. 50.4 87.8 85.8 139.3 118.7 154.1 136.8 155.6 144.6 178.5 154.3 186.4 186.4 222.4 222.4 251.1 251.1 277.9

Unthinned:

C 10 134.1 178.4 178.4 218.8 218.8 242.8 242.8 250.5 250.5 260.7 260.7 274.6 274.6 269.4 269.4 263.5 263.5 267.6

22 158.1 201.7 201.7 245.9 245.9 275.1 275.1 277.2 277.2 300.2 300.2 320.2 320.2 319.6 319.6 325.3 325.3 326.226 121.8 173.9 173.9 221.2 221.2 249.8 249.8 256.1 256.1 272.7 272.7 290.5 290.5 300.1 300.1 303.6 303.6 305.9Avg. 138.0 184.7 184.7 228.6 228.6 255.9 255.9 261.3 261.3 277.9 277.9 295.1 295.1 296.4 296.4 297.5 297.5 299.9

51
Table 7—Quadratic mean diameter, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Quadratic mean diameter

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fixed:

1 3 5.1 6.9 7.0 9.4 9.8 11.7 11.8 12.9 13.1 15.3 15.9 18.0 18.0 20.4 20.4 22.3 22.3 23.9

8 4.9 6.4 6.7 8.9 9.6 11.3 12.2 13.3 13.2 15.3 15.8 18.1 18.1 20.6 20.6 22.8 22.8 24.520 5.1 6.8 6.9 9.3 9.6 11.4 11.7 12.9 13.2 15.4 15.3 17.3 17.3 19.4 19.4 21.0 21.0 22.5Avg. 5.1 6.7 6.9 9.2 9.7 11.5 11.9 13.0 13.2 15.3 15.7 17.8 17.8 20.1 20.1 22.0 22.0 23.6

3 7 4.8 6.2 6.4 8.4 8.7 10.2 10.3 11.2 11.1 12.7 13.1 14.7 14.7 16.4 16.4 18.2 18.2 19.6

11 5.2 6.9 7.1 9.4 9.7 11.3 11.7 12.7 13.1 14.9 15.2 16.9 16.9 18.9 18.9 20.6 20.6 22.021 5.5 7.3 7.2 9.4 9.5 11.0 11.2 12.1 12.2 13.7 13.7 15.1 15.1 16.5 16.5 17.6 17.6 18.6Avg. 5.1 6.8 6.9 9.1 9.3 10.8 11.0 12.0 12.1 13.8 14.0 15.6 15.6 17.2 17.2 18.8 18.8 20.1

5 9 5.0 6.6 6.6 8.6 8.7 10.0 10.2 10.9 11.1 12.4 12.4 13.7 13.7 15.1 15.1 16.3 16.3 17.2

24 5.2 6.9 7.0 9.0 9.1 10.5 10.5 11.4 11.5 12.8 12.8 14.1 14.1 15.2 15.2 16.8 16.8 17.927 4.8 6.3 6.4 8.3 8.4 9.8 9.9 10.8 10.8 12.3 12.6 14.1 14.1 15.7 15.7 17.0 17.0 18.3Avg. 5.0 6.6 6.7 8.6 8.7 10.1 10.2 11.0 11.1 12.5 12.6 14.0 14.0 15.3 15.3 16.7 16.7 17.8

7 12 5.2 6.8 6.8 8.7 8.7 9.9 10.0 10.6 10.7 11.9 11.9 13.1 13.1 14.3 14.3 15.5 15.5 16.5

14 5.4 7.1 7.1 9.2 9.2 10.5 10.6 11.3 11.4 12.6 12.8 13.9 13.9 15.7 15.7 16.7 16.7 17.519 5.3 6.9 6.9 8.8 8.9 10.1 10.2 11.0 11.1 12.4 12.3 13.4 13.4 14.7 14.7 15.6 15.6 16.6Avg. 5.3 6.9 6.9 8.9 8.9 10.2 10.3 11.0 11.1 12.3 12.3 13.5 13.5 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.9

Increasing:

2 4 5.1 6.7 6.8 9.2 9.5 11.3 11.6 12.7 12.8 14.7 14.8 16.7 16.7 18.6 18.6 20.2 20.2 21.4

15 5.3 7.1 7.5 10.1 11.0 13.1 13.7 15.0 15.0 17.1 17.0 18.9 18.9 20.9 20.9 22.6 22.6 24.017 5.1 6.8 6.8 9.1 9.3 11.1 11.2 12.2 12.1 13.9 14.3 16.0 16.0 17.7 17.7 19.2 19.2 20.6Avg. 5.2 6.8 7.1 9.5 9.9 11.8 12.2 13.3 13.3 15.2 15.4 17.2 17.2 19.1 19.1 20.6 20.6 22.0

4 5 4.9 6.4 6.6 8.6 8.8 10.3 10.4 11.2 11.5 12.9 12.9 14.2 14.2 15.6 15.6 16.9 16.9 18.0

18 5.3 7.0 7.0 9.2 9.3 10.8 10.8 11.7 11.9 13.3 13.3 14.6 14.6 16.1 16.1 17.2 17.2 18.823 5.7 7.5 7.7 10.0 10.3 11.9 12.0 12.9 13.1 14.6 14.9 16.3 16.3 17.9 17.9 19.1 19.1 20.1Avg. 5.3 7.0 7.1 9.3 9.5 11.0 11.1 11.9 12.1 13.6 13.7 15.0 15.0 16.6 16.6 17.7 17.7 19.0

Decreasing:

6 1 5.3 7.0 7.1 9.2 9.3 10.7 10.8 11.7 11.9 13.4 13.6 15.1 15.1 16.7 16.7 18.3 18.3 19.5

2 5.1 6.7 6.8 8.9 8.9 10.4 10.5 11.4 11.7 13.3 13.5 15.2 15.2 17.0 17.0 18.5 18.5 19.725 5.2 7.0 7.1 9.2 9.6 11.1 11.3 12.3 12.5 14.2 14.5 16.0 16.0 17.6 17.6 19.1 19.1 20.3Avg. 5.2 6.9 7.0 9.1 9.3 10.7 10.9 11.8 12.0 13.6 13.9 15.5 15.5 17.1 17.1 18.6 18.6 19.8

8 6 5.0 6.6 6.6 8.5 8.5 9.7 9.8 10.4 10.5 11.7 11.9 13.3 13.3 14.8 14.8 16.5 16.5 17.4

13 5.3 7.0 7.0 8.9 9.0 10.2 10.2 11.0 11.0 12.2 12.2 13.5 13.5 14.7 14.7 16.0 16.0 17.216 5.4 7.2 7.2 9.2 9.2 10.6 10.6 11.3 11.4 12.7 12.9 14.3 14.3 15.7 15.7 16.8 16.8 17.8Avg. 5.3 6.9 7.0 8.9 8.9 10.2 10.2 10.9 11.0 12.2 12.3 13.7 13.7 15.1 15.1 16.5 16.5 17.5

Unthinned:

C 10 3.6 4.2 4.2 5.3 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 7.3 7.3 8.3 8.3 9.6 9.6 10.9 10.9 11.9

22 4.3 5.1 5.1 6.4 6.4 7.2 7.2 8.0 8.0 8.9 8.9 9.9 9.9 11.6 11.6 13.2 13.2 15.026 3.7 4.4 4.4 5.6 5.6 6.5 6.5 7.2 7.2 8.3 8.3 9.2 9.2 10.6 10.6 12.1 12.1 13.5Avg. 3.8 4.6 4.6 5.8 5.8 6.6 6.6 7.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 9.1 9.1 10.6 10.6 12.1 12.1 13.5

52
Table 8—Total stem cubic-foot volume per acre, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Volume

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fixed:

1 3 749 1634 1040 2357 1399 2279 1708 2192 1859 2843 2197 3126 3126 4359 4359 5698 5698 7140

8 770 1563 1029 2325 1462 2309 1768 2256 1941 2947 2243 3266 3266 4578 4578 5963 5963 726820 737 1569 1028 2296 1433 2287 1727 2223 1923 2933 2288 3270 3270 4493 4493 5817 5817 7143Avg. 752 1589 1032 2326 1431 2291 1734 2224 1908 2908 2243 3221 3221 4477 4477 5826 5826 7184

3 7 742 1549 1223 2678 1941 3063 2519 3181 2847 4271 3629 5039 5039 6966 6966 8951 8951 10569

11 757 1630 1219 2715 1939 3043 2560 3233 2895 4281 3599 4868 4868 6763 6763 8801 8801 1059821 752 1607 1181 2529 1912 2989 2508 3179 2866 4164 3619 4831 4831 6371 6371 8040 8040 9502Avg. 750 1595 1208 2641 1931 3032 2529 3198 2869 4239 3616 4913 4913 6700 6700 8597 8597 10223

5 9 725 1569 1412 3014 2461 3757 3346 4176 3926 5595 5035 6630 6630 8612 8612 10815 10815 12522

24 755 1667 1394 2909 2440 3717 3288 4151 3842 5429 4997 6645 6645 8520 8520 10528 10528 1079227 707 1521 1349 2975 2413 3702 3223 4110 3801 5589 4899 6599 6599 8858 8858 11138 11138 13013Avg. 729 1586 1385 2966 2438 3725 3285 4146 3857 5538 4977 6625 6625 8663 8663 10827 10827 12109

7 12 742 1540 1540 3235 2936 4387 4094 4991 4785 6611 6237 8238 8238 10699 10699 13075 13075 15255

14 774 1648 1594 3366 2951 4455 4082 5015 4802 6672 6283 8401 8401 10785 10785 13448 13448 1574119 747 1570 1570 3299 2922 4379 4097 5050 4804 6507 6299 8441 8441 10924 10924 13596 13596 15212Avg. 754 1586 1568 3300 2936 4407 4091 5019 4797 6597 6273 8360 8360 10803 10803 13373 13373 15403

Increasing:

2 4 727 1602 1036 2377 1542 2524 2088 2682 2427 3670 3335 4677 4677 6401 6401 8311 8311 10030

15 743 1666 1094 2468 1631 2631 2199 2810 2606 3744 3427 4688 4688 6180 6180 7881 7881 974517 721 1565 997 2248 1553 2480 2038 2588 2446 3635 3328 4684 4684 6275 6275 7607 7607 9465Avg. 730 1611 1043 2364 1575 2545 2108 2693 2493 3683 3363 4683 4683 6285 6285 7933 7933 9747

4 5 725 1606 1220 2673 1997 3113 2819 3568 3324 4788 4615 6281 6281 8274 8274 10294 10294 11347

18 732 1616 1235 2708 2083 3222 2883 3662 3461 4923 4757 6377 6377 8283 8283 9595 9595 1143523 788 1676 1275 2669 2143 3258 2970 3735 3554 4978 4802 6359 6359 8083 8083 10064 10064 11954Avg. 748 1632 1243 2683 2074 3198 2891 3655 3446 4896 4725 6339 6339 8213 8213 9985 9985 11579

Decreasing:

6 1 757 1606 1392 2936 2291 3520 2907 3692 3260 4645 3796 5266 5266 7077 7077 9139 9139 11081

2 741 1608 1358 2943 2238 3481 2856 3643 3198 4735 3769 5283 5283 7411 7411 9688 9688 1179525 725 1608 1376 2994 2304 3571 2973 3764 3298 4790 3821 5121 5121 6866 6866 7884 7884 9541Avg. 741 1607 1375 2958 2278 3524 2912 3699 3252 4723 3795 5223 5223 7118 7118 8904 8904 10806

8 6 777 1644 1607 3341 2814 4231 3754 4556 4299 6073 5219 7052 7052 9440 9440 11513 11513 13460

13 786 1639 1591 3256 2814 4207 3736 4516 4219 5881 5161 6818 6818 8891 8891 10970 10970 1264916 766 1652 1626 3383 2884 4345 3845 4742 4326 6147 5248 7171 7171 9605 9605 12148 12148 14398Avg. 776 1645 1608 3327 2837 4261 3778 4605 4281 6034 5210 7014 7014 9312 9312 11544 11544 13502

Unthinned:

C 10 1882 3194 3194 5049 5049 6414 6414 7064 7064 8506 8506 9907 9907 10809 10809 11574 11574 12426

22 2373 3815 3815 5960 5960 7626 7626 8295 8295 10207 10207 12058 12058 13378 13378 14923 14923 1596326 1733 3167 3167 5222 5222 6753 6753 7473 7473 9142 9142 10730 10730 12296 12296 13633 13633 14546Avg. 1996 3392 3392 5411 5411 6931 6931 7611 7611 9285 9285 10898 10898 12161 12161 13376 13376 14312

53
Table 9—Merchantable cubic-foot volume (6-in top diameter inside bark) per acre, 1963-98, by treatment, plot, measurement date,

and age (in parentheses)

Volume to 6-inch top

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fixed:

1 3 60 566 392 1711 1063 1985 1493 1987 1690 2668 2073 2978 2978 4171 4171 5460 5460 6847

8 68 485 376 1589 1090 1958 1561 2056 1764 2769 2118 3115 3115 4383 4383 5717 5717 697320 53 536 372 1624 1066 1953 1502 2008 1752 2756 2149 3108 3108 4293 4293 5570 5570 6846Avg. 61 529 380 1641 1073 1965 1518 2017 1735 2731 2113 3067 3067 4283 4283 5582 5582 6889

3 7 67 406 370 1635 1245 2396 1994 2678 2396 3822 3291 4687 4687 6571 6571 8513 8513 10100

11 57 632 512 1950 1451 2586 2220 2908 2637 4012 3382 4623 4623 6458 6458 8424 8424 1015621 96 667 492 1819 1388 2488 2104 2787 2520 3812 3316 4511 4511 6015 6015 7630 7630 9043Avg. 74 569 458 1802 1361 2490 2106 2791 2518 3882 3329 4607 4607 6348 6348 8189 8189 9766

5 9 27 485 454 1920 1604 2920 2643 3474 3306 4968 4470 6056 6056 8023 8023 10192 10192 11848

24 63 648 576 2010 1705 2980 2659 3516 3277 4837 4450 6082 6082 7902 7902 9919 9919 1024227 41 421 390 1824 1519 2822 2490 3403 3147 4939 4384 6085 6085 8313 8313 10535 10535 12382Avg. 44 518 473 1918 1609 2907 2597 3465 3243 4915 4435 6074 6074 8079 8079 10215 10215 11491

7 12 75 585 585 2144 1942 3383 3188 4081 3936 5749 5433 7437 7437 9861 9861 12227 12227 14374

14 77 666 651 2345 2071 3593 3306 4237 4084 5933 5626 7710 7710 10142 10142 12724 12724 1494519 74 599 599 2207 1965 3421 3233 4200 4039 5767 5572 7687 7687 10146 10146 12739 12739 14360Avg. 75 616 612 2232 1993 3466 3243 4173 4019 5816 5544 7611 7611 10050 10050 12564 12564 14560

Increasing:

2 4 35 505 348 1681 1127 2149 1810 2420 2190 3429 3121 4436 4436 6109 6109 7950 7950 9606

15 99 725 567 1957 1370 2387 2030 2635 2444 3557 3255 4476 4476 5916 5916 7554 7554 934617 54 569 357 1586 1136 2101 1731 2294 2164 3347 3093 4423 4423 5970 5970 7264 7264 9055Avg. 63 600 424 1741 1211 2212 1857 2450 2266 3444 3156 4445 4445 5998 5998 7589 7589 9336

4 5 47 482 399 1736 1327 2468 2263 3023 2858 4317 4158 5798 5798 7760 7760 9745 9745 10797

18 39 627 487 1955 1513 2682 2402 3176 3036 4486 4333 5920 5920 7791 7791 9073 9073 1090323 155 839 683 2058 1708 2844 2601 3360 3214 4615 4480 5997 5997 7687 7687 9598 9598 11420Avg. 80 649 523 1916 1516 2665 2422 3186 3036 4473 4324 5905 5905 7746 7746 9472 9472 11040

Decreasing:

6 1 83 634 566 2076 1622 2877 2395 3183 2841 4225 3470 4918 4918 6684 6684 8702 8702 10576

2 72 590 525 1990 1539 2790 2317 3112 2775 4313 3452 4949 4949 7026 7026 9229 9229 1126425 43 585 516 2114 1709 3021 2544 3348 2958 4445 3562 4839 4839 6535 6535 7530 7530 9129Avg. 66 603 536 2060 1623 2896 2419 3214 2858 4328 3495 4902 4902 6748 6748 8487 8487 10323

8 6 73 577 567 2134 1804 3183 2861 3663 3473 5202 4508 6344 6344 8691 8691 10826 10826 12710

13 129 677 664 2201 1932 3321 2955 3759 3510 5157 4530 6186 6186 8230 8230 10299 10299 1198716 60 678 669 2390 2040 3532 3129 4050 3697 5525 4746 6655 6655 9044 9044 11513 11513 13692Avg. 87 644 634 2242 1925 3345 2982 3824 3560 5295 4595 6395 6395 8655 8655 10880 10880 12796

Unthinned:

C 10 82 331 331 1238 1238 2290 2290 2894 2894 4381 4381 6073 6073 7940 7940 9502 9502 10759

22 238 932 932 2530 2530 4073 4073 5061 5061 7016 7016 9174 9174 11347 11347 13434 13434 1483726 94 557 557 1904 1904 3238 3238 4104 4104 5869 5869 7645 7645 9874 9874 11876 11876 13175Avg. 138 607 607 1891 1891 3200 3200 4020 4020 5755 5755 7631 7631 9720 9720 11604 11604 12924

54
Table 10—Scribner board-foot volume (6-in top diameter inside bark, 32-ft logs and 16-ft minimum top log) per acre, 1963-98, by

treatment, plot, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

Volume

Calibration Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Measurement

period period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5 period 6 period 7 period 8

1963-66 1966-70 1970-73 1973-75 1975-79 1979-83 1983-88 1988-93 1993-98

Treatment Plot (20-23 yr) (23-27 yr) (27-30 yr) (30-32 yr) (32-36 yr) (36-40 yr) (40-45 yr) (45-50 yr) (50-55 yr) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Scriber board feet per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fixed:

1 3 0 856 743 5854 3688 6191 4643 6081 5227 9760 7488 11463 11463 17717 17717 26052 26052 35011

 8 0 843 731 4907 3400 6080 4658 6700 5746 10273 7859 11904 11904 19503 19503 27188 27188 3490720 0 1043 818 5438 3504 6190 4681 6520 5693 10365 8099 12224 12224 18892 18892 26487 26487 33727Avg. 0 914 764 5400 3531 6154 4661 6434 5555 10133 7815 11864 11864 18704 18704 26576 26576 34549

3 7 100 649 550 5556 4300 8224 6970 9152 8085 15525 13226 19094 19094 28077 28077 39527 39527 48049

11 0 806 699 6280 4781 7718 6616 9665 8700 15584 13045 18003 18003 29103 29103 40531 40531 5045821 0 1205 999 5877 4400 8153 6918 10018 8992 14422 12615 17942 17942 26500 26500 36238 36238 43754Avg. 33 887 749 5904 4494 8031 6835 9612 8592 15177 12962 18347 18347 27893 27893 38765 38765 47420

5 9 0 587 587 6246 5396 10073 9220 12170 11469 20108 18010 25150 25150 35202 35202 47022 47022 56441

24 0 887 756 6322 5435 9470 8549 11775 10960 19030 17450 25386 25386 34999 34999 47344 47344 4913127 0 662 662 5978 5059 9435 8359 11263 10453 19544 17301 24717 24717 36652 36652 48840 48840 58286Avg. 0 712 668 6182 5297 9659 8709 11736 10961 19561 17587 25084 25084 35618 35618 47735 47735 54619

7 12 0 949 949 7110 6477 11576 10768 14099 13536 23108 21840 30969 30969 43838 43838 57277 57277 67340

14 0 1087 1087 7817 6835 11791 10796 14583 13955 23809 22392 32210 32210 44767 44767 59769 59769 7010619 0 1030 1030 7155 6372 11589 11050 14644 13973 23276 22478 33037 33037 44295 44295 58835 58835 68151Avg. 0 1022 1022 7361 6561 11652 10871 14442 13821 23398 22237 32072 32072 44300 44300 58627 58627 68532

Increasing:

2 4 0 543 331 5548 3659 6760 5651 7623 6884 13073 11942 17014 17014 25824 25824 37517 37517 46798

15 0 1711 1493 6052 4193 7597 6427 9350 8596 13296 12260 17635 17635 26759 26759 37069 37069 4877717 0 693 362 5367 3935 6652 5479 7518 7166 12718 11815 17962 17962 26049 26049 33615 33615 44730Avg. 0 983 729 5655 3929 7003 5853 8164 7548 13029 12006 17537 17537 26210 26210 36067 36067 46768

4 5 0 774 662 5751 4351 7850 7319 9905 9311 17187 16566 23840 23840 33860 33860 46156 46156 50591

18 0 912 693 6788 5291 8740 7815 11065 10615 17320 16713 23856 23856 34821 34821 42991 42991 5193123 112 2404 2279 6345 5212 9441 8527 12087 11548 18395 17856 23924 23924 35086 35086 45722 45722 55396Avg. 37 1363 1212 6294 4951 8677 7887 11019 10491 17634 17045 23873 23873 34589 34589 44956 44956 52639

Decreasing:

6 1 0 1261 1149 6840 5240 9499 7938 10635 9557 16271 13341 19952 19952 28649 28649 40887 40887 51345

2 0 1249 1249 6326 4992 8965 7505 10021 8965 16460 13117 19746 19746 29262 29262 43298 43298 5404425 0 893 781 7207 5833 9964 8229 11049 9655 17263 13801 19392 19392 27601 27601 35935 35935 44167Avg. 0 1135 1060 6791 5355 9476 7891 10568 9393 16665 13420 19697 19697 28504 28504 40040 40040 49852

8 6 0 980 980 6818 5772 10595 9295 12417 11841 20653 17901 27045 27045 38616 38616 50677 50677 61038

13 0 1374 1374 7015 6350 10998 9750 12787 11832 20674 18196 25843 25843 35245 35245 47343 47343 5672116 0 1018 1018 8343 7137 11948 10677 14103 12868 22140 18916 27984 27984 38887 38887 52576 52576 64790Avg. 0 1124 1124 7392 6420 11180 9907 13102 12180 21156 18338 26957 26957 37582 37582 50199 50199 60850

Unthinned:

C 10 156 357 357 2962 2962 7948 7948 10853 10853 18464 18464 27445 27445 37366 37366 45768 45768 52709

22 119 1705 1705 8592 8592 14683 14683 19065 19065 29186 29186 40256 40256 52372 52372 64095 64095 7137726 119 980 980 5868 5868 11930 11930 15726 15726 24963 24963 33975 33975 45695 45695 56783 56783 62935Avg. 131 1014 1014 5808 5808 11520 11520 15215 15215 24204 24204 33892 33892 45144 45144 55549 55549 62340

55
End of period

1966 1970 1973 1975 1979 1983 1988 1993 1998

Treatment (23 yr) (27 yr) (30 yr) (32 yr) (36 yr) (40 yr) (45 yr) (50 yr) (55 yr) Total

Number of trees per acre

Fixed:

1 2 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 2

3 2 0 0 0 00 0 2 2 6

5 2 0 2 2 0 5 3 8 7 29

7 0 0 0 2 5 2 10 5 7 31

Increasing:

2 2 0 2 0 00 0 2 0 6

4 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 20

Deceasing

6 0 0 0 0 00 0 5 0 5

8 2 0 0 2 2 3 3 10 3 25

Unthinned:

C 87 368 185 148 172 113 165 112 70 1420

Quadratic mean diameter

Inches

Fixed:

1 3.18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3.18

3 3.75 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 9.32 8.49 7.59

5 4.94 .00 6.95 7.31 .00 9.97 5.76 9.31 10.38 8.90

7 .00 .00 .00 4.76 8.66 5.39 6.88 9.77 11.43 8.69

Increasing:

2 3.83 .00 3.91 .00 .00 .00 .00 13.06 .00 8.17

4 4.31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 8.14 14.66 12.95 11.48

Decreasing:

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 15.06 .00 15.06

8 4.56 .00 .00 4.56 4.39 6.22 7.35 7.75 9.18 7.08

Unthinned:

C 2.08 2.52 3.04 4.00 4.28 4.90 6.15 7.14 8.89 4.61

Basal area

Square feet per acre

Fixed:

1 .11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .11

3 .15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .95 .79 1.89

5 .27 .00 .53 .58 .00 2.71 .54 3.78 4.11 12.52

7 .00 .00 .00 .25 2.04 .32 2.58 2.60 4.99 12.78

Increasing:

2 .16 .00 .17 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.86 .00 2.19

4 .30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.81 5.86 6.40 14.38

Decreasing:

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 6.18 .00 6.18

8 .23 .00 .00 .23 .21 .63 .88 3.28 1.38 6.84

Unthinned:

C 2.04 12.73 9.31 12.92 17.16 14.81 34.01 31.10 30.15 164.24

Volume

Cubic feet per acre

Fixed:

1 1.57 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.57

3 2.38 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 37.82 30.03 70.23

5 4.44 .00 13.36 16.11 .00 97.90 14.31 147.75 186.60 480.48

7 .00 .00 .00 5.69 65.85 9.04 83.63 104.78 231.21 500.21

Increasing:

2 2.48 .00 2.64 .00 .00 .00 .00 81.09 .00 86.20

4 4.25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 60.92 264.09 299.36 628.61

Table 11—Number, diameter, basal area, and volume of trees recorded as dead at the end of each period, by

treatment, measurement date, and age (in parentheses)

56
End of period

Treatment 1966 1970 1973 1975 1979 1983 1988 1993 1998

(23 yr) (27 yr) (30 yr) (32 yr) (36 yr) (40 yr) (45 yr) (50 yr) (55 yr) Total

Decreasing:

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 275.85 .00 275.85

8 3.84 .00 .00 4.91 5.29 19.53 32.15 127.15 61.40 254.27

Unthinned:

C 27.16 222.18 188.84 306.22 478.69 460.32 1208.68 1210.25 1296.59 5398.93

Volume

Cubic feet to 6-inch top per acre

Fixed:

1 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 30.18 21.56 51.73

5 .00 .00 6.02 8.56 .00 77.92 .68 104.26 150.47 347.92

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 46.37 .00 27.59 79.82 197.53 351.32

Increasing:

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 75.67 .00 75.67

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 34.12 242.35 261.46 537.93

Decreasing:

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 253.05 .00 253.05

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .35 15.66 61.49 39.83 117.32

Unthinned:

C .00 .00 .00 18.63 26.26 27.89 253.80 471.58 867.12 1665.28

Volume

Scribner board feet per acre

Fixed:

1 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 143.88 83.73 227.61

5 .00 .00 .00 43.71 .00 336.67 .00 498.21 793.30 1671.89

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 200.46 .00 137.39 419.14 991.78 1748.78

Increasing:

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 320.80 .00 320.80

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 207.02 1165.84 1266.96 2639.82

Decreasing:

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1188.08 .00 1188.08

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 83.73 386.04 238.02 707.79

Unthinned:

C .00 .00 .00 83.73 83.73 99.92 945.10 2406.29 4606.12 8224.90

Table 11—Number, diameter, basal area, and volume of trees recorded as dead at the end of each period, by

treatment, measurement date, and age (in parentheses) (continued)

57

Decreasing:

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 275.85 .00 275.85

8 3.84 .00 .00 4.91 5.29 19.53 32.15 127.15 61.40 254.27

Unthinned:

C 27.16 222.18 188.84 306.22 478.69 460.32 1208.68 1210.25 1296.59 5398.93
Start of period

Treatment 1966 1970 1973 1975 1979 1983 1988 1993

numbers (23) (27) (30) (32) (36) (40) (45) (50) Total

Number of trees per acre

Fixed:

1 137 97 35 13 18 0 0 0 300

3 90 77 35 17 22 0 0 0 241

5 52 62 35 18 23 0 0 0 190

7 5 37 25 17 13 0 0 0 97

Increasing:

2 135 82 27 7 10 0 0 0 261

4 87 63 20 15 7 0 0 0 192

Decreasing:

6 55 73 42 27 32 0 0 0 229

8 8 52 33 18 33 0 0 0 144

Unthinned:

C 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Quadratic mean diameter

Inches

Fixed:

1 6.4 8.6 10.4 12.4 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6

3 6.5 8.4 10.0 11.0 12.5 .0 .0 .0 8.7

5 6.2 8.2 9.3 10.0 11.5 .0 .0 .0 8.6

7 6.1 8.6 9.2 9.0 11.5 .0 .0 .0 9.2

Increasing:

2 6.5 8.8 10.5 13.3 13.4 .0 .0 .0 8.3

4 6.7 8.6 10.3 9.4 11.5 .0 .0 .0 8.2

Decreasing:

6 6.6 8.6 10.1 10.3 12.7 .0 .0 .0 9.4

8 6.8 8.5 9.8 10.6 11.6 .0 .0 .0 9.8

Unthinned:

C .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Basal area

Square feet per acre

Fixed:

1 30.4 39.1 20.8 10.9 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.5

3 20.7 29.9 18.9 11.3 18.7 .0 .0 .0 99.5

5 11.1 22.9 16.5 9.8 16.4 .0 .0 .0 76.7

7 1.0 14.9 11.6 7.5 9.4 .0 .0 .0 44.5

Increasing:

2 31.2 34.3 16.2 6.7 9.9 .0 .0 .0 98.3

4 21.0 25.7 11.6 7.2 5.1 .0 .0 .0 70.6

Decreasing:

6 12.9 29.6 23.2 15.5 28.1 .0 .0 .0 109.3

8 2.0 20.6 17.3 11.0 24.2 .0 .0 .0 75.1

Unthinned:

C .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Volume

Cubic feet per acre

Fixed:

1 557 895 557 316 665 0 0 0 2990

3 388 710 503 328 623 0 0 0 2552

5 201 528 440 289 561 0 0 0 2018

7 18 363 316 221 324 0 0 0 1242

Increasing:

2 569 789 437 200 319 0 0 0 2314

4 389 609 307 209 172 0 0 0 1685

Table 12—Number, diameter, basal area, and volume of trees cut, by treatment, period,

measurement date and age (in parentheses)

58
Start of period

Treatment 1966 1970 1973 1975 1979 1983 1988 1993

numbers (23) (27) (30) (32) (36) (40) (45) (50) Total

Decreasing:

6 232 680 612 447 928 0 0 0 2899

8 37 489 483 323 824 0 0 0 2156

Unthinned:

C 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Volume

Cubic feet to 6-inch top per acre

Fixed:

1 149 568 447 282 618 0 0 0 2064

3 111 440 384 273 553 0 0 0 1761

5 45 309 310 222 480 0 0 0 1364

7 5 239 223 153 273 0 0 0 893

Increasing:

2 176 530 356 184 288 0 0 0 1534

4 126 401 243 150 149 0 0 0 1069

Decreasing:

6 67 436 477 356 833 0 0 0 2170

8 10 316 364 264 700 0 0 0 1654

Unthinned:

C 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Volume

Scribner board feet per acre

Fixed:

1 150 1869 1493 878 2317 0 0 0 6707

3 137 1410 1197 1019 2215 0 0 0 5979

5 44 885 950 775 1974 0 0 0 4629

7 0 800 781 620 1161 0 0 0 3362

Increasing:

2 254 1726 1151 615 1023 0 0 0 4769

4 152 1343 790 528 589 0 0 0 3402

Decreasing:

6 75 1436 1586 1176 3245 0 0 0 7517

8 0 972 1273 922 2818 0 0 0 5986

Unthinned:

C 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Table 12—Number, diameter, basal area, and volume of trees cut, by treatment, period,

measurement date and age (in parentheses) (continued)

59
 Diameter at breast height (inches)

Treatment 1.6 7.6 11.6 15.6 19.6

Standing CVTS per acre

Fixed:

1 7183.7 7183.7 7183.7 7183.7 7027.9

3 10223.2 10223.2 10223.2 9848.3 8353.1

5 12108.7 12108.7 12039.5 10715.4 7038.8

7 15402.9 15402.9 15324.5 13135.7 6789.1

Increasing:

2 9,746.8 9746.8 9746.8 9746.8 9194.4

4 11,578.8 11578.8 11578.8 11269.6 7715.6

Decreasing:

6 10805.6 10805.6 10805.6 10491.9 8786.4

8 13502.3 13502.3 13372.2 12220.2 6420.2

Unthinned:

C 14311.8 14311.8 12570.1 7010.2 2678.5

Cumulative CVTS per acre

Fixed:

1 10173.7 9884.0 8732.8 7624.2 7027.9

3 12775.0 12538.8 11445.2 10096.9 8353.1

5 14127.2 13970.1 12889.6 10715.4 7038.8

7 16645.0 16600.7 15882.9 13205.3 6789.1

Increasing:

2 12060.9 11755.3 10771.1 9990.5 9299.8

4 13264.2 13111.4 12149.3 11269.6 7715.6

Decreasing:

6 13704.5 13549.3 12341.5 10870.3 8786.4

8 15658.3 15596.9 14616.0 12520.9 6420.2

Unthinned:

C 14311.8 14311.8 12570.1 7010.2 2678.5

Table 13—Total stem cubic-foot volume (CVTS) per acre in trees with diameters

larger than the indicated value in 1998 and cumulative (standing plus thinnings)

1963-98

60
Table 14—Percentage of merchantable cubic volume (CV6) of live trees in 1998

(stand age 55) in logs with scaling diameters larger than the indicated value

D.i.b.

class Trt. 1 Trt. 3 Trt. 5 Trt. 7 Trt. 2 Trt. 4 Trt. 6 Trt. 8 Control

Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

6 6.3 8.8 12.3 13.9 8. 10.0 9.6 12.9 27.6

8 7.9 8.6 11.8 14.0 6.2 9.1 9.1 10.9 26.6

10 4.5 11.5 16.5 18.9 7.0 15.8 10.5 20.8 23.1

12 8.7 19.6 24.7 28.6 16.6 25.5 19.3 26.1 11.9

14 20.8 22.0 21.1 19.2 21.8 23.2 29.7 19.2 7.5

16 27.8 25.0 11.3 5.4 24.1 12.7 18.0 7.9 2.3

18 16.3 2.8 2.3 .0 10.6 3.7 3.9 2.1 1.0

20 7.6 1.7 .0 .0 6.6 .0 .0 .0 .0

22 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

24 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

26 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

28 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

30 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Table 15—Percentage of merchantable cubic volume (CV6) of thinning removals in

logs with scaling diameters larger than the indicated value

Cumulative thinning

D.i.b.

class Trt. 1 Trt. 3 Trt. 5 Trt. 7 Trt. 2 Trt. 4 Trt. 6 Trt. 8 Control

Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

6 68.3 55.5 43.0 66.9 67.0 58.8 58.8 53.9 .0

8 21.3 20.1 30.9 12.1 9.6 15.2 26.1 17.3 .0

10 10.4 12.0 17.1 14.2 7.5 14.1 13.0 15.1 .0

12 .0 2.7 7.7 4.3 10.0 8.4 2.1 7.3 .0

14 .0 7.8 1.2 2.5 6.0 3.5 .0 4.6 .0

16 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 .0

18 .0 1.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

22 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

24 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

26 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

28 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

30 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

61
Table 16—Percentage of Scribner board-foot volume (SV6) of live trees in 1998

(stand age 55) in logs with scaling diameters larger than the indicated value

D.i.b.

class Trt. 1 Trt. 3 Trt. 5 Trt. 7 Trt. 2 Trt. 4 Trt. 6 Trt. 8 Control

Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

6 4.0 6.7 10.3 12.6 5.5 8.2 7.4 11.1 28.0

8 5.5 7.1 10.8 13.3 4.9 8.1 7.8 10.3 25.7

10 4.5 12.5 17.9 21.2 6.7 17.3 11.4 23.0 23.5

12 9.0 20.6 25.1 28.0 17.5 25.8 19.8 25.5 11.8

14 23.1 22.4 21.5 19.4 22.9 23.6 30.9 19.6 7.6

16 28.6 25.7 11.8 5.5 25.3 13.0 18.4 8.3 2.4

18 16.9 3.0 2.5 .0 11.0 4.1 4.3 2.3 1.1

20 8.3 2.0 .0 .0 6.2 .0 .0 .0 .0

22 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

24 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

26 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

28 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

30 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

Table 17—Percentage of Scribner board-foot volume (SV6) of thinning removals in

logs with scaling diameters larger than the indicated value

Cumulative thinning

D.i.b.

class Trt. 1 Trt. 3 Trt. 5 Trt. 7 Trt. 2 Trt. 4 Trt. 6 Trt. 8 Control

Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

6 69.7 46.0 31.3 56.4 57.1 43.6 55.9 42.7 .0

8 19.5 17.5 25.6 12.4 7.8 14.3 24.0 14.4 .0

10 10.8 12.6 24.8 15.1 8.1 19.2 14.7 16.5 .0

12 .0 2.1 15.5 9.3 9.9 14.5 5.4 8.2 .0

14 .0 16.1 2.8 6.8 17.1 8.3 .0 12.9 .0

16 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 .0

18 .0 5.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

22 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

24 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

26 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

28 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

30 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

62
Table 18a—Stand development table for treatment 1, per-acre basis (plots 3, 8, and 20)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 40 7.0 353 5.1 49.4 752 61 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 49 9.1 215 6.9 55.1 1032 380 137 6.4 30.4 557 149 4.1 2.0 .96 2 3.5 .1 2 01970 27 62 11.7 118 9.7 60.4 1431 1073 97 8.6 39.1 895 568 9.2 6.1 .93 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 72 13.4 83 11.9 64.4 1734 1518 35 10.4 20.8 557 447 15.9 12.8 .91 0 .0 .0 0 01975 32 76 14.4 70 13.2 66.1 1908 1735 13 12.3 10.9 316 282 24.3 21.7 .94 0 .0 .0 0 01979 36 87 16.6 52 15.7 69.0 2243 2113 18 14.3 20.4 665 618 36.9 34.3 .93 0 .0 .0 0 01983 40 98 18.5 52 17.8 89.1 3221 3067 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01988 45 110 20.8 52 20.1 114.0 4477 4283 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01993 50 122 22.8 52 22.0 136.4 5826 5582 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01998 55 132 24.4 52 23.6 157.2 7184 6889 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6

CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 752 752 61 61 0.00 0.00 0.0 00 0 38 0 3 0 38 0 31966 23 1589 1591 529 529 .54 .54 12.1 12.1 279 69 156 23 279 69 156 231970 27 2883 2884 1790 1790 .59 .59 11.1 11.1 323 107 315 66 323 107 315 661973 30 3743 3744 2683 2683 .60 .60 8.2 8.2 287 125 298 89 287 125 298 891975 32 4232 4234 3181 3181 .56 .56 6.3 6.3 245 132 249 99 245 132 249 991979 36 5233 5234 4177 4177 .54 .54 5.8 5.8 250 145 249 116 250 145 249 1161983 40 6211 6213 5131 5131 .53 .53 5.0 5.0 245 155 238 128 245 155 238 1281988 45 7467 7468 6347 6347 .47 .47 5.0 5.0 251 166 243 141 251 166 243 1411993 50 8816 8817 7646 7646 .38 .38 4.5 4.5 270 176 260 153 270 176 260 1531998 55 10174 10175 8953 8953 .32 .32 4.2 4.2 272 185 261 163 272 185 261 163a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 2,990 cubic feet (57 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 2 cubic feet (0 percent of thetotal gross yield).

63
64

Table 18b—Stand development table for treatment 1, per-hectare basis (plots 3, 8, and 20)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.7 17.8 873 12.9 11.4 53.2 4.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.6 23.1 531 17.4 12.7 72.8 27.1 338 16.2 7.0 39.5 10.9 .1 .1 .96 4 8.8 .0 .6 .51970 27 19.6 29.8 292 24.6 13.9 100.7 75.6 239 21.9 9.0 63.1 40.3 .3 .2 .93 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.4 34.0 206 30.3 14.8 121.9 106.8 86 26.5 4.8 39.5 31.8 .5 .4 .91 0 .0 .0 .0 .01975 32 23.7 36.7 173 33.5 15.2 134.0 121.0 33 31.2 2.5 22.6 20.2 .7 .6 .94 0 .0 .0 .0 .01979 36 27.1 42.1 128 39.8 15.9 157.5 148.4 45 36.3 4.7 47.1 43.8 1.0 1.0 .93 0 .0 .0 .0 .01983 40 30.5 46.9 128 45.3 20.5 226.0 215.2 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01988 45 34.03 52.9 128 51.2 26.2 313.9 300.3 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01993 50 37.6 57.8 128 56.0 31.4 408.3 391.3 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01998 55 40.7 62.1 128 60.1 36.2 503.4 482.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6

CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 53.2 53.2 4.7 4.7 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.71966 23 111.7 111.8 37.5 37.5 1.37 1.37 2.8 2.8 20.0 5.3 11.4 2.1 20.1 5.3 11.4 2.1

1970 27 202.3 202.4 125.8 125.8 1.50 1.50 2.5 2.5 23.1 7.0 22.6 5.1 23.1 7.0 22.6 5.1

1973 30 262.5 262.6 188.3 188.3 1.54 1.54 1.9 1.9 20.6 9.2 21.3 6.8 20.6 9.2 21.3 6.81975 32 296.8 296.9 223.2 223.2 1.42 1.42 1.5 1.5 17.6 9.8 17.9 7.5 17.6 9.8 17.9 7.51979 36 366.8 366.9 292.9 292.9 1.37 1.37 1.3 1.3 18.0 10.7 17.9 8.6 18.0 10.7 17.9 8.61983 40 435.3 435.4 359.7 359.7 1.36 1.36 1.2 1.2 17.6 11.4 17.2 9.5 17.6 11.4 17.2 9.51988 45 523.2 523.3 444.8 444.8 1.19 1.19 1.1 1.1 18.1 12.1 17.5 10.4 18.1 12.1 17.5 10.41993 50 617.6 617.7 535.7 535.7 .96 .96 1.0 1.0 19.4 12.8 18.7 11.2 19.4 12.8 18.7 11.21998 55 712.7 712.8 627.2 627.2 .82 .82 1.0 1.0 19.5 13.4 18.8 11.9 19.5 13.5 18.8 11.9a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 209.3 cubic meters (57 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 0.1 cubic meter (0 percent ofthe total gross yield).
65

Table 19a—Stand development table for treatment 2, per-acre basis (plots 4, 15, and 17)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft 2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 38 7.0 343 5.2 50.0 730 63 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 48 9.1 207 7.1 55.9 1043 424 135 6.5 31.2 569 176 4.2 2.3 .95 2 4.2 .2 2 01970 27 62 11.8 125 9.9 66.2 1575 1211 82 8.8 34.3 789 530 9.6 7.4 .93 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 73 13.6 97 12.2 76.5 2108 1857 27 10.5 16.2 437 356 16.2 13.2 .90 2 4.3 .2 3 01975 32 79 14.8 90 13.3 84.7 2493 2266 7 13.6 6.7 200 184 28.6 26.3 1.03 0 .0 .0 0 01979 36 89 16.8 80 15.4 101.5 3363 3156 10 13.4 9.9 319 288 31.9 28.8 .89 0 .0 .0 0 01983 40 100 18.7 80 17.2 127.5 4683 4445 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01988 45 111 20.8 80 19.1 156.9 6285 5998 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01993 50 123 22.4 78 20.6 180.0 7933 7589 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 2 14.3 1.9 81 761998 55 135 23.9 78 22.0 204.5 9747 9336 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6

CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 730 730 63 63 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 37 0 3 0 37 0 31966 23 1611 1614 600 600 .56 .56 12.4 12.4 294 70 179 26 294 70 179 261970 27 2933 2935 1917 1917 .60 .60 11.2 11.2 330 109 329 71 330 109 329 711973 30 3903 3908 2918 2918 .63 .61 8.8 8.9 323 130 334 97 324 130 334 971975 32 4488 4493 3512 3512 .57 .57 7.5 7.5 293 140 297 110 293 140 297 1101979 36 5678 5683 4690 4690 .49 .49 6.7 6.7 297 158 295 130 297 158 295 1301983 40 6997 7002 5979 5979 .46 .46 6.5 6.5 330 175 322 149 330 175 322 1491988 45 8599 8604 7532 7532 .38 .38 5.9 5.9 320 191 311 167 320 191 311 1671993 50 10247 10334 9124 9199 .31 .30 4.6 5.0 330 205 318 182 346 207 333 1841998 55 12061 12147 10870 10946 .27 .27 4.9 4.9 363 219 349 198 363 221 349 199a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 2314 cubic feet (41 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 86 cubic feet (1 percent of thetotal gross yield).
66

Table 19b—Stand development table for treatment 2, per-hectare basis (plots 4, 15, and 17)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - - m3 - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.1 17.7 848 13.2 11.5 51.6 4.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.3 23.1 510 18.0 12.9 73.5 30.2 333 16.6 7.2 40.3 12.8 .1 .1 .95 4 10.7 .0 0.7 0.51970 27 19.5 29.9 309 25.3 15.2 110.8 85.3 202 22.3 7.9 55.7 37.6 .3 .2 .93 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.7 34.5 239 31.0 17.6 148.1 130.5 66 26.8 3.7 31.1 25.4 .5 .4 .90 4 10.9 .0 0.7 0.51975 32 24.5 37.6 222 33.8 19.5 175.0 159.1 16 34.5 1.5 14.5 13.4 .9 .8 1.03 0 .0 .0 .0 .01979 36 27.8 42.8 198 39.1 23.4 235.9 221.4 25 34.2 2.3 22.9 20.7 .9 .8 .89 0 .0 .0 .0 .01983 40 31.1 47.5 198 43.8 29.3 328.3 311.6 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01988 45 34.4 52.8 198 48.6 36.1 440.5 420.4 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01993 50 38.0 56.9 193 52.5 41.4 555.8 531.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 4 36.4 .4 6.2 5.81998 55 41.7 60.7 193 56.0 47.0 682.8 654.0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6

CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 51.6 51.6 4.9 4.9 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.71966 23 113.3 113.5 42.5 42.5 1.42 1.41 2.8 2.9 21.1 5.4 13.0 2.3 21.1 5.4 13.0 2.31970 27 205.8 206.0 134.7 134.7 1.53 1.53 2.6 2.6 23.6 8.1 23.6 5.5 23.6 8.1 23.6 5.51973 30 273.7 274.1 204.8 204.8 1.60 1.56 2.0 2.0 23.1 9.6 23.9 7.3 23.2 9.6 23.9 7.31975 32 314.7 315.0 246.3 246.3 1.45 1.45 1.7 1.7 21.0 10.3 21.3 8.2 21.0 10.3 21.3 8.21979 36 397.9 398.3 328.8 328 1.24 1.24 1.5 1.5 21.3 11.5 21.1 9.6 21.3 11.5 21.1 9.61983 40 490.3 490.9 419.0 419.0 1.17 1.17 1.5 1.5 23.6 12.7 23.1 11.0 23.6 12.8 23.1 11.01988 45 602.4 602.8 527.8 527.8 .96 .96 1.4 1.4 22.9 13.9 22.2 12.2 22.9 13.9 22.2 12.21993 50 717.8 723.8 639.2 644.2 .79 .75 1.1 1.1 23.6 14.8 22.8 13.3 24.7 15.0 23.8 13.41998 55 844.8 850.8 761.4 766.4 .69 .69 1.1 1.1 25.9 15.9 24.9 14.3 25.9 16.0 24.9 14.4a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 162.0 cubic meters (41 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 6.0 cubic meters (1 percentof the total gross yield).
67

Table 20a—Stand development table for treatment 3, per-acre basis (plots 7, 11, and 21)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 38 7.2 343 5.1 49.0 750 74 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 49 9.3 252 6.9 64.2 1208 458 90 6.5 20.7 388 111 4.3 2.3 .96 2 4.1 .2 2 01970 27 61 11.9 175 9.3 81.6 1931 1361 77 8.5 29.9 710 440 9.2 6.6 .94 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 71 13.5 140 11.0 92.3 2529 2106 35 10.0 18.9 503 384 14.4 12.0 .92 0 .0 .0 0 01975 32 77 14.3 123 12.1 97.5 2869 2518 17 11.1 11.3 328 273 19.3 16.1 .93 0 .0 .0 0 01979 36 89 15.9 102 14.0 107.5 3616 3329 22 12.6 18.7 623 553 28.3 25.1 .92 0 .0 .0 0 01983 40 98 17.5 102 15.6 132.9 4913 4607 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01988 45 111 19.4 102 17.2 163.0 6700 6348 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01993 50 124 21.1 100 18.8 190.6 8597 8189 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 2 10.2 .9 38 301998 55 133 22.5 98 20.1 214.1 10223 9766 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 2 9.3 .8 30 22

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1963 20 750 750 74 74 .00 .00 .0 .0 0 38 0 4 0 38 0 41966 23 1595 1598 569 569 .55 .55 12.0 12.0 282 69 165 25 283 69 165 251970 27 3028 3031 1912 1912 .55 .55 11.8 11.8 358 112 336 71 358 112 336 711973 30 4129 4132 3041 3041 .52 .52 9.9 9.9 367 138 376 101 367 138 376 1011975 32 4798 4801 3726 3726 .47 .47 8.3 8.3 334 150 342 116 334 150 342 1161979 36 6167 6170 5090 5090 .42 .42 7.2 7.2 342 171 341 141 342 171 341 1411983 40 7464 7467 6368 6368 .39 .39 6.3 6.3 324 187 319 159 324 187 319 1591988 45 9252 9254 8109 8109 .33 .33 6.0 6.0 357 206 348 180 357 206 348 1801993 50 11149 11189 9950 9980 .31 .29 5.5 5.7 379 223 368 199 387 224 374 2001998 55 12775 12845 11527 11579 .26 .24 4.7 4.9 325 232 315 210 331 234 320 211a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 2552 cubic feet (41 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 70 cubic feet (1 percent of thetotal gross yield).
68

Table 20b—Stand development table for treatment 3, per-hectare basis (plots 7, 11, and 21)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.1 18.3 848 13.1 11.3 53.0 5.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.3 23.6 622 17.5 14.8 85.0 32.5 222 16.5 4.8 27.6 8.2 .1 .1 .96 4 10.4 .0 0.7 0.51970 27 19.2 30.1 432 23.6 18.8 135.7 95.8 189 21.5 6.9 50.2 31.3 .3 .2 .94 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.3 34.2 346 28.1 21.2 177.5 147.9 86 25.3 4.3 35.7 27.4 .4 .3 .92 0 .0 .0 .0 .01975 32 24.1 36.3 305 30.8 22.4 201.3 176.7 41 28.3 2.6 23.5 19.6 .6 .5 .93 0 .0 .0 .0 .01979 36 27.7 40.4 251 35.6 24.7 253.6 233.6 54 32.0 4.3 44.1 39.2 .8 .7 .92 0 .0 .0 .0 .01983 40 30.5 44.5 251 39.6 30.6 344.4 323.0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01988 45 34.4 49.4 251 43.8 37.5 469.5 444.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01993 50 38.2 53.7 247 47.8 43.8 602.3 573.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 4 26.0 .2 3.1 2.61998 55 41.0 57.1 243 51.0 49.2 716.1 684.1 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 4 23.7 .2 2.6 2.0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 53.0 53.0 5.7 5.7 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.81966 23 112.2 112.3 40.3 40.3 1.40 1.39 2.8 2.8 20.2 5.4 12.0 2.2 20.3 5.4 12.0 2.2

1970 27 212.5 212.7 134.4 134.4 1.39 1.39 2.7 2.7 25.6 8.4 24.0 5.5 25.6 8.4 24.0 5.5

1973 30 289.6 289.7 213.4 213.4 1.31 1.31 2.3 2.3 26.2 10.1 26.8 7.6 26.2 10.1 26.8 7.61975 32 336.4 336.5 261.3 261.3 1.21 1.21 1.9 1.9 23.9 11.0 24.5 8.6 23.9 11.0 24.5 8.61979 36 432.2 432.4 356.8 356.8 1.06 1.06 1.6 1.6 24.5 12.5 24.4 10.4 24.5 12.5 24.4 10.41983 40 523.0 523.2 446.2 446.2 1.00 1.00 1.5 1.5 23.2 13.6 22.9 11.6 23.2 13.6 22.9 11.61988 45 648.1 648.3 568.1 568.1 .85 .85 1.4 1.4 25.5 14.9 24.9 13.1 25.5 14.9 24.9 13.11993 50 780.9 783.8 697.0 699.1 .78 .74 1.3 1.3 27.1 16.1 26.3 14.4 27.6 16.2 26.7 14.51998 55 894.7 899.7 807.4 811.0 .65 .60 1.1 1.1 23.3 16.8 22.6 15.2 23.7 16.8 22.0 15.2a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 178.6 cubic meters (41 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 4.9 cubic meters (1 percentof the total gross yield).
69

Table 21a—Stand development table for treatment 4, per-acre basis (plots 5, 18, and 23)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 40 7.1 333 5.3 50.4 748 80 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 51 9.1 243 7.1 65.6 1243 523 87 6.7 21.0 389 126 4.5 2.2 .96 3 4.1 .3 4 01970 27 64 11.7 180 9.5 87.0 2074 1516 63 8.6 25.7 609 401 9.7 7.0 .94 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 73 13.3 160 11.1 105.5 2891 2422 20 10.3 11.6 307 243 15.4 12.1 .95 0 .0 .0 0 01975 32 79 14.2 145 12.1 115.8 3446 3036 15 9.4 7.2 209 150 13.9 10.0 .79 0 .0 .0 0 01979 36 90 16.0 138 13.7 140.2 4725 4324 7 11.8 5.1 172 149 24.6 21.3 .87 0 .0 .0 0 01983 40 101 17.6 138 15.0 168.5 6339 5905 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01988 45 113 19.3 133 16.6 197.0 8213 7746 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 5 8.1 1.8 61 341993 50 125 20.6 128 17.7 218.1 9985 9472 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 5 14.7 5.9 264 2421998 55 135 21.8 122 19.0 237.2 11579 11040 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 7 13.3 6.4 299 261

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 748 748 80 80 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 37 0 4 0 37 0 41966 23 1632 1637 649 649 .56 .56 12.1 12.2 295 71 190 28 296 71 190 281970 27 3072 3076 2043 2043 .55 .55 11.8 11.8 360 114 348 76 360 114 348 761973 30 4196 4200 3191 3191 .51 .51 10.0 10.0 375 140 383 106 375 140 383 1061975 32 4960 4964 3956 3956 .44 .44 8.8 8.8 382 155 382 124 382 155 382 1241979 36 6410 6414 5393 5393 .36 .36 7.4 7.4 363 178 359 150 363 178 359 1501983 40 8024 8028 6974 6974 .33 .33 7.1 7.1 404 201 395 174 404 201 395 1741988 45 9899 9964 8815 8849 .31 .27 5.7 6.1 375 220 368 196 387 221 375 1971993 50 11670 11999 10541 10817 .23 .23 4.2 5.4 354 233 345 211 407 240 394 2161998 55 13264 13893 12109 12647 .25 .21 3.8 5.1 319 241 314 220 379 253 366 230a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 1685 cubic feet (26 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 629 cubic feet (5 percent of thetotal gross yield).
70

Table 21b—Stand development table for treatment 4, per-hectare basis (plots 5, 18, and 23)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - - m3 - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.6 18.0 823 13.5 11.6 52.9 6.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 16.0 23.1 601 18.0 15.1 87.5 37.1 214 17.0 4.8 27.7 9.3 .1 .1 .96 8 10.4 .1 0.8 0.51970 27 19.9 29.6 445 24.1 20.0 145.7 106.6 156 21.9 5.9 43.1 28.5 .3 .2 .94 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.8 33.8 395 28.1 24.3 202.8 170.0 49 26.3 2.7 22.0 17.5 .4 .3 .94 0 .0 .0 .0 .01975 32 24.6 36.1 358 30.9 26.6 241.7 213.0 37 23.9 1.7 15.1 11.0 .4 .3 .79 0 .0 .0 .0 .01979 36 28.0 40.7 342 34.9 32.2 331.2 303.3 16 30.0 1.2 12.5 11.0 .8 .6 .87 0 .0 .0 .0 .01983 40 31.3 44.8 342 38.2 38.8 444.2 413.8 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01988 45 34.9 48.9 329 42.1 45.3 575.4 542.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 12 20.7 .4 4.8 2.91993 50 38.8 52.4 317 45.1 50.2 699.4 663.5 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 12 37.3 1.3 19.0 17.51998 55 41.7 55.3 301 48.2 54.6 811.0 773.3 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 16 33.7 1.5 21.5 18.8

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6

CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 52.9 52.9 6.1 6.1 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.81966 23 114.8 115.1 45.9 45.9 1.43 1.42 2.8 2.8 21.1 5.5 13.8 2.5 21.2 5.5 13.8 2.51970 27 215.5 215.8 143.5 143.5 1.39 1.39 2.7 2.7 25.7 8.5 24.9 5.8 25.7 8.5 24.9 5.81973 30 294.2 294.5 223.9 223.9 1.29 1.29 2.3 2.3 26.7 10.3 27.3 7.9 26.7 10.3 27.3 7.91975 32 347.7 348.0 277.4 277.4 1.12 1.12 2.0 2.0 27.2 11.3 27.2 9.2 27.2 11.4 27.2 9.21979 36 449.2 449.5 378.0 378.0 .92 .92 1.7 1.7 25.9 13.0 25.6 11.0 25.9 13.0 25.6 11.01983 40 562.2 562.5 488.7 488.7 .84 .84 1.6 1.6 28.7 14.5 28.2 12.7 28.7 14.5 28.2 12.71988 45 693 697 617.6 619.9 .78 .67 1.3 1.4 26.7 15.9 26.3 14.2 27.6 16.0 26.8 14.31993 50 817.4 840.4 738.4 757.7 .59 .57 1.0 1.2 25.3 16.8 24.7 15.3 29.0 17.3 28.1 15.61998 55 929.0 973.0 848.2 885.8 .63 .53 .9 1.2 22.8 17.4 22.5 15.9 27.0 18.2 26.1 16.6a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 118.0 cubic meters (26 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 44.0 cubic meters (5 percentof the total gross yield).
71

Table 22a—Stand development table for treatment 5, per-acre basis (plots 9, 24, and 27)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 39 6.8 365 5.0 49.2 729 44 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 50 8.9 312 6.7 74.9 1385 473 52 6.3 11.1 201 45 3.9 1.5 .95 2 5.4 .3 4 01970 27 62 11.4 250 8.7 103.6 2438 1609 62 8.2 22.9 528 309 8.5 5.4 .96 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 71 13.0 213 10.2 121.1 3285 2597 35 9.3 16.5 440 310 12.6 9.4 .92 2 7.6 .5 13 61975 32 78 13.8 193 11.1 130.4 3857 3243 18 9.9 9.8 289 222 16.1 13.1 .90 2 8.0 .6 16 91979 36 89 15.6 170 12.6 147.9 4977 4435 23 11.4 16.4 561 480 24.4 20.9 .91 0 .0 .0 0 01983 40 101 17.3 165 14.0 175.4 6625 6074 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 5 10.0 2.7 98 781988 45 113 19.0 162 15.3 207.4 8663 8079 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 3 5.5 .5 14 11993 50 127 20.4 153 16.7 233.6 10827 10215 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 8 9.1 3.8 148 1041998 55 133 21.4 145 17.8 250.1 12109 11491 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 7 10.6 4.1 187 150

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 729 729 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 36 0 2 0 36 0 21966 23 1586 1590 518 518 .54 .54 12.3 12.3 286 69 158 23 287 69 158 231970 27 3167 3171 1963 1963 .50 .50 12.9 12.9 395 117 361 73 395 117 361 731973 30 4454 4472 3260 3266 .45 .45 11.3 11.5 429 148 433 109 434 149 435 1091975 32 5314 5348 4128 4142 .41 .40 9.5 9.8 430 166 434 129 438 167 438 1291979 36 6995 7029 5799 5814 .34 .34 8.5 8.5 420 194 418 161 420 195 418 1611983 40 8643 8775 7439 7531 .33 .32 6.9 7.6 412 216 410 186 436 219 429 1881988 45 10682 10828 9443 9537 .27 .25 6.4 6.5 408 237 401 210 411 241 401 2121993 50 12846 13139 11580 11777 .28 .22 5.2 6.0 433 257 427 232 462 263 448 2361998 55 14127 14608 12855 13203 .22 .17 3.3 4.1 256 257 255 234 294 266 285 240a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 2018 cubic feet (29 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 480 cubic feet (3 percent of thetotal gross yield).
72

Table 22b—Stand development table for treatment 5, per-hectare basis (plots 9, 24, and 27)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.5 17.2 902 12.7 11.3 51.5 3.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.6 22.6 770 16.9 17.2 97.4 33.6 128 15.9 2.5 14.5 3.6 .1 .0 .95 4 13.8 .1 0.8 0.51970 27 19.4 28.9 618 22.2 23.8 171.1 113.2 152 21.0 5.3 37.5 22.1 .2 .2 .96 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.2 33.0 527 26.0 27.8 230.5 182.3 86 23.7 3.8 31.3 22.2 .4 .3 .92 4 19.4 .1 1.4 0.91975 32 24.3 35.1 478 28.3 30.0 270.5 227.5 45 25.1 2.2 20.7 16.0 .4 .4 .90 4 20.4 .1 1.6 1.11979 36 27.6 39.7 420 32.1 34.0 348.9 310.9 58 28.9 3.8 39.7 34.1 .7 .6 .91 0 .0 .0 .0 .01983 40 31.3 43.8 408 35.5 40.3 464.2 425.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 12 25.3 .6 7.4 6.01988 45 35.0 48.1 399 39.0 47.7 606.9 566.0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 8 13.9 .1 1.5 0.51993 50 39.2 51.8 379 42.5 53.7 758.4 715.6 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 21 23.2 .9 10.8 7.81998 55 41.1 54.5 358 45.3 57.5 848.1 804.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 16 27.0 .9 13.6 11.0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 51.5 51.5 3.5 3.5 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.71966 23 111.5 111.8 36.7 36.7 1.37 1.37 2.8 2.8 20.5 5.3 11.6 2.1 20.6 5.3 11.6 2.11970 27 222.2 222.5 137.9 137.9 1.27 1.27 3.0 3.0 28.2 8.7 25.8 5.6 28.2 8.7 25.8 5.61973 30 312.3 313.5 228.7 229.2 1.15 1.15 2.6 2.6 30.5 10.9 30.8 8.1 30.9 10.9 30.9 8.11975 32 372.5 374.9 289.4 290.5 1.04 1.02 2.2 2.3 30.6 12.1 30.9 9.5 31.2 12.2 31.2 9.61979 36 490.2 492.5 406.4 407.5 .87 .87 2.0 2.0 29.9 14.1 29.7 11.8 29.9 14.2 29.7 11.81983 40 605.5 614.7 521.2 527.7 .85 .80 1.6 1.7 29.3 15.6 29.2 13.5 31.0 15.9 30.6 13.71988 45 748.2 758.4 661.5 668.1 .70 .64 1.5 1.5 29.0 17.1 28.6 15.2 29.2 17.3 28.6 15.31993 50 899.7 920.3 811.1 824.9 .70 .56 1.2 1.4 30.8 18.5 30.4 16.7 32.9 18.9 31.9 17.01998 55 989.4 1023.0 900.4 924.7 .55 .42 .8 1.0 18.4 18.5 18.4 16.6 21.1 19.1 20.5 17.3a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 141.3 cubic meters (29 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 33.6 cubic meters (3 percentof the total gross yield).
73

Table 23a—Stand development table for treatment 6, per-acre basis (plots 1, 2, and 25)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 40 7.0 338 5.2 49.9 741 66 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 49 9.1 283 7.0 75.1 1375 536 55 6.6 12.9 232 67 4.2 1.9 .95 0 .0 .0 0 01970 27 62 11.6 210 9.3 97.8 2278 1623 73 8.6 29.6 680 436 9.3 6.4 .95 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 71 13.3 168 10.9 108.3 2912 2419 42 10.1 23.2 612 477 14.6 11.9 .94 0 .0 .0 0 01975 32 77 14.2 142 12.0 111.6 3252 2858 27 10.3 15.5 447 356 16.6 13.2 .88 0 .0 .0 0 01979 36 88 16.0 110 13.9 114.9 3795 3495 32 12.8 28.1 928 833 29.0 27.8 .94 0 .0 .0 0 01983 40 98 17.6 110 15.5 143.0 5223 4902 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01988 45 110 19.4 110 17.1 175.4 7118 6748 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 01993 50 123 21.0 105 18.6 198.1 8904 8487 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 5 15.1 6.2 276 2531998 55 133 22.5 105 19.8 224.5 10806 10323 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 0 0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 741 741 66 66 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 37 0 3 0 37 0 31966 23 1607 1607 603 603 .57 .57 12.7 12.7 289 70 179 26 289 70 179 261970 27 3190 3190 2127 2127 .53 .53 13.1 13.1 396 118 381 79 396 118 381 791973 30 4436 4436 3400 3400 .49 .49 11.2 11.2 415 148 424 113 415 148 424 1131975 32 5223 5223 4195 4195 .45 .45 9.4 9.4 394 163 398 131 394 163 398 1311979 36 6694 6694 5665 5665 .40 .40 7.9 7.9 368 186 367 157 368 186 367 1571983 40 8122 8122 7072 7072 .40 .40 7.0 7.0 357 203 352 177 357 203 352 1771988 45 10017 10017 8918 8918 .33 .33 6.5 6.5 379 223 369 198 379 223 369 1981993 50 11803 12079 10657 10910 .30 .28 4.5 5.8 357 236 348 213 412 242 398 2181998 55 13705 13981 12493 12746 .24 .24 5.3 5.3 380 249 367 227 380 254 367 232a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 2899 cubic feet (43 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 276 cubic feet (2 percent of thetotal gross yield).
74

Table 23b—Stand development table for treatment 6, per-hectare basis (plots 1, 2, and 25)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - - m3 - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.6 17.8 836 13.2 11.5 52.4 5.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.4 23.1 700 17.7 17.3 96.8 38.0 136 16.7 3.0 16.7 5.2 .1 .1 .95 0 .0 .0 .0 .01970 27 19.3 29.5 519 23.5 22.5 159.9 114.1 181 21.9 6.8 48.1 31.1 .3 .2 .95 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.2 33.8 416 27.7 24.9 204.3 169.8 103 25.7 5.3 43.3 33.9 .4 .3 .94 0 .0 .0 .0 .01975 32 23.9 36.0 350 30.6 25.7 228.1 200.6 66 26.3 3.6 31.8 25.4 .5 .4 .88 0 .0 .0 .0 .01979 36 27.3 40.6 272 35.3 26.4 266.2 245.1 78 32.5 6.5 65.4 58.8 .8 .8 .94 0 .0 .0 .0 .01983 40 30.4 44.6 272 39.3 32.9 366.1 343.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01988 45 34.0 49.4 272 43.5 40.4 498.8 472.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .01993 50 38.0 53.4 259 47.4 45.6 623.8 594.6 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 12 38.3 1.4 19.8 18.21998 55 41.2 57.1 259 50.4 51.6 756.9 723.1 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 0 .0 .0 .0 .0

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 52.4 52.4 5.1 5.1 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.71966 23 113.0 113.0 42.7 42.7 1.45 1.45 2.9 2.9 20.7 5.4 13.0 2.3 20.7 5.4 13.0 2.31970 27 223.8 223.8 149.4 149.4 1.34 1.34 3.0 3.0 28.2 8.8 27.2 6.0 28.2 8.8 27.2 6.01973 30 311.0 311.0 238.5 238.5 1.25 1.25 2.6 2.6 29.6 10.9 30.2 8.4 29.6 10.9 30.2 8.41975 32 366.1 366.1 294.2 294.2 1.16 1.16 2.2 2.2 28.1 11.9 28.3 9.7 28.1 11.9 28.3 9.71979 36 469.1 469.1 397.0 397.0 1.01 1.01 1.8 1.8 26.2 13.5 26.2 11.5 26.2 13.5 26.2 11.51983 40 569.1 569.1 495.6 495.6 1.01 1.01 1.6 1.6 25.5 14.7 25.1 12.9 25.5 14.7 25.1 12.91988 45 701.7 701.7 624.8 624.8 .84 .84 1.5 1.5 27.0 16.1 26.3 14.4 27.0 16.1 26.3 14.41993 50 826.7 846.0 746.5 764.2 .77 .72 1.0 1.3 25.5 17.0 24.8 15.4 29.4 17.4 28.4 15.81998 55 959.8 979.1 875.0 892.7 .61 .61 1.2 1.2 27.1 17.9 26.2 16.4 27.1 18.3 26.3 16.7a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 202.9 cubic meters (43 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 19.3 cubic meters (2 percentof the total gross yield).
75

Table 24a—Stand development table for treatment 7, per-acre basis (plots 12, 14, and 19)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 39 7.2 328 5.3 50.1 754 75 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 49 9.3 323 6.9 84.9 1568 612 5 6.1 1.0 18 5 3.6 1.7 .88 0 .0 .0 0 01970 27 62 11.6 287 8.9 124.5 2936 1993 37 8.6 14.9 363 239 9.8 7.5 .97 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 71 13.0 262 10.3 150.0 4091 3243 25 9.2 11.6 316 223 12.6 9.7 .91 0 .0 .0 0 01975 32 77 13.8 243 11.1 162.3 4797 4019 17 9.1 7.5 221 153 13.0 9.0 .83 2 5.2 .2 6 01979 36 88 15.3 225 12.3 186.2 6273 5544 13 11.4 9.4 324 273 24.9 21.0 .93 5 8.7 2.0 66 461983 40 100 16.8 223 13.5 221.1 8360 7611 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 2 5.9 .3 9 01988 45 112 18.2 213 14.9 256.0 10803 10050 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 10 6.9 2.6 84 281993 50 125 19.6 208 15.9 287.6 13373 12564 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 5 9.8 2.6 105 801998 55 134 20.8 202 16.9 312.9 15403 14560 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 7 11.7 5.0 231 198

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 754 754 75 75 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 38 0 4 0 38 0 41966 23 1586 1586 616 616 .55 .55 11.9 11.9 277 69 180 27 277 69 180 271970 27 3318 3318 2237 2237 .49 .49 13.6 13.6 433 123 405 83 433 123 405 831973 30 4788 4788 3709 3709 .42 .42 12.4 12.4 490 160 491 124 490 160 491 1241975 32 5716 5721 4639 4639 .35 .33 9.9 10.0 464 179 465 145 467 179 465 1451979 36 7515 7587 6436 6483 .30 .29 8.3 8.8 450 209 449 179 466 211 461 1801983 40 9602 9683 8504 8551 .29 .28 8.7 8.8 522 240 517 213 524 242 517 2141988 45 12045 12209 10942 11016 .28 .23 7.0 7.5 488 268 488 243 505 271 493 2451993 50 14615 14884 13456 13610 .21 .20 6.3 6.9 514 292 503 269 535 298 519 2721998 55 16645 17145 15453 15804 .19 .17 5.0 6.0 406 303 399 281 452 312 439 287a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 1242 cubic feet (16 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 500 cubic feet (3 percent of thetotal gross yield).
76

Table 24b—Stand development table for treatment 7, per-hectare basis (plots 12, 14, and 19)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - - m3 - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.3 18.3 811 13.4 11.5 53.3 5.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.3 23.5 799 17.6 19.5 110.3 43.3 12 15.5 .2 1.8 0.8 .1 .0 .88 0 .0 .0 .0 .01970 27 19.5 29.6 708 22.7 28.6 206.0 140.0 91 22.0 3.4 25.9 17.2 .3 .2 .97 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.3 33.1 646 26.1 34.5 286.9 227.5 62 23.5 2.7 22.6 16.1 .4 .3 .91 0 .0 .0 .0 .01975 32 24.0 35.2 601 28.1 37.3 336.3 281.9 41 23.2 1.7 16.0 11.2 .4 .3 .83 4 13.2 .1 0.9 0.51979 36 27.5 38.9 556 31.4 42.8 439.6 388.6 33 28.9 2.2 23.2 19.6 .7 .6 .93 12 22.0 .5 5.1 3.71983 40 31.1 42.5 552 34.3 50.8 585.7 533.3 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 4 15.0 .1 1.1 0.51988 45 34.8 46.3 527 37.8 58.9 756.7 704.0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 25 17.5 .6 6.4 2.41993 50 38.5 49.8 515 40.5 66.2 936.6 879.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 12 24.8 .6 7.8 6.11998 55 41.5 52.8 498 42.9 72.0 1078.7 1019.7 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 16 29.8 1.1 16.7 14.3

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 53.3 53.3 5.8 5.8 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.81966 23 111.5 111.5 43.7 43.7 1.39 1.39 2.7 2.7 19.9 5.3 13.1 2.4 19.9 5.3 13.1 2.41970 27 232.7 232.7 157.1 157.1 1.24 1.24 3.1 3.1 30.8 9.9 28.9 6.3 30.8 9.1 28.9 6.31973 30 335.7 335.7 260.1 260.1 1.06 1.06 2.8 2.8 34.8 11.7 34.9 9.2 34.8 11.7 34.9 9.21975 32 400.6 401.0 325.3 325.3 .88 .85 2.3 2.3 33.0 13.0 33.1 10.6 33.2 13.0 33.1 10.61979 36 526.6 531.6 451.0 454.3 .77 .74 1.9 2.0 32.0 15.1 31.9 13.0 33.1 15.3 32.8 13.11983 40 672.7 678.3 595.8 599.0 .73 .71 2.0 2.0 37.0 17.3 36.7 15.4 37.2 17.4 36.7 15.51988 45 843.6 855.1 766.5 771.6 .70 .58 1.6 1.7 34.7 19.2 34.6 17.5 35.9 19.5 35.0 17.61993 50 1023.6 1042.4 942.4 953.2 .54 .50 1.5 1.6 36.5 21.0 35.7 19.3 38.0 21.3 36.8 19.61998 55 1165.7 1200.7 1082.2 1106.8 .48 .42 1.2 1.4 28.9 21.7 28.4 20.2 32.2 22.3 31.2 20.6a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 87.0 cubic meters (16 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 35.0 cubic meters (3 percentof the total gross yield).
77

Table 25a-Stand development table for treatment 8, per-acre basis (plots 6, 13, and 16)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 40 7.3 337 5.3 50.4 776 87 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 49 9.4 327 7.0 85.8 1608 634 8 6.6 2.0 37 10 4.6 1.4 .96 2 5.0 .2 4 01970 27 63 11.8 275 8.9 118.7 2837 1925 52 8.6 20.6 489 316 9.4 7.0 .97 0 .0 .0 0 01973 30 72 13.2 242 10.2 136.8 3778 2982 33 9.8 17.3 483 364 14.6 11.4 .96 0 .0 .0 0 01975 32 78 14.0 222 11.0 144.6 4281 3560 18 10.5 11.0 323 264 17.9 15.5 .96 2 5.0 .2 5 01979 36 89 15.5 187 12.3 154.3 5210 4595 33 11.5 24.2 824 700 25.0 21.2 .95 2 4.8 .2 5 01983 40 99 16.8 183 13.7 186.4 7014 6395 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 3 5.9 .6 20 01988 45 112 18.5 180 15.1 222.4 9312 8655 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 3 7.0 .9 32 161993 50 123 20.0 170 16.5 251.1 11544 10880 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 10 7.8 3.3 127 611998 55 132 21.3 167 17.5 277.9 13502 12796 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 3 8.7 1.4 61 40

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 776 776 87 87 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 39 0 4 0 39 0 41966 23 1645 1649 644 644 .57 .57 12.5 12.6 290 72 186 28 291 72 186 281970 27 3363 3367 2252 2252 .48 .48 13.4 13.4 430 125 402 83 430 125 402 831973 30 4787 4791 3672 3672 .41 .41 11.8 11.8 475 160 473 122 475 160 473 1221975 32 5613 5622 4514 4514 .36 .34 9.4 9.5 413 175 421 141 416 176 421 1411979 36 7366 7380 6249 6249 .32 .31 8.5 8.5 438 205 434 174 439 205 434 1741983 40 9170 9203 8049 8050 .34 .32 8.0 8.2 451 229 450 201 456 230 450 2011988 45 11468 11534 10309 10325 .28 .26 7.2 7.4 460 255 452 229 466 256 455 2291993 50 13700 13892 12534 12611 .28 .22 5.7 6.4 446 274 445 251 472 278 457 2521998 55 15658 15913 14450 14568 .21 .18 5.4 5.6 392 285 383 263 404 289 391 265a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 2156 cubic feet (29 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 254 cubic feet (2 percent of thetotal gross yield).
78

Table 25b—Stand development table for treatment 8, per-hectare basis (plots 6, 13, and 16)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 12.7 18.6 832 13.4 11.6 54.8 6.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 15.5 23.9 807 17.7 19.7 113.1 44.8 21 16.8 .5 3.1 1.2 .1 .1 .96 4 12.7 .1 0.8 0.51970 27 19.7 29.9 679 22.7 27.3 199.1 135.3 128 21.7 4.7 34.7 22.6 .3 .2 .97 0 .0 .0 .0 .01973 30 22.5 33.4 597 25.9 31.5 265.0 209.2 82 24.8 4.0 34.3 26.0 .4 .3 .96 0 .0 .0 .0 .01975 32 24.2 35.5 548 27.8 33.2 300.2 249.7 45 26.7 2.5 23.1 18.0 .5 .4 .96 4 12.7 .1 0.8 0.51979 36 27.6 39.3 461 31.4 35.5 365.2 322.1 82 29.3 5.6 58.2 49.5 .7 .6 .95 4 12.2 .0 0.9 0.51983 40 30.8 42.8 453 34.8 42.9 491.5 448.2 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 8 15.0 .1 1.9 0.51988 45 34.5 47.0 445 38.3 51.1 652.3 606.4 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 8 17.7 .2 2.8 1.61993 50 38.1 50.7 420 41.8 57.8 808.6 762.1 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 25 19.7 .8 9.4 4.81998 55 40.9 54.0 412 44.4 63.9 945.7 896.2 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 8 22.2 .3 4.8 3.3

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 54.8 54.8 6.6 6.6 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.81966 23 115.6 115.9 45.6 45.6 1.44 1.44 2.9 2.9 20.8 5.5 13.5 2.5 20.9 5.5 13.5 2.51970 27 235.8 236.2 158.2 158.2 1.21 1.21 3.1 3.1 30.6 9.2 28.6 6.3 30.6 9.2 28.6 6.31973 30 335.9 335.9 257.5 257.5 1.05 1.05 2.7 2.7 33.7 11.7 33.6 9.1 33.7 11.7 33.6 9.11975 32 393.4 394.0 316.5 316.5 .91 .87 2.2 2.2 29.4 12.8 30.0 10.4 29.6 12.8 30.0 10.41979 36 516.1 517.1 437.9 437.9 .80 .78 1.9 2.0 31.2 14.8 30.9 12.7 31.3 14.8 30.9 12.71983 40 642.4 644.7 564.0 564.0 .85 .80 1.8 1.9 32.1 16.5 32.0 14.6 32.4 16.6 32.0 14.61988 45 803.3 807.9 722.1 723.3 .71 .66 1.7 1.7 32.7 18.3 32.1 16.5 33.1 18.4 32.4 16.61993 50 959.5 973.0 877.9 883.3 .71 .55 1.3 1.5 31.7 19.7 31.6 18.0 33.5 19.9 32.5 18.21998 55 1096.6 1114.4 1012.0 1020.2 .52 .46 1.2 1.3 27.9 20.4 27.3 18.9 28.8 20.8 27.9 19.0a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS)

removed in thinnings = 150.9 cubic meters (29 percent of the total gross yield at the time of the last thinning). Volume (CVTS) in mortality = 17.8 cubic meters (2 percentof the total gross yield).
79

Table 26a—Stand development table for control, per-acre basis (plots 10, 22, and 26)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 40 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr Ft In No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - - No. In Ft2 - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - No. In Ft2 - - - Ft3 - - -

1963 20 42 7.6 1718 3.8 138.0 1996 138 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0 01966 23 51 9.1 1637 4.6 184.7 3392 607 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 87 2.1 2.0 27 01970 27 65 10.9 1272 5.8 228.6 5411 1891 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 368 2.5 12.7 222 01973 30 74 12.0 1087 6.6 255.9 6931 3200 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 185 3.0 9.3 189 01975 32 80 12.7 938 7.2 261.3 7611 4020 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 148 4.0 12.9 306 191979 36 90 13.8 767 8.2 277.9 9285 5755 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 172 4.3 17.2 479 261983 40 99 15.0 653 9.1 295.1 10898 7631 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 113 4.9 14.8 460 281988 45 111 16.3 488 10.6 296.4 12161 9720 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 165 6.1 34.0 1209 2541993 50 122 17.6 377 12.1 297.5 13376 11604 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 112 7.1 31.1 1210 4721998 55 130 19.0 307 13.5 299.9 14312 12924 0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .00 70 8.9 30.1 1297 867

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -In - - - - - - - - Ft2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 1996 1996 138 138 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 100 0 7 0 100 0 71966 23 3392 3419 607 607 .24 .21 15.6 16.2 465 147 156 26 474 149 156 261970 27 5411 5660 1891 1891 .30 .19 11.0 14.2 505 200 321 70 560 210 321 701973 30 6931 7369 3200 3200 .28 .16 9.1 12.2 507 231 436 107 570 246 436 1071975 32 7611 8355 4020 4038 .30 .13 2.7 9.2 340 238 410 126 493 261 419 1261979 36 9285 10508 5755 5800 .25 .13 4.1 8.4 419 258 434 160 538 292 440 1611983 40 10898 12582 7631 7703 .23 .13 4.3 8.0 403 272 469 191 518 315 476 1931988 45 12161 15053 9720 10047 .29 .13 .2 7.0 253 270 418 216 494 335 469 2231993 50 13376 17479 11604 12402 .30 .13 .2 6.4 243 268 377 232 485 350 471 2481998 55 14312 19711 12924 14589 .28 .15 .5 6.5 187 260 264 235 446 358 437 265a 40 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 40 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 6-in top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS) in

mortality = 5399 cubic feet (27 percent of the total gross yield).
80

Table 26b—Stand development table for control, per-hectare basis (plots 10, 22, and 26)

After thinning Removed in thinning Mortality

 100 largesta Volumec Volume Avg. volume Volume

Stand Basal Basal Basal

Year age HT D.b.h. Trees QMDb area CVTS CV6 Trees QMD area CVTS CV6 CVTS CV6 d/Dd Trees QMD area CVTS CV6

Yr m Cm No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - - No. Cm m2 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - No. Cm m2 - - - m3 - - -

1963 20 13.4 19.2 4244 9.8 31.7 140.2 10.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01966 23 16.1 23.0 4043 11.6 42.5 237.9 43.0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 214 5.3 .5 2.4 0.1970 27 20.3 27.6 3141 14.7 52.6 379.2 132.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 910 6.4 2.9 16.1 0.51973 30 23.2 30.5 2684 16.8 58.9 485.7 224.5 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 457 7.7 2.1 13.7 0.51975 32 25.0 32.2 2318 18.3 60.1 533.3 281.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 366 10.2 3.0 21.9 1.81979 36 27.8 35.1 1894 20.8 63.9 650.5 403.4 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 424 10.9 3.9 34.0 2.31983 40 30.7 38.1 1614 23.2 67.9 763.4 534.6 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 280 12.4 3.4 32.7 2.51988 45 34.2 41.5 1206 26.9 68.2 851.8 680.9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 408 15.6 7.8 85.1 18.31993 50 37.8 44.7 930 30.7 68.4 936.9 812.8 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 276 18.2 7.2 85.2 33.51998 55 40.2 48.3 757 34.2 69.0 1002.2 905.1 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00 173 22.6 6.9 91.3 61.2

 Cumulative yielde QMD growth BA growth Net volume growth Gross volume growth

Net Gross Net Gross CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6CVTS CVTS CV6 CV6 Net Surv. Net Gross PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI PAI MAI

 - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cm - - - - - - - m2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1963 20 140.2 140.2 10.2 10.2 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 1.01966 23 237.9 239.8 43.0 43.0 .62 .54 3.6 3.7 33.1 10.8 11.4 2.3 33.7 10.9 11.4 2.3

1970 27 379.2 396.7 132.9 132.9 .76 .48 2.5 3.3 35.8 14.5 23.0 5.4 39.7 15.2 23.0 5.4

1973 30 485.7 516.4 224.5 224.5 .70 .42 2.1 2.8 36.0 16.7 31.1 8.0 40.4 17.7 31.1 8.01975 32 533.3 585.4 281.9 283.2 .77 .33 .6 2.1 24.3 17.1 29.2 9.3 35.0 18.9 29.8 9.31979 36 650.5 736.1 403.4 406.5 .63 .33 1.0 1.9 29.8 18.6 30.9 11.7 38.2 20.9 31.3 11.81983 40 763.4 881.2 534.6 539.7 .60 .32 1.0 1.8 28.7 19.6 33.3 13.9 36.8 22.5 33.8 14.01988 45 851.8 1054.2 680.9 703.8 .74 .33 .1 1.6 18.2 19.4 29.8 15.6 35.1 23.9 33.3 16.11993 50 936.9 1224.0 812.8 868.7 .75 .34 .1 1.5 17.5 19.2 26.9 16.7 34.5 25.0 33.5 17.91998 55 1002.3 1380.2 905.1 1021.7 .71 .38 .1 1.5 13.6 18.7 19.0 16.9 31.7 25.6 31.1 19.1a 100 largest: Average height and d.b.h. of the 100 largest trees per acre (estimated from d.b.h. and HT-d.b.h. curves).b QMD: Quadratic mean diameter at breast height.c Volume: All volumes are total stem cubic (CVTS) or merchantable cubic to a 15.25-cm top diameter (CV6), inside bark.d d/D: Average d.b.h. cut : average d.b.h. before thinning.e Cumulative yield: net = standing + thinning; gross = standing + thinning + mortality; yield does not include any volume removed in a Calibration cut. Volume (CVTS) in

mortality = 377.9 cubic meters (27 percent of the total gross yield).
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail desmith@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890