United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Northeastern

Research Station

General Technical 

Report NE-319 

Comprehensive Database of

Diameter-based Biomass Regressions

for North American Tree Species

Jennifer C. Jenkins 

David C. Chojnacky 

Linda S. Heath 

Richard A. Birdsey 

loblollyJ

lodgepoleJ

all

other pines

M

pinyon

M

Aboveground Biomass (kg)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

dbh (cm)

0 10 20 30 40 50

zzzzz zzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz

z

zzz

zzzzzzz zz

z

zzzzzz

zzzz

zzz

zz

z

z

z

z

zz

zz

zz

z

z

z

z

zz

z

zz

z

z

z

zzz

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z z

z

zz

z

zz

z

zz

z

z

z

z

z

z

z z

z

z

z

z

z

z

zz

z

z

z

z

z

z

zz

zzz

z

z

z

z

z

zz

zz

z

z

z

z

zz

    



 

  







  









zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz z

z z

z

z

z

z z

z

z z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

     








Published by: For additional copies: 

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution 

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road 

Delaware, OH 43015-8640 

July 2004 Fax: (740)368-0152 

Visit our homepage at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne

Abstract

A database consisting of 2,640 equations compiled from the literature for predicting 

the biomass of trees and tree components from diameter measurements of species 

found in North America. Bibliographic information, geographic locations, diameter 

limits, diameter and biomass units, equation forms, statistical errors, and coefficients 

are provided for each equation, along with examples of how to use the database. 

The CD-ROM included with this publication contains the complete database (Table 

3) in spreadsheet format (Microsoft Excel 2002® with Windows XP®). 

The Authors

JENNIFER C. JENKINS (jennifer.c.jenkins@uvm.edu) is a research forester with 

the USDA Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station at Burlington, Vermont. 

DAVID C. CHOJNACKY (dchojnacky@fs.fed.us) is a research forester with the 

USDA Forest Service’s Forestry Inventory Research Enterprise at Washington, DC. 

LINDA S. HEATH (Lheath@fs.fed.us) is a research forester/project leader with the 

Northeastern Research Station at Durham, New Hampshire. 

RICHARD A. BIRDSEY (rbirdsey@fs.fed.us) is a program manager with the 

Northeastern Research Station at Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 

Manuscript received for publication 23 June 2003 

For paper copies of the complete database (including Table 3 in its entirety), 

contact: 

Jennifer C. Jenkins 

The Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources 

Gund Institute for Ecological Economics 

University of Vermont 

590 Main St. 

Burlington, VT 05405 

(802) 656-2953 

fax (802) 656-2995 

jennifer.c.jenkins@uvm.edu 
1

Introduction

Estimates of dry-weight biomass for

individual trees and tree components are of

interest to managers, researchers, and

policymakers. Such estimates can be used by

land managers to estimate carbon (C) pools

and fluxes on individual parcels, by

policymakers to estimate forest C dynamics

at large scales, or by scientists to enhance our

understanding of C dynamics in conjunction

with research studies.

“Dimensional analysis” as described by

Whittaker and Woodwell (1968) is the

method used most often by foresters and

ecologists to predict individual tree biomass.

This method relies on the consistency of an

allometric relationship between plant

dimensions—usually diameter at breast

height (d.b.h.) and/or height—and biomass

for a given species, group of species, or

growth form. Using the dimensional analysis

approach, a researcher samples many stems spanning the

diameter and/or height range of interest, and then uses a

regression model to estimate the relationship between

one or more tree dimensions (as independent variables)

and tree-component weights (as dependent variables).

In previous work we developed a set of generalized

allometric regression equations for application to forest

mensuration data at the national scale for U.S. forests

(Jenkins et al. 2003) (Table 1). Developed from speciesspecific allometric equations published in the literature,

these equations predict oven-dry biomass for individual

stems based on tree d.b.h. alone. Our generalized

regressions for aboveground biomass prediction are

applicable to 10 species groups (5 softwood groups, 4

hardwood groups, and 1 woodland group).

We also developed equations for predicting the biomass

of tree components (Table 2, Fig. 1). Due to the

substantial variability among sampling and analysis

techniques, the relative scarcity of component biomass

equations, and the complexity of diameter-biomass

relationships for tree components, these equations are

applicable to two broad hardwood and softwood species

groups rather than the 10 species groups used for the

aboveground regressions. They are used to predict ratios

between component biomass and total aboveground

biomass, and must be used in conjunction with the

aboveground equations to predict the biomass of four

tree components: merchantable stem biomass (defined

from a 12-inch stump height to 4-inch top diameter

outside bark (d.o.b.)), merchantable bark biomass, total

foliage, and roots (Table 2). Branch biomass was not

calculated because this component can be obtained by

difference. See Jenkins et al. (2003) for details on the

generalized regressions and the methods used to develop

them.

This Compilation

The first step in developing the generalized regressions

was to search the available literature for all published

allometric regression equations that predict oven-dry

biomass for tree components based on d.b.h. This report

includes the results of this compilation, which serves as

supporting documentation for the generalized equations.

We hope that this report will be a reference document

for those interested in estimating oven-dry biomass

based on d.b.h. for individual trees.

We used literature search engines such as the National

Agricultural Library’s AGRICOLA database, and

included regressions published in previous compilations

such as Tritton and Hornbeck (1982), Ter-Mikaelian and

Korzukhin (1997), and Means et al. (1994). We also

searched the bibliographies of other published papers for

additional pertinent references. Regressions developed in

the United States and Canada were our first priority,

though regressions developed for nonnative species that

are established in the United States are included. Because

of the scarcity of regressions for some softwood and

woodland species, we include equations developed

outside North America for these species groups.

Figure 1.—Tree component biomass definitions.

Aboveground Tree 

Biomass (Includes Foliage) 

Belowground: 

Coarse Root Biomass

Stump Height 

(12 inches) 

Merchantable Stem 

and Bark Biomass 

Top Height 

(4-inch diameter) 
2

Table 1.—Parameters and equationsa

 for estimating total aboveground biomass for all hardwood

and softwood species in the United States (from Jenkins et al. 2003)

Species Parameter Data Max

groupb β0 β1 pointsc d.b.h.d RMSEe R2

cm log units

Hardwood Aspen/alder/ -2.2094 2.3867 230 70 0.507441 0.953

cottonwood/ willow

Soft maple/birch -1.9123 2.3651 316 66 0.491685 0.958

Mixed hardwood -2.4800 2.4835 289 56 0.360458 0.980

Hard maple/oak/ -2.0127 2.4342 485 73 0.236483 0.988

hickory/ beech

Softwood Cedar/larch -2.0336 2.2592 196 250 0.294574 0.981

Douglas-fir -2.2304 2.4435 165 210 0.218712 0.992

True fir/hemlock -2.5384 2.4814 395 230 0.182329 0.992

Pine -2.5356 2.4349 331 180 0.253781 0.987

Spruce -2.0773 2.3323 212 250 0.250424 0.988

Woodlandf Juniper/oak/ -0.7152 1.7029 61 78 0.384331 0.938

mesquite

a

Biomass equation:

b

See Table 4 for guidelines on assigning species to each species group.

c

Number of data points generated from published equations (generally at intervals of 5 cm d.b.h.) for

parameter estimation.

d

Maximum d.b.h. of trees measured in published equations.

e

Root mean squared error or estimate of the standard deviation of the regression error term in natural

log units.

f

Includes both hardwood and softwood species from dryland forests.

bm dbh

bm

= +

=

Exp

where 

total aboveground biomass 

( ln ) β β 0 1

(kg) for trees 2.5 cm and larger in d.b.h

diameter at

.

dbh = breast height (cm) 

Exp = exponential function

ln = natural log base "e" (2.718282)

We made a concerted effort to locate the original sources

of all regression equations. However, some reviews

reported “unpublished” results and it was not always

possible to find the full text of the original sources,

particularly for those published other than in peerreviewed journals. In these cases, we report the equations

here but we describe them as “cited in” the published

review. In contrast to our previous work developing the

generalized equations, here we make no attempt to

exclude equations that do not meet prespecified criteria.

Instead, we report all equations found in the literature.

To guide the reader in using these equations, we provide

information on component definitions, author-reported

regression statistics such as R2

 values, diameter ranges

over which the equations were developed, number of

trees harvested to develop the regression, locations of

harvested trees, and other pertinent notes and variables.

We have attempted to be as comprehensive as possible;

however, we cannot anticipate every question that might

be asked by a user, and the authors of the original

regressions often did not provide the information we

sought. As a result, some gaps are likely. We provide
3

Table 2.—Parameters and equationsa

 for estimating component ratios of

total aboveground biomass for all hardwood and softwood species in the

United States (from Jenkins et al. 2003)

Biomass Parameter Data

component α  α pointsb R2

Hardwood

Foliage -4.0813 5.8816 632 0.256

Coarse roots -1.6911 0.8160 121 0.029

Stem bark -2.0129 -1.6805 63 0.017

Stem wood -0.3065 -5.4240 264 0.247

Softwood

Foliage -2.9584 4.4766 777 0.133

Coarse roots -1.5619 0.6614 137 0.018

Stem bark -2.0980 -1.1432 799 0.006

Stem wood -0.3737 -1.8055 781 0.155

a

Biomass ratio equation:

b

Number of data points generated from published equations (generally at

intervals of 5 cm d.b.h.) for parameter estimation.

ratio

dbh

ratio

= +

=

Exp

where

ratio of component to 

1 ( ) α

α 0

 

total aboveground biomass for trees

2.5 cm and larger in d.b.h.

diameter at breast height (cm) 

Exp = exponential 

dbh =

function

ln = log base e (2.718282)

detailed bibliographic information for readers who wish

to learn more about a specific equation.

Most of the equations presented here were developed

specifically for application to particular species at

specific study sites, so they may be more accurate when

used to estimate biomass at sites that closely resemble

those for which they were developed. When biomass for

a particular study site is the target variable, we

recommend using a specific regression that is matched

closely to the site rather than generalized regressions

developed for large-scale application. If such an equation

is not available, we recommend applying a range of sitespecific equations. This approach will provide a range of

biomass estimates likely to include the actual (though

still unknown) biomass value for the target study site,

and it will provide a simplistic estimate of the

uncertainty inherent in these biomass calculations.

Database Description

This section includes definitions for the variables in the

seven tables (Tables 3-9) that make up the database

(Appendix B). The complete database also is available

online at http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/global/. Table 3 lists

more than 2,600 equations and their coefficients; each

row in the table represents a separate biomass regression.

(Only the first 10 pages of Table 3 are included in this

report. Table 3 in its entirety is on the CD-ROM

included with this publication and is available online.)

Tables 4 through 9 contain supporting information.
4

Table 3: Equations and Parameters for

Diameter-Based Biomass Equations

The printed version of the database contains only the

first 10 pages of Table 3. The companion CD-ROM and

electronic distributions of the database include Table 3

in its entirety along with Tables 4-9.

1. Species – Numeric code for the species to which the

equation applies. This number corresponds to the

species code listed in the online Forest Inventory and

Analysis (FIA) database (FIADB) as of October 2002

and to the “FIA Species code” variable (item 1) in

Table 4. FIADB is available at http://fia.fs.fed.us/

dbrs_setup.html.

2. Common name – Common name for the species of

interest (Table 4).

3. Component ID – Numeric code corresponding to

the tree component of interest. These codes and their

definitions are listed in Table 5.

4. Equation Form ID – Numeric code corresponding to

the algebraic form of the equation used by the

original author to fit the regression. These codes and

their associated equation forms are listed in Table 6.

5. Coefficients and constants (a - e) – These columns

include parameters for the regression equations as

given by the authors of the original regressions. The

parameter definitions refer to letter codes in Table 6.

6. Diameter – Independent variable used to develop the

regression. Definitions:

BA: Basal area, the cross-sectional area of the stem at

breast height.

BArc: Basal area, the cross-sectional area of the stem

at the root collar.

c.b.h.: Circumference at breast height.

c.r.c.: Circumference at root collar.

d.b.h.: Diameter at breast height at 4.5 feet (1.37 m)

above ground level.

d.b.h.2

: Square of diameter at breast height.

d.r.c.: Diameter at root collar.

d150: Diameter at 150 cm above ground level.

7. Corrected for bias – A “yes” value in this column

means that the original authors developed and

reported a correction factor to compensate for the

potential underestimation resulting from backtransforming logarithmic predictions to arithmetic

units, as suggested by Baskerville (1972), Beauchamp

and Olson (1973), and Sprugel (1983). In many

cases where (7) is “yes,” item (8) will list CF, the bias

correction factor to be used. In other cases, the

authors embedded the correction factor into the

equation parameters, or did not publish the value of

CF since it can be obtained from the regression

statistics. In such cases, the value of CF in the

database will be zero even though the authors used

the correction factor.

A “no” value in this column means that: a) the

equation form used is not logarithmic and does not

require the correction; b) for logarithmic equation

forms, the authors chose not to correct the equation;

c) there is no mention of bias correction in the

original publication.

8. Bias correction (CF) – Published value of CF, to

correct for potential underestimation resulting from

back-transformation of logarithmic predictions to

arithmetic units. As a remedy for bias, it has been

proposed that the back-transformed biomass results

be multiplied by CF, defined as exp(MSE/2), where

MSE refers to the mean squared error of a line fit by

least-squares regression. The use of CF has been

criticized; because many authors include wellreasoned discussions of their choice whether to use

the correction, we follow the example of the original

authors. If the author reports the CF, we also report

it here; if the author uses it but does not report it

explicitly, we do likewise; or if the original author

chooses not to address the issue, we reflect that

decision as well.

9. r and R2

 – Standard goodness-of-fit statistics, if these

were reported by the authors of the original regressions.

10. MinDiameter and MaxDiameter – Minimum and

maximum diameter values (in centimeters) for which

the regression is valid. These are the minimum and

maximum measurements for the trees harvested to

develop the regression.

11. Sample size – Number of trees harvested or

measured to develop the regression.

12. Stump height – For equations that predict the

biomass of any component that includes the tree

stem or the stump, this variable lists (in inches) the

estimated or measured stump height. Many authors,

particularly those reporting in the ecology literature,

did not report this value, so we developed a series of

rules to estimate it if missing. If the original authors

reported stump height, it is listed here. If no stump

height was given or if the authors did not mention

the existence of a stump in their publication, we
5

assumed that the stump was 6 inches (15.24 cm) tall.

Stump height was assumed to be zero if any of the

following were true: 1) the methods of Whittaker

and Marks (1975) or Whittaker and Woodwell

(1968) were used for sampling (these authors were

explicit about felling trees at groundline); 2) the

authors stated that trees were “felled at groundline” as

opposed to simply being “felled;” 3) the stump is

described as “as short as possible;” 4) the same

authors also report an equation for root biomass only

(versus stump plus root biomass); 5) the authors

estimated (using their own method) that portion of

the stump excluded when the trees were felled; 6) the

trees used to develop the regressions were small

enough that it is reasonable to expect that nearly the

entire stump would have been included with the

aboveground biomass using standard destructive

harvesting techniques adapted for research purposes.

13. Top d.o.b. – For equations that include a portion of

the merchantable stem, describes the minimum

diameter outside bark (d.o.b.) of the top of the

merchantable stem. If a value was listed, it is included

here. If no value was listed, or if the equation was

listed as predicting the biomass of the “stem” or the

“bole” with no discussion of the limiting top

diameter, we assumed that the value of this parameter

was zero. Some authors provided ratio equations

allowing for prediction of certain bole components

based on a user-defined top diameter; in these cases

the value of “Ratio Equation,” (item 17) is “y” and

the corresponding equation is listed in Table 7.

14. Units diameter and units biomass – The units used

by the original authors to measure the independent

and dependent variables. The equation coefficients in

Table 3 are reported as originally published: this

means that the diameter units must correspond to

the units in the Units diameter column, and that the

result always is in the units listed in the Units

biomass column. Abbreviations:

mm: millimeters (= 10-3 meters)

cm: centimeters (= 10-2 meters)

m: meters (= 39.37 inches)

in: inches (= 2.54 cm)

lb: pounds (= 0.4545 kg)

g: grams

kg: kilograms (= 106

 grams)

Mg: Megagrams (= 109

 grams)

15. Component – This column can be used to

determine whether an equation was incorporated

into the generalized equations published by Jenkins

et al. (2003). If an equation was used in the

generalized equations, the codes in this column

further describe modifications to incorporate

equations into the generalized equations. Values are

defined as (see also Figure 1):

na: Not used in the generalized equations, usually

because component definitions were inconsistent

with what was required. Exclusion for other reasons

is stated in the Notes column.

ag: Predicts total aboveground biomass; used directly

in the analysis with no alteration.

sb: Merchantable stem bark biomass with the correct

definition (12-inch stump to 4-inch top); used

directly with no alteration.

sw: Merchantable stem wood biomass with the

correct definition (12-inch stump to 4-inch top);

used directly with no alteration.

fl: Total foliage biomass; used directly with no

alteration.

rt: Root biomass; used directly with no alteration.

Due to the scarcity of root biomass equations, root

diameter limits were ignored in the summary paper

(Jenkins et al. 2003).

agm: Predicts above-stump biomass; stump biomass

was added before the equation was used to predict

aboveground biomass in the summary paper.

sbm: Merchantable stem bark biomass with a portion

of the stump included; stump biomass was

subtracted before the equation was used to predict

merchantable stem bark biomass in the summary

paper.

swm: Merchantable stem wood biomass with a

portion of the stump included; stump biomass was

subtracted before the equation was used to predict

merchantable stem wood in the summary paper.

flm: Predicts a portion of total foliage biomass

(usually new or old foliage biomass); two or more

equations (including this one) were added to predict

total foliage biomass in the summary paper.

rtm: Predicts root plus stump biomass; stump

biomass was subtracted before the equation was used

in the summary paper.

rts: Complete tree biomass; aboveground biomass (as

predicted by the same authors) was subtracted before

the equation was used to predict root biomass in the

summary paper.

16. Component sum – Describes the additive status for

equations where the original authors published

separate component equations. Definitions are:

a: This equation predicts total aboveground or abovestump biomass, and was used directly or with
6

modifications to account for stump biomass in the

summary paper.

b: This equation predicts total belowground biomass,

and was used with no alteration in the summary

paper.

t: Along with other equations published for the same

species by the same author, this component adds to

total aboveground or total above-stump biomass. No

separate aboveground or above-stump equation is

presented based on the same data. For these

equations, the additive result is included in the

summary paper.

c: Together with other equations published for the

same species by the same author, this component

adds to total aboveground, above-stump, or

complete-tree biomass. A separate aboveground or

above-stump equation (with an “a” in this column)

also is presented based on the same data. For these

equations, only the aboveground or above-stump

equation is included in the summary paper.

s: Together with other equations published for the

same species by the same author, this component

adds to total belowground biomass. No separate total

belowground biomass equation is presented based on

the same data. For these equations, only the additive

result is included in the analysis of Jenkins et al.

(2003).

r: Together with other components, this component

adds to total belowground biomass. A separate total

belowground biomass equation (with a “b” in this

column) is also presented based on the same data.

For these equations, only the additive result is used in

Jenkins et al. (2003).

A blank in this column means that the equation was

not used in the summary paper because the

components do not add to a total or this equation

does not contribute to a total, or the equation was

deemed unsuitable for another reason (which would

be described in the Notes column).

17. Ratio equation – Some authors presented methods

for predicting the biomass of the merchantable stem

to a user-defined top diameter. A “y” value in this

column means that a separate ratio equation was

presented by this author and is included in Table 7.

Where available, these equations were used to

estimate the biomass of the corresponding

merchantable stem to a 4-inch top d.o.b.

18. Segmented equation – Some authors presented

paired equations for the same species such that one

equation was applicable at the lower end of the

diameter range and a second equation was applicable

at the upper end of the range. A “y” value in this

column means that the equation is one-half of a

segmented equation; its companion equation for the

same species will have the same author and regression

statistics but will be applicable over a different

diameter range. In Jenkins et al. (2003), each half of

a segmented equation was used for half of the total

number of pseudodata predictions for a given author

and species combination.

19. Equation number – Some authors presented several

equations for the same component and species based

on treatment type or study site. In such cases, each

separate equation is given a number, starting

sequentially with 1. When an author presented

equations based on independent tree samples from

different sites, all of the published equations were

included in Jenkins et al. (2003). However, if the

same author also presented one equation based on

“pooled” data from all sites sampled, the pooled

equation was used.

20. Source – Numbers correspond to references listed in

Table 9.

21. Notes – Information potentially of interest to users

of the equations.

Table 4: Species Key, Suggested Assignments for

Species Groups to Apply Generalized Equations,

and Specific Gravity Information

Table 4 includes the species-specific information relevant

to users of the database, as well as species-specific

information used to develop the generalized equations

described in Jenkins et al. (2003).

1. FIA species code – Numeric code assigned to each

tree species; used by FIA’s FIADB database. Note that

some equations were added to the database for

species that are either not native or uncommon in the

United States. For these species with no dedicated

FIA codes, we assigned a code for use in this biomass

database. As a result, the new ID’s probably will not

match the assigned FIA code should these species

ever be added to the FIADB database. The codes for

these new species are listed in bold italic. Family,

genus, and species information in this database

should allow users to assign the correct FIA code if

necessary.

2. Common name – Common name used by FIA (or in

common usage for species not listed by FIA) for the

species.

3. Family
7

4. Genus

5. Species

6. Species group – The group to which the species was

assigned to develop the generalized equations of

Jenkins et al. (2003). If no biomass regressions are

found for a particular species, this column can be

used to assign species to groups when applying the

generalized equations. Abbreviations are: aa = aspen /

alder / cottonwood / willow; cl = cedar / larch; df =

Douglas-fir; mb = soft maple / birch; mh = mixed

hardwood; mo = hard maple / oak / hickory / beech;

pi = pine; sp = spruce; tf = true fir / hemlock; wo =

woodland species (juniper / oak / mesquite).

7. Wood specific gravity – Specific gravity (based on

oven-dry weight and green volume) value used to

convert stump volume inside bark to stump wood

biomass for standardizing component definitions in

Jenkins et al. (2003). Values were obtained primarily

from the Forest Products Laboratory (U.S. Dep.

Agric. 1974) and Markwardt (1930). Where this

column is blank, data for the species (or species

group) were unavailable. For groups of species (e.g.,

pine spp. or spruce spp.) the value is the average of

specific gravity values from the literature for species

that make up the group.

8. Bark specific gravity – Specific gravity (based on

oven-dry weight and green volume) value used to

convert stump bark volume to stump bark biomass

for standardizing component definitions in Jenkins et

al. (2003). The bibliographic source of the

information is listed in the next column (and in

Appendix A). Where this column is blank, data for

the species (or species group) were unavailable.

9. Bark specific gravity source – Reference number

corresponding to the bibliographic source that lists

the bark specific gravity for the species. Note that

information on bark specific gravity is limited.

Where a value for specific gravity is included in the

previous column but is not accompanied by a code

referring to the source of the information, bark

specific gravity was estimated based on data from the

literature. Unless there was information on bark

specific gravity from a closely related species or group

of species, we assumed that bark and wood specific

gravity were similar.

10. Stump volume equation – FIA species code

corresponding to the equation used for predicting

stump volume inside and outside bark for this species

to standardize component definitions in the

summary paper. Species with no value in this column

were not used to develop the generalized equations in

Jenkins et al. (2003). See Table 8 and Raile (1982)

for stump volume equations.

Table 5: Tree Component Key

Table 5 describes the tree components included in the

equation database, and serves as the key for the

“Component ID” column in Table 3.

1. Component description – Describes the tree

component predicted by the equation.

2. Component abbreviation – Used by the developers

of the BIOPAK database (Means et al. 1994) for

referring to plant component biomass. Where this

column is blank, the BIOPAK database did not

include equations for the component.

3. Component ID – Numeric code corresponding to

the component; the number in this column refers to

the Component ID column in Table 3.

Table 6: Equation Form Key

Table 6 includes the general equation forms in the

equation database, and serves as the key for the

“Equation form ID” column in Table 3.

1. Equation form description – This column shows the

algebraic form of the equation. To use an equation

plug the coefficients and constants listed in Table 3

into the equation form. Note that “dia” refers to the

diameter measurement listed in Table 3, whether it is

basal area, d.b.h., or circumference at the root collar.

2. Equation form ID – Numeric code corresponding to

the equation form; the number in this column refers

to the Equation form ID column in Table 3.

Table 7: Parameters for Stem Ratio Equations

for Selected Stem Biomass Equations

Table 7 includes parameters for equations used to

develop merchantable-stem biomass to a user-specific

top diameter. These ratio equations were developed and

presented by the authors of a subset of the original

equations included in the database. A stem ratio

equation is included here for any equation in Table 3

with a value of “y” in the “Ratio equation” column.

1. Source – Numeric code corresponding to the

bibliographic reference where the equation was

published (these numbers correspond to those in

Table 9).
8

2. Species – Numeric code corresponding to the species

for which the equation was developed (species codes

are listed in Table 4).

3. Component – Numeric code corresponding to the

tree component for which the ratio equation was

developed. The original authors developed these ratio

equations for Component ID’s 6 (st, merchantablestem wood plus bark) and 4 (sw, merchantable-stem

wood) (see Table 5 for Component descriptions).

The biomass of merchantable-stem bark

(Component ID 5) can be found by difference.

4. a, b, c – Parameters for ratio equations. The equation

form is:

ln(ratio) = a * (db

) * (Dc)

where ratio = proportion of above-stump stem biomass

to specific top d.o.b.

d = specified top d.o.b. (inches)

D = tree d.b.h. (inches)

a, b, c = equation parameters from Table 7

When back-transformed, the result of this equation is a

number between 0 and 1. When the original total stem

(or stem wood) biomass developed using the equation

presented in Table 3 is multiplied by the ratio

determined with this equation, the result is the stem

biomass to the top d.o.b. (d) specified by the user.

Table 8: Stump Diameter Regression

Coefficients, Outside and Inside Bark,

for Tree Species in the Lake States

Table 8 includes parameters for equations used to

estimate stump volume based on d.b.h., for tree species

in the Lake States (Raile 1982). When developing the

generalized equations of Jenkins et al. (2003), stump

volume (and biomass) was computed in two cases. In the

first, a given equation might report biomass of the

above-stump portion of the tree (Component ID 3 in

Tables 3 and 5); here, the biomass of the stump between

ground level and stump height was computed and added

to the above-stump equation to determine total aboveground biomass. In the second case, an equation

reporting merchantable stem (or merchantable stem

wood or bark) biomass might give a stump height of 6

inches or 3 inches. The definition of merchantable stem

in Jenkins et al. (2003) specifies a 12-inch stump height.

Here, the biomass of the portion of the stump between

reported stump height and 1 foot was computed and

subtracted from the merchantable stem biomass from

the reported equation in order to standardize

merchantable stem definitions for the generalized

equations.

To compute stump wood biomass, we first predicted

stump volume, assuming that the portion of the stump

to be added or subtracted from the biomass equation

result was a perfect cylinder. Due to the tapered shape of

most trees, this approach likely underestimated slightly

the biomass of the bottom stump portion. However, this

overestimation probably was balanced nearly equally by

an overestimation of the biomass of the top half of the

stump portion.

To determine stump wood volume, we chose a point

that bisected the length of the stump portion of interest,

and used the parameters given in Table 8 to predict

stump inside bark diameter (d.i.b.) at that point. We

then used a standard geometric formula for predicting

the volume of a cylinder to predict the wood volume of

the stump portion of interest:

Volume = pi * r2

 * h,

where r = (stump d.i.b.)/2 and h = the length of the

stump portion.

This wood volume was multiplied by the wood specific

gravity for the species of interest (Table 4) to determine

oven-dry stump wood biomass.

Stump bark volume was found by difference. We began

by using the parameters in Table 8 to predict stump

outside bark diameter (d.o.b.) at a point in the middle of

the stump portion of interest. We used the standard

geometric formula described previously to predict the

volume of the entire stump (bark plus wood). We then

subtracted the volume of the stump wood only (found

using the geometric method described above) from total

stump volume to determine the volume of the stump

bark only. This volume was multiplied by the specific

gravity of bark for the species of interest to determine

oven-dry stump bark biomass.

Stump Diameter Outside Bark

1. Species group – Species group name corresponding

to the equation (see Raile (1982) for a full list of the

species included in each group).

2. Stump volume equation code – The FIA numeric

code corresponding to the most common species

used to develop the d.o.b. regression equation. See

Table 4 for a list of codes and their corresponding

species.

3. Number of trees – The number of trees used to

develop the regression.

4. Min D.B.H. – D.b.h. (in inches) of the smallest tree

used to develop the regression.
9

5. Max D.B.H. – D.b.h. (in inches) of the largest tree

used to develop the regression.

6. B – The “species group regression parameter” for the

regression equation. The equation form is:

Stump d.o.b. = d.b.h. + B*(d.b.h.)*[(4.5 – h)/( h + 1)]

where stump d.o.b. = diameter outside bark (inches) at

height h;

B = species group regression parameter from Table 8;

h = stump height (feet).

7. R2

 – R2 value for the regression equation fit by Raile

(1982) to the data.

8. SE – Standard error (inches) of the regression.

Stump Diameter Inside Bark

1. Species group – Species group name corresponding

to the equation.

2. A and B – Species group regression parameters for the

regression equation. The equation form for the d.i.b.

regressions is:

Stump d.i.b. = A*d.b.h. + B*d.b.h.*[(4.5 – h)/( h + 1)]

where stump d.i.b. = diameter inside bark (inches) at

height h;

A and B are species group regression parameters from

Table 9;

h = stump height (feet).

3. R2

 – R2 value for the regression equation fit by Raile

(1982) to the data.

4. SE – Standard error (inches) of the regression.

Table 9. Sources and General Geographic

Locations for All Equations

1. Reference number – This number is cross referenced

to the Source column in Table 3.

2. Reference – The literature reference (author and date)

for the full citation listed in Appendix A.

3. Origin – Geographic location from which the trees

were harvested to develop the original regressions.

Where this variable is missing, the original source

was unavailable or there was insufficient information

in the original literature citation with which to

determine the specific location of the harvested trees.

Using the Database

For clarity, we provide two examples of how one might

apply the equations in the database: estimating total

foliage biomass for a study plot in Maine, and estimating

the potential error associated with using a particular

equation for aboveground biomass for Douglas-fir.

Maine Example

Choosing appropriate equations

In this example, we have species and d.b.h. data for

diverse tree species on a Maine study plot. We want to

quantify the foliage biomass (dry weight, green foliage)

for this plot using an allometric approach. In Table 5 we

see that Component ID 18 refers to total foliage, while

Component ID’s 19 and 20 refer to “new” and “old”

foliage, respectively. (For a tree that retains its leaves or

needles for more than 1 year, note that new foliage is the

current year’s growth while old foliage is growth from

the previous year and earlier.) Because we are most

interested in the total foliage biomass, we look in the

Component ID column in Table 3 for equations that

correspond to Component ID 18. There are 295 “total

foliage” equations for a variety of species and study sites.

Our study plot is in Maine, so we want to use equations

from studies conducted in that region. We check Table 9

for the geographic origins of the equations, and we find

that several of the total foliage equations were developed

from trees harvested in Maine: the equations from Ribe

(1973) (ref 130) and Young (1980) (ref 177) probably

are the most widely applicable for that state. We note

that the Ribe (1973) equations have a fairly limited

diameter range (for most of these equations, the

minimum diameter is 2.5 cm and the maximum

diameter is 15.24 cm) and that the Young (1980)

equations were developed from trees harvested over a

larger range of diameters. If our trees are small, we might

use the Ribe (1973) equations; if our trees are

intermediate in size, the Young (1980) equations might

be more appropriate. If tree species in our study plot are

not represented by either set of references or if our

Maine plot is near the New Hampshire border, we may

want to use some of the equations developed in New

Hampshire, e.g., the Hocker and Earley (1983) (ref 74)

or Kinerson and Bartholomew (1977) (ref 86) equations.

Applying the equations

Once we have examined the species and size distributions

in our study plot to determine consistency with the

equations in Table 3 and chosen a set of equations, we

must estimate foliage biomass from the d.b.h. data in

our study plot. For example, we are using the Ribe
10

(1973) equation to calculate biomass for a red maple

(Acer rubrum) (FIA species code 316) that is 5 cm d.b.h.

This equation has Equation Form ID 1. In Table 6, we

see that Equation Form ID 1 corresponds to equations

with the following form: log10 biomass = a + b * log10(dia)c

.

We also note that “dia” in the Ribe equation refers to

d.b.h. (as listed in the Diameter column in Table 3), and

that Units Diameter and Units Biomass for the equation

we have chosen (Table 3) are in inches and grams,

respectively. Therefore, we must convert our d.b.h.

measurement to inches and we recognize that the result

will be in grams.

First, we convert the d.b.h. measurement to inches: 5 cm

* (1 inch/ 2.54 cm) = 1.97 inches. To calculate foliage

biomass, we apply the equation: log10 biomass = 2.1237

+ (1.8015)*(log10(1.97)) = 2.65. Since log10(biomass) =

2.65, to find total foliage biomass for this stem we must

back-transform the logarithm to arithmetic units:

biomass = 10 2.65, or 451 g.

We would repeat this process for each stem and species for

which we want to estimate foliage biomass. To calculate

the total foliage biomass on the study plot, we sum the

foliage estimates for all the trees present on the plot.

Douglas-Fir Example

In this example, we want to understand the implications

of using a particular equation for predicting Douglas-fir

biomass. How would our results be different if we used

one equation instead of another? We suggest applying

several equations to the same tree or set of trees, and

quantifying the differences among the results. For

example, sorting Table 3 by Species and Component ID,

we see that there are six equations for total aboveground

biomass (Component ID 2) for Douglas-fir (species

code 202). Also, one of these equations requires

estimates of diameter at the root collar (d.r.c.) rather

than d.b.h. If we have only d.b.h. data, we would omit

this equation from our analysis unless we had a method

for predicting d.b.h. from d.r.c. In this example, we

would choose the equations from Table 3 that

correspond to the diameter range of interest and use all

of them to quantify aboveground biomass. The

differences can be expressed in terms of percentages (e.g.,

results from one equation are X% higher than the

average of all of the appropriate equations). We also

might graph the equations as in Figure 2, with the d.b.h.

values on the x axis and the biomass values on the y axis.

This allows us to see the differences between the

estimates provided by the different equations.

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Diameter at Breast Height (d.b.h.) (cm)

Aboveground Biomass (g)

Figure 2.—Total aboveground biomass as predicted from five allometric regression

equations for Douglas-fir.
11

Literature Cited

Baskerville, G. L. 1972. Use of logarithmic regression

in the estimation of plant biomass. Canadian

Journal of Forestry. 2: 49-53.

Beauchamp, J. J.; Olson, J. S. 1973. Corrections for

bias in regression estimates after logarithmic

transformation. Ecology. 54(6): 1403-1407.

Jenkins, J.; Chojnacky, D.; Heath, L.; Birdsey, R. 2003.

National-scale biomass estimators for United

States tree species. Forest Science. 49(1): 12-35.

Markwardt, L. J. 1930. Comparative strength

properties of woods grown in the United States.

Publ. 158. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

Means, J.; Hansen, H.; Koerper, G.; Alaback, P.;

Klopsch, M. 1994. Software for computing plant

biomass — BIOPAK users guide. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-340. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station.

Raile, G. 1982. Estimating stump volume. Res. Pap.

NC-224. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station.

Sprugel, D. G. 1983. Correcting for bias in longtransformed allometric equations. Ecology. 64(1):

209-210.

Ter-Mikaelian, M.; Korzukhin, M. 1997. Biomass

equations for sixty-five North American tree

species. Forest Ecology and Management. 97: 1-24.

Tritton, L. M.; Hornbeck, J. W. 1982. Biomass

equations for major tree species of the northeast.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-69. Broomall, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast

Forest Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Wood

handbook: wood as an engineering material. Agric.

Handb. 72. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

Whittaker, R. H.; Marks, P. L. 1975. Methods of

assessing terrestrial productivity. In: Primary

productivity of the biosphere. New York: SpringerVerlag: 55-118.

Whittaker, R. H.; Woodwell, G. M. 1968. Dimension

and production relations of trees and shrubs in the

Brookhaven Forest, New York. Journal of Ecology.

56(1): 1-25.
12

Appendix A. Citation information for equations and data referenced in

Tables 3-9, Appendix B.

Citation numbers in Appendix A are cross referenced with numbers in Source column in Table 3,

Appendix B. Note that this bibliography contains both published and unpublished references.

12. Bickelhaupt, D.; Leaf, A.; Richards, N. 1973. Effect

of branching habit on above-ground dry weight

estimates of Acer saccharum stands. In: Young, H.,

ed. IUFRO biomass studies; Nancy, France and

Vancouver, BC. Orono, ME: University of Maine,

College of Life Sciences and Agriculture: 219-230.

13. Binkley, D. 1983. Ecosystem production in

Douglas-fir plantations: interaction of red alder

and site fertility. Forest Ecology and Management.

5: 215-227.

14. Binkley, D.; Lousier, J.; Cromack, K.J. 1984.

Ecosystem effects of Sitka alder in a Douglas-fir

plantation. Forest Science 30: 26-35.

15. Bockheim, J.; Lee, S. 1984. Biomass and net

primary production equations for thinned red

pine plantations in central Wisconsin. For. Res.

Notes 256. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin,

College of Agriculture.

16. Boerner, R.; Kost, J. 1986. Biomass equations for

flowering dogwood, Cornus florida L. Castanea.

51: 153-155.

17. Bormann, B. 1990. Diameter-based biomass

regression models ignore large sapwood-related

variation in Sitka spruce. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 20: 1098-1104.

18. Brenneman, D. F.; Gardner, W.; Schoenhofen, L.;

Marsh, P. 1978. Biomass of species and stands of

West Virginia hardwoods. In: Pope, P. ed.

Proceedings, central hardwood forest conference II;

1978 November 14-16; West LaFayette, IN. Purdue

University: 159-178.

19. Bridge, J. 1979. Fuelwood production of mixed

hardwoods on mesic sites in Rhode Island.

Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island. M.S.

thesis.

20. Briggs, R.; Porter, J.; White, E. 1989. Component

biomass equations for Acer rubrum and Fagus

grandifolia. Fac. For. Tech. Publ. 4. Syracuse, NY:

State University of New York, College of

Environmental Science and Forestry.

1. Acker, S.; Easter, M. 1994. Unpublished data.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Forest

Science Department.

2. Adhikari, B.; Rawat, Y.; Singh, S. 1995. Structure

and function of high altitude forests of Central

Himalaya. I. Dry matter dynamics. Annals of

Botany. 75: 237-248.

3. Anurag, R.; Srivastava, M.; Raizada, A. 1989.

Biomass yield and biomass equations for Populus

deltoides Marsh. Indian Journal of Forestry. 12: 56-

61.

4. Bajrang, S.; Misra, P.; Singh, B. 1996. Biomass,

energy content and fuel-wood properties of

Populus deltoides clones raised in North Indian

plains. Indian Journal of Forestry. 18: 278-284.

5. Baldwin, V. J. 1989. Is sapwood area a better

predictor of loblolly pine crown biomass than

bole diameter? Biomass. 20: 177-185.

6. Barclay, H.; Pang, P.; Pollard, D. 1986. Aboveground

biomass distribution within trees and stands in

thinned and fertilized Douglas-fir. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 16: 438-442.

7. Barney, R. J.; Van Cleve, K; Schlentner, R. 1978.

Biomass distribution and crown characteristics in

two Alaskan Picea mariana ecosystems. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 8: 36-41.

8. Bartelink, H. 1996. Allometric relationships on

biomass and needle area of Douglas-fir. Forest

Ecology and Management. 86: 193-203.

9. Baskerville, G. 1965. Dry-matter production in

immature balsam fir stands. Forest Science

Monographs 9.

10. Baskerville, G. 1966. Dry matter production in

immature balsam fir stands: roots, lesser

vegetation and total stand. Forest Science. 12: 49-

53.

11. Bergez, J.; Auclair, D.; Roman-Amat, R. 1988.

Biomass production of Sitka spruce early

thinnings. Biomass. 16: 107-117.
13

21. Brown, J. 1978. Weight and density of crowns of

Rocky Mountain conifers. Res. Pap. INT-197.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

22. Bunyavejchewin, S.; Kiratiprayoon, S. 1989.

Primary production of plots of five young closespaced fast-growing tree species I. Biomass

equations. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam

Society. 37: 47-56.

23. Busing, R.; Clebsch, E.; White, P. 1993. Biomass

and production of southern Appalachian cove

forests reexamined. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 23: 760-765.

24. Campbell, J. S.; Lieffers, V. J.; Pielou, E. C. 1985.

Regression equations for estimating single tree

biomass of trembling aspen: assessing their

applicability to more than one population. Forest

Ecology and Management. 11: 283-295.

25. Carlyle, J.; Malcolm, D. 1986. Biomass and

element capital of a 7-year-old lodgepole pine

(Pinus contorta Dougl.) stand growing on deep

peat. Forest Ecology and Management. 14: 285-291.

26. Carpenter, E. 1983. Above-ground weights for

tamarack in northeastern Minnesota. Res. Pap.

NC-245. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station.

27. Carter, M.; White, E. 1971. Dry weight and

nutrient accumulation in young stands of

cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr.). Circ. 190.

Auburn, AL: Auburn University Agricultural

Experiment Station.

28. Cassens, D. 1976. Physical characteristics of bark

of several delta hardwoods. Wood Util. Note 28.

Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

29. Chapman, J.; Gower, S. 1991. Aboveground

production and canopy dynamics in sugar maple

and red oak trees in southwestern Wisconsin.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1533-1543.

30. Chaturvedi, O.; Singh, J. 1982. Total biomass and

biomass production of Pinus roxburghii trees

growing in all-aged natural forests. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 12: 632-640.

31. Chojnacky, D. 1984. Volume and biomass for

curlleaf cercocarpus in Nevada. Res. Pap. INT-332.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

32. Chojnacky, D.; Moisen, G. 1993. Converting wood

volume to biomass for pinyon and juniper. Res.

Note INT-411. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station.

33. Clark, A. I.; Phillips, D.; Frederick, D. 1985.

Weight, volume, and physical properties of major

hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal

Plains. Res. Pap. SE-250. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

34. Clark, A. I.; Phillips, D.; Frederick, D. 1986a.

Weight, volume, and physical properties of major

hardwood species in the Piedmont. Res. Pap. SE255. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station.

35. Clark, A. I.; Phillips, D.; Frederick, D. 1986b.

Weight, volume, and physical properties of major

hardwood species in the Upland South. Res. Pap.

SE-257. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station.

36. Clark, A. I.; Schroeder, J. 1986. Weight, volume,

and physical properties of major hardwood

species in the southern Appalachian mountains.

Res. Pap. SE-153. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station.

37. Clary, W.; Tiedemann, A. 1987. Fuelwood

potential in large-tree Quercus gambelii stands.

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 2: 87-90.

38. Clebsch, E. 1971. Dry weight of trees and saplings

from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park

and eastern Tennessee. In: Sollins, P.; Anderson, R.,

eds. Dry weight and other data for trees and woody

shrubs of southeastern United States. Ecol. Sci. Div.

Publ. 407. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National

Laboratory: 15-21.

39. Cochran, P.; Jennings, J.; Youngberg, C. 1984.

Biomass estimators for thinned second-growth

Ponderosa pine trees. Res. Note PNW-415.
14

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

40. Crow, T. 1971. Estimation of biomass in an evenaged stand — regression and “mean tree”

techniques. Misc. Rep. 132. Orono, ME: Maine

Agricultural Experiment Station: 35-48.

41. Crow, T. 1976. Biomass and production

regressions for trees and woody shrubs common

to the Enterprise Forest. In: Zavitkovski, J. ed. The

Enterprise radiation forest: Radioecological studies.

Rep. TID-26113-P2. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy

Research and Development Administration: 63-67.

42. Crow, T. 1983. Comparing biomass regressions by

site and stand age for red maple. Canadian Journal

of Forest Research. 13: 283-288.

43. Darling, M. L. 1967. Structure and productivity of

pinyon-juniper woodland in northern Arizona.

Durham, NC: Duke University. Ph.D. dissertation.

44. Dudley, N.; Fownes, J. 1992. Preliminary biomass

equations for eight species of fast-growing

tropical trees. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 5:

68-73.

45. Dunlap, W.; Shipman, R. 1967. Density and

weight production of standing white oak, red

maple, and red pine. Research Briefs. University

Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, School of

Forest Resources.

46. Erickson, J. 1972. The moisture content and

specific gravity of the bark and wood of northern

pulpwood species. Res. Note NC-141. St. Paul,

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station.

47. Espinosa-Bancalari, M.; Perry, D. 1987.

Distribution and increment of biomass in

adjacent young Douglas-fir stands with different

early growth rates. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 17: 722-730.

48. Fassnacht, K. 1996. Characterization of the

structure and function of upland forest

ecosystems in north central Wisconsin. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin. Ph.D. dissertation.

49. Felker, P.; Clark, P.; Osborn, J.; Cannell, G. 1982.

Biomass estimation in a young stand of mesquite

(Prosopis spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), palo

verde (Cercidium floridium and Parkinsonia

aculeata), and leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala).

Journal of Range Management. 35: 87-89.

50. Feller, M. 1992. Generalized versus site-specific

biomass regression equations for Pseudotsuga

menziesii var. menziesii and Thuja plicata in

coastal British Columbia. Bioresource Technology.

39: 9-16.

51. Freedman, B. 1984. The relationship between the

aboveground dry weight and diameter for a wide

size range of erect land plants. Canadian Journal of

Botany. 62: 2370-2374.

52. Freedman, B.; Duinker, P.; Barclay, H.; Morash, R.;

Prager, U. 1982. Forest biomass and nutrient

studies in central Nova Scotia. Inf. Rep. M-X-134.

Fredericton, Nova Scotia: Canadian Forestry Service,

Maritimes Forest Research Centre.

53. Gary, H. L. 1976. Crown structure and

distribution of biomass in a lodgepole pine stand.

Res. Pap. RM-165. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

54. Gholz, H. 1980. Structure and productivity of

Juniperus occidentalis in central Oregon.

American Midland Naturalist. 103: 251-261.

55. Gholz, H.; Vogel, S.; Cropper, W. J.; McKelvey, K.;

Ewel, C. 1991. Dynamics of canopy structure and

light interception in Pinus elliotii stands, north

Florida. Ecological Monographs. 6: 33-51.

56. Gholz, H. L.; Grier, C. C.; Campbell, A. G.; Brown,

A. T. 1979. Equations for estimating biomass and

leaf area of plants in the Pacific Northwest. Res.

Pap. 41. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University,

School of Forestry.

57. Goldsmith, L.; Hocker, H. 1978. Preliminary

small-tree aboveground biomass tables for five

northern hardwoods Res. Rep. 68. Durham, NH:

University of New Hampshire Agricultural

Experiment Station.

58. Gower, S.; Grier, C.; Vogt, D.; Vogt, K. 1987.

Allometric relations of deciduous (Larix

occidentalis) and evergreen conifers (Pinus

contorta and Pseudotsuga menziesii) of the

Cascade Mountains in central Washington.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 17: 630-634.
15

59. Gower, S.; Haynes, B.; Fassnacht, K.; Running, S.;

Hunt, E. J. 1993a. Influence of fertilization on the

allometric relations for two pines in contrasting

environments. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

23: 1704-1711.

60. Gower, S. T.; Reich, P. B.; Son, Y. 1993b. Canopy

dynamics and aboveground production of five

tree species with different leaf longevities. Tree

Physiology. 12: 327-345.

61. Gower, S. T.; Vogt, K. A.; Grier, C. C. 1992.

Carbon dynamics of Rocky Mountain Douglasfir: influence of water and nutrient availability.

Ecological Monographs. 62: 43-65.

62. Green, D.; Grigal, D. 1978. Generalized biomass

estimation equations for jack pine. Res. Note 268.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, College of

Forestry.

63. Grier, C.; Elliott, K.; McCullough, D. 1992.

Biomass distribution and productivity of Pinus

edulis-Juniperus monosperma woodlands of

north-central Arizona. Forest Ecology and

Management. 50: 331-350.

64. Grier, C.; Lee, K.; Archibald, R. 1984. Effect of

urea fertilization on allometric relations in young

Douglas-fir trees. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 14: 900-904.

65. Grier, C. C.; Logan, R. S. 1977. Old-growth

Pseudotsuga menziesii communities of a western

Oregon watershed: biomass distribution and

production budgets. Ecological Monographs. 47:

373-400.

66. Grigal, D.; Kernik, L. 1978. Biomass estimation

equations for black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.

(B.S.P.))) trees. Res. Note 290. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, College of Forestry.

67. Harding, R. B.; Grigal, D. F. 1985. Individual tree

biomass estimation equations for plantationgrown white spruce in northern Minnesota.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 15: 738-739.

68. Harmon, M. 1994. Unpublished equations.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest

Science Department.

69. Harrington, T.; Tappeiner, J. I.; Walstad, J. 1984.

Predicting leaf area and biomass of 1- to 6-yearold tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) and Pacific

madrone (Arbutus menziesii) sprout clumps in

southwestern Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 14: 209-213.

70. Harris, W.; Goldstein, R.; Henderson, G. 1973.

Analysis of forest biomass pools, annual primary

production and turnover of biomass for a mixed

deciduous forest watershed. In: Young, H., ed.

IUFRO biomass studies, Nancy, France and

Vancouver, BC. Orono, ME: University of Maine,

College of Life Sciences and Agriculture: 41-64.

71. Hegyi, F. 1972. Dry matter distribution in jack

pine stands in northern Ontario. Forestry

Chronicle. 48: 193-197.

72. Helgerson, O.; Cromack, K.; Stafford, S.; Miller, R.;

Slagle, R. 1988. Equations for estimating

aboveground components of young Douglas-fir

and red alder in a coastal Oregon plantation.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 18: 1082-1085.

73. Heth, D.; Donald, D. 1978. Root biomass of Pinus

radiata D. Don. South African Forestry Journal.

107: 60-70.

74. Hocker, H. W.; Early, D. J. 1983. Biomass and leaf

area equations for northern forest species. Res.

Pap. 102. Durham, NH: University of New

Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station.

75. Honer, T. 1971. Weight relationships in open- and

forest-grown balsam fir trees. In: Young, H., ed.

IUFRO biomass studies, Nancy, France and

Vancouver, BC. Orono, ME: University of Maine,

College of Life Sciences and Agriculture: 65-78.

76. Ivask, M.; Lohmus, K.; Rasta, E. 1988. Belowground tree productivity of a Norway spruce

forest: a preliminary report. In: Plant roots and

their environment. Proceedings of an ISRR

symposium; 1988 August 21-26; Uppsala, Sweden.

77. Jackson, D.; Chittenden, J. 1981. Estimation of dry

matter in Pinus radiata root systems. I.

Individual trees. New Zealand Journal of Forestry

Science. 11: 164-182.

78. Johnston, R.; Bartos, D. 1977. Summary of

nutrient and biomass data from two aspen sites in

western United States. Res. Pap. INT-227. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station.
16

79. Jokela, E.; Shannon, C.; White, E. 1981. Biomass

and nutrient equations for mature Betula

papyrifera Marsh. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 11: 298-304.

80. Jokela, E. J.; Van Gurp, K. P.; Briggs, R. D.; White,

E. H. 1986. Biomass estimation equations for

Norway spruce in New York. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 16: 413-415.

81. Ker, M. 1980a. Tree biomass equations for seven

species in southwestern New Brunswick. Inf. Rep.

No. M-X-114. Fredericton, NS: Canadian Forestry

Service, Maritime Forest Research Center.

82. Ker, M. 1980b. Tree biomass equations for ten

major species in Cumberland County, Nova

Scotia. Inf. Rep. M-X-108. Fredericton, NS: Canadian

Forestry Service, Maritime Forest Research Center.

83. Ker, M. 1984. Biomass equations for seven major

maritimes tree species. Inf. Rep. M-X-148.

Fredericton, NS: Canadian Forestry Service,

Maritime Forest Research Center.

84. Ker, M.; van Raalte, G. 1981. Tree biomass

equations for Abies balsamea and Picea glauca in

northwestern New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 11: 13-17.

85. Kimmins, J. 1973. Nutrient removal associated

with whole-tree logging on two different sites in

the Prince George Forest District. Unpublished

report submitted to BCFS Productivity Committee.

Prince George: British Columbia Forest Service.

86. Kinerson, A.; Bartholomew, I. 1977. Biomass

estimation equations and nutrient composition of

white pine, white birch, red maple, and red oak in

New Hampshire. Res. Rep. 62. Durham, NH:

University of New Hampshire Agricultural

Experiment Station.

87. King; Schnell, R. 1972. Biomass estimates of black

oak tree components. Tech. Note B1. Norris, TN:

Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Forestry,

Fisheries, and Wildlife Development.

88. Klopsch, M. 1994. Unpublished data. Corvallis,

OR: Oregon State University, Forest Science

Department.

89. Koerper, G. 1994. Unpublished data. Corvallis,

OR: Oregon State University, Forest Science

Department.

90. Koerper, G.; Richardson, C. 1980. Biomass and net

annual primary production regressions for

Populus grandidentata on three sites in northern

lower Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 10: 92-101.

91. Krumlik, G. J.; Kimmins, J. P. 1973. Studies of

biomass distribution and tree form in old virgin

forests in the mountains of south coastal British

Columbia, Canada. In: Young, H., ed. IUFRO

biomass studies, Nancy, France and Vancouver, BC.

Orono, ME: University of Maine, College of Life

Sciences and Agriculture: 363-374.

92. Krumlik, J. G. 1974. Biomass and nutrient

distribution in two old growth forest ecosystems

in south coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC:

University of British Columbia. M.S. thesis.

93. Lai, Z.; Sajdak, R. L.; Mroz, G. D.; Jurgensen, M. F.;

Schwandt, D. L. 1980. Wood and bark specific

gravity determination as affected by water soluble

extractives loss. Wood Science. 31: 47-49.

94. Lamb, F.; Marden, R. 1968. Bark specific gravities

of selected Minnesota tree species. Forest Products

Journal. 18: 76-82.

95. Landis, T.; Mogren, E. 1975. Tree strata biomass of

subalpine spruce-fir stands in southwestern

Colorado. Forest Science. 21: 9-12.

96. Lieffers, V.; Campbell, J. 1984. Biomass and

growth of Populus tremuloides in northeastern

Alberta: estimates using hierarchy in tree size.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 14: 610-616.

97. Lodhiyal, L.; Singh, R.; Singh, S. 1995. Structure

and function of an age series of poplar

plantations in central Himalaya: I. Dry matter

dynamics. Annals of Botany. 76: 191-199.

98. Loomis, R.; Phares, R.; Crosby, J. 1966. Estimating

foliage and branchwood quantities in shortleaf

pine. Forest Science. 12: 30-39.

99. Lovenstein, H.; Berliner, P. 1993. Biometric

relationships for non-destructive above ground

biomass estimations in young plantations of

Acacia salicina Lindl. and Eucalyptus occidentalis

Endl. New Forests. 7: 255-273.

100. MacLean, D. A.; Wein, R. W. 1976. Biomass of

jack pine and mixed hardwood stands in
17

northeastern New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 6: 441-447.

101. Marshall, P. L.; Wang, Y. 1995. Above ground tree

biomass of interior uneven-aged Douglas-fir

stands. Work. Pap. WP-1.5-003. Vancouver, BC:

University of British Columbia.

102. Martin, J.; Kloeppel, B.; Schaefer, T.; Kimbler, D.;

McNulty, S. 1998. Aboveground biomass and

nitrogen allocation of ten deciduous southern

Appalachian tree species. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 28: 1648-1659.

103. McCain, C. 1994. Unpublished equations.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Forest

Science Department.

104. Means, J.; Hansen, H.; Koerper, G.; Alaback, P.;

Klopsch, M. 1994. Software for computing plant

biomass — BIOPAK users guide. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-340. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station.

105. Miller, E.; Meeuwig, R.; Budy, J. 1981. Biomass of

singleleaf pinyon and Utah juniper. Res. Pap. INT273. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

106. Monk, C.; Child, G.; Nicholson, S. 1970.

Biomass, litter and leaf surface area estimates of

an oak-hickory forest. Oikos. 21: 138-141.

107. Monteith, D. 1979. Whole tree weight tables for

New York. AFRI Res. Rep. 40. Syracuse, NY: State

University of New York, College of Environmental

Science and Forestry, Applied Forestry Research

Institute.

108. Moore, T. R.; Verspoor, E. 1973. Aboveground

biomass of black spruce stands in subarctic

Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 3:

596-598.

109. Morrison, I. 1990. Organic matter and mineral

distribution in an old-growth Acer saccharum

forest near the northern limit of its range.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1332-1342.

110. Naidu, S.; DeLucia, E.; Thomas, R. 1998.

Contrasting patterns of biomass allocation in

dominant and suppressed loblolly pine. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 28: 1116-1124.

111. Nelson, L.; Switzer, G. 1975. Estimating weights

of loblolly pine trees and their components in

natural stands and plantations in central

Mississippi. Technical Bulletin 73. Mississippi State,

MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry

Experiment Station.

112. Ouellet, D. 1983. Biomass equations for black

spruce in Quebec. Inf. Rep. LAU-X-60E. Canadian

Forestry Service, Laurentian Forest Research Centre.

113. Parker, G.; Schneider, G. 1975. Biomass and

productivity of an alder swamp in northern

Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 5:

403-409.

114. Pastor, J.; Aber, J. D.; Melillo, J. M. 1984. Biomass

prediction using generalized allometric

regressions for some northeast tree species. Forest

Ecology and Management. 7: 265-274.

115. Pastor, J.; Bockheim, J. 1981. Biomass and

production of an aspen-mixed hardwood-spodosol

ecosystem in northern Wisconsin. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 11: 132-138.

116. Pearson, J.; Fahey, T.; Knight, D. 1984. Biomass

and leaf area in contrasting lodgepole pine

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 14:

259-265.

117. Perala, D. A.; Alban, D. H. 1994. Allometric

biomass estimators for aspen-dominated

ecosystems in the upper Great Lakes. Res. Pap.

NC-314. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station.

118. Peterson, E. B.; Chan, Y. H.; Cragg, J. B. 1970.

Aboveground standing crop, leaf area, and caloric

value in an aspen clone near Calgary, Alberta.

Canadian Journal of Botany. 48: 1459-1469.

119. Phillips, D. 1981. Predicted total-tree biomass of

understory hardwoods. Res. Pap. SE-223. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

120. Pollard, D. 1972. Above-ground dry matter

production in three stands of trembling aspen.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2: 27-33.

121. Rajeev, M.; Bankhwal, D.; Pacholi, R.; Singh, V.;

Mishra, R. 1998. Biomass status of mixed dry
18

deciduous forest of Shiwalik Hills in Haryana.

Indian Forester. 124: 287-291.

122. Ralston, C. 1973. Annual primary productivity

in a loblolly pine plantation. In: IUFRO biomass

studies, proceedings of the working party of the

mensuration of the forest biomass. 1973 August 20-

24. IUFRO: Vancouver, BC, Canada: 105-117.

123. Ralston, C.; Prince, A. 1965. Accumulation of dry

matter and nutrients by pine and hardwood

forests in the lower Piedmont of North Carolina.

In: Forest-soil relationships in North America.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 77-94.

124. Ramseur, G. S.; Kelly, J. M. 1981. Forest

characterization and biomass estimates for two

sites on the Cumberland Plateau. Journal of the

Tennessee Academy of Science. 56: 99-104.

125. Rawat, Y.; Singh, R. 1993. Biomass, net primary

production and nutrient cycling in Quercus

leucotrichophora forest in the central Himalayas.

Advances in Forestry Research in India. 8: 192-233.

126. Reid, C.; Odegard, J.; Hokenstrom, C.; McConel,

W.; Frayer, W. 1974. Effects of clearcutting on

nutrient cycling in lodgepole pine forests. Res.

Pap. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,

College of Forest and Natural Resources.

127. Reiners, W. A. 1972. Structure and energetics of

three Minnesota forests. Ecological Monographs.

42: 71-94.

128. Rencz, A. N.; Auclair, A. N. 1980. Dimension

analysis of various components of black spruce in

subarctic lichen woodland. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 10: 491-497.

129. Reynolds, P.; Carlson, K.; Fromm, T.; Gigliello, K.;

Kaminski, R. 1978. Phytosociology, biomass,

productivity and nutrient budget for the tree

stratum of a southern New Jersey hardwood

swamp. In: Pope, P., ed. Proceedings, central

hardwood forest conference II; 1978 November 14-

16. West LaFayette, IN: Purdue University: 123-139.

130. Ribe, J. 1973. Puckerbrush weight tables. Misc.

Rep. 152. Orono, ME: University of Maine, Life

Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station.

131. Rogerson, T. 1964. Estimating foliage on loblolly

pine. Res. Note SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station.

132. Rolfe, G.; Akhtar, M.; Arnold, L. 1978. Nutrient

distribution and flux in a mature oak-hickory

forest. Forest Science. 41: 122-130.

133. Ruark, G. A.; Bockheim, J. G. 1988. Biomass, net

primary production, and nutrient distribution for

an age sequence of Populus tremuloides

ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

18: 435-443.

134. Ruark, G. A.; Martin, G. L.; Bockheim, J. G. 1987.

Comparison of constant and variable allometric

ratios for estimating Populus tremuloides biomass.

Forest Science. 33: 294-300.

135. Sachs, D. 1984. Management effects on nitrogen

nutrition and long-term productivity of western

hemlock stands. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University. M.S. thesis.

136. Santantonio, D.; Hermann, R.; Overton, W. S.

1977. Root biomass studies in forest ecosystems.

Ped.o.b.iologia. 17: 1-31.

137. Schmitt, M. D. C.; Grigal, D. F. 1981.

Generalized biomass estimation equations for

Betula papyrifera Marsh. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 11: 837-840.

138. Schnell, R. 1976. Biomass estimates of eastern

redcedar tree components. Tech. Note B15. Norris,

TN: Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Forestry,

Fisheries and Wildlife Development.

139. Schnell, R. 1978. Biomass estimates of hickory

tree components. Tech. Note B30. Norris, TN:

Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Forestry,

Fisheries and Wildlife Development.

140. Schroeder, P.; Brown, S.; Mo, J.; Birdsey, R.;

Cieszewski, C. 1997. Biomass estimation for

temperate broadleaf forests of the United States

using inventory data. Forest Science. 43: 424-434.

141. Schubert, T.; Strand, R.; Cole, T.; McDuffie, K.

1988. Equations for predicting biomass of six

introduced subtropical tree species, Island of

Hawaii. Res. Note PSW-401. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
19

142. Siccama, T. G.; Hamburg, S. P.; Arthur, M. A.;

Yanai, R. D.; Bormann, F. H.; Likens, G. E. 1994.

Corrections to allometric equations and plant

tissue chemistry for Hubbard Brook Experimental

Forest. Ecology. 75: 246-248.

143. Singh, T. 1984. Biomass equations for six major

tree species of the Northwest Territories. Inf. Rep.

NOR-X-257. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Forestry

Service, Northern Forest Research Centre.

144. Singh, K. P.; Misra, R. 1979. Structure and

function of natural, modified, and silvicultural

ecosystems in Uttar Pradesh. Varanasi: Final Tech

Report (1975-1978) Man and the Biosphere (MAB)

Research Project.

145. Smith, J.; Kozak, A. 1971. Thickness, moisture

content, and specific gravity of inner and outer

bark of some Pacific Northwest trees. Forest

Products Journal. 21: 38-40.

146. Snell, J.; Little, S. 1983. Predicting crown weight

and bole volume of five western hardwoods. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-151. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

147. Snell, J.; Max, T. 1985. Estimating the weight of

crown segments for old-growth Douglas-fir and

western hemlock. Res. Pap. PNW-329. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

148. Sollins, P.; Anderson, R. 1971. Dry-weight and

other data for trees and woody shrubs of the

southeastern United States. Ecol. Sci. Publ. 407.

Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

149. Sollins, P.; Reichle, D. E.; Olson, J. S. 1973.

Organic matter budget and model for a southern

Appalachian Liriodendron forest. Publ. EDFBIBP-73-2. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.

150. St. Clair, J. B. 1993. Family differences in

equations for predicting biomass and leaf area in

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var.

menziesii). Forest Science. 39: 743-755.

151. Standish, J.; Manning, G.; Demaerschalk, J. 1985.

Development of biomass equations for British

Columbia tree species. Inf. Rep. BC-X-264.

Victoria, BC: Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific

Forest Research Centre.

152. Stanek, W.; State, D. 1978. Equations predicting

primary productivity (biomass) of trees, shrubs

and lesser vegetation based on current literature.

Inf. Rep. BC-X 183. Victoria, BC: Canadian Forestry

Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre.

153. Swank, W. T.; Schreuder, H. T. 1974. Comparison

of three methods of estimating surface area and

biomass for a forest of young eastern white pine.

Forest Science. 20: 91-100.

154. Tandon, V.; Pande, M.; Rai, L.; Rawat, H. 1988.

Biomass production and its distribution by Acacia

nilotica plantations at five different ages in

Haryana. Indian Forester. 114: 770-775.

155. Telfer, E. S. 1969. Weight-diameter relationships

for 22 woody plant species. Canadian Journal of

Botany. 47: 1851-1855.

156. Teller, A. 1988. Biomass productivity and wood

waste evaluation in a spruce (Picea abies) forest

(Strainchamps 1983). Commonwealth Forestry

Review. 67: 129-139.

157. Ter-Mikaelian, M.; Korzukhin, M. 1997. Biomass

equations for sixty-five North American tree

species. Forest Ecology and Management. 97: 1-24.

158. Thies, W. G.; Cunningham, P. G. 1996.

Estimating large-root biomass from stump and

breast-height diameters for Douglas fir in western

Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 26:

237-243.

159. Tritton, L. M.; Hornbeck, J. W. 1982. Biomass

equations for major tree species of the northeast.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-69. Broomall, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

160. Tuskan, G.; Rensema, T. 1992. Clonal differences

in biomass characteristics, coppice ability, and

biomass prediction equations among four Populus

clones grown in eastern North Dakota. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research. 22: 348-354.

161. van Laar, A. 1982. Sampling for above-ground

biomass for Pinus radiata in the Bosboukloof

catchment at Jonkershoek. South African Forestry

Journal. 123: 8-13.
20

162. Van Lear, D.; Waide, J.; Teuke, M. 1984. Biomass

and nutrient content of a 41-year-old loblolly

pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation on a poor site in

South Carolina. Forest Science. 30: 395-404.

163. Vertanen, A.; Johansson, S.; Kaarakka, V.; Sarajarvi,

I.; Sarkeala, J.; Kaarakka, V. 1994. Biomass

equations for Acacia reficiens, Acacia zanzibarica

and Prosopis juliflora, and volume equations for

Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Terminalia brownii.

East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal. 58:

13-21.

164. Wade, D. 1969. Estimating slash quantity from

standing loblolly pine. Res. Note SE-125. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

165. Wang, J.; Zhong, A.; Comeau, P.; Tsze, M.;

Kimmins, J. 1995. Aboveground biomass and

nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of

aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands in the boreal

white and black spruce zone, British Columbia.

Forest Ecology and Management. 78(1-3): 127-138.

166. Wang, J. R.; Zhong, A. L.; Simard, S. W.;

Kimmins, J. P. 1996. Aboveground biomass and

nutrient accumulation in an age sequence of

paper birch (Betula papyrifera) in the Interior

Cedar Hemlock Zone, British Columbia. Forest

Ecology and Management. 83: 27-38.

167. Waring, R.; Emmingham, W.; Gholz, H.; Grier, C.

1978. Variation in maximum leaf area of

coniferous forests in Oregon and its ecological

significance. Forest Science. 24: 131-140.

168. Wartluft, J. L. 1977. Weights of small

Appalachian hardwood trees and components.

Res. Pap. NE-366. Upper Darby, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

169. Watson, A.; O’Loughlin, C. 1990. Structural root

morphology and biomass of three age-classes of

Pinus radiata. New Zealand Journal of Forestry

Science. 20: 97-110.

170. Weetman, G. F.; Harland, R. 1964. Foliage and

wood production in unthinned black spruce in

northern Quebec. Forest Science. 10: 80-88.

171. Westman, W. 1987. Aboveground biomass,

surface area, and production relations of red fir

(Abies magnifica) and white fir (A. concolor).

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 17: 311-319.

172. Whittaker, R. H.; Bormann, F. H.; Likens, G. E.;

Siccama, T. G. 1974. The Hubbard Brook

Ecosystem Study: forest biomass and production.

Ecological Monographs. 44: 233-254.

173. Whittaker, R. H.; Niering, W. A. 1975. Vegetation

of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona. V.

Biomass, production, and diversity along the

elevation gradient. Ecology. 56: 771-790.

174. Whittaker, R. H.; Woodwell, G. M. 1968.

Dimension and production relations of trees and

shrubs in the Brookhaven Forest, New York.

Journal of Ecology. 56: 1-25.

175. Wiant, H. V., Jr.; Sheetz, C.; Colaninno, A.;

DeMoss, J.; Castaneda, F. 1977. Tables and

procedures for estimating weights of some

Appalachian hardwoods. Bull. 659T. Morgantown,

WV: West Virginia University Agricultural and

Forestry Experiment Station.

176. Williams, R. A.; McClenahen, J. R. 1984. Biomass

prediction equations for seedlings, sprouts, and

saplings of ten central hardwood species. Forest

Science. 30: 523-527.

177. Young, H. E.; Ribe, J. H.; Wainwright, K. 1980.

Weight tables for tree and shrub species in Maine.

Misc. Rep. 230. Orono, ME: University of Maine,

Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station.
22 Table 3.—Equations and parameters for diameter-based biomass equations (first 10 pages only; complete version is available online)

Species Common name Component ID Equation form ID a b c d e Diameter Corrected for bias 

0 eastern conifers 2 7 0.5 15000 2.7 364946 d.b.h. no 0 softwoods (general) 3 1 -1.01 2.41 1 d.b.h. no 0 softwoods (general) 3 4 4.5966 -0.2364 0.00411 2 d.b.h. no 0 softwoods (general) 6 4 4.142 -0.227 0.003 2 d.b.h. no 0 softwoods (general) 6 4 -6.221 -0.227 0.003 2 d.b.h. no 0 softwoods (general) 6 2 -3.787 0 2.767 1 d.b.h. yes 0 softwoods (general) 13 2 -3.461 0 2.292 1 d.b.h. yes 0 softwoods (general) 18 4 4.597 -0.236 0.004 2 d.b.h. no 0 softwoods (general) 18 2 -2.907 0 1.674 1 d.b.h. yes 

10 fir sp. 4 2 -3.7389 0 2.6825 1 d.b.h. yes 10 fir sp. 5 2 -6.1918 0 2.8796 1 d.b.h. yes 10 fir sp. 8 2 -4.8287 0 2.5585 1 d.b.h. yes 10 fir sp. 18 2 -3.4662 0 1.9287 1 d.b.h. yes 

11 Pacific silver fir 3 4 -2029.05 6775.64 0 0 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 3 1 3.779 2.473 0 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 4 2 -3.5057 0 2.5744 1 d.b.h. yes 

11 Pacific silver fir 4 4 -1467.72 4769.21 0 0 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 4 1 3.636 2.618 0 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 4 2 -10.0897 0 2.5942 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 4 2 -9.69116 0 2.497 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 4 2 -10.7366 0 2.7623 1 d.b.h. no 
23

Sample Stump Top Units Units Component Ratio Segmented Equation

MinDiameter MaxDiameter size height d.o.b. diameter biomass Component sum equation equation number Source Notes

1.00 72.00 83 0 cm kg na a 1 140 assum

other smixed

0.80 34.10 108 6 cm kg na 1 51 no stu2.50 25.00 131 12 mm kg na 1 107 12-inc

12.50 55.00 131 12 0 mm kg na 1 107 12-inc12.50 55.00 131 12 4 mm kg na 1 107 12-inc

1.00 60.00 51 6 0 cm kg na t 1 149 some 

becaucompicorrecestima

1.00 60.00 51 cm kg na t 1 149 some 

becaucompid.b.h. 

12.50 55.00 131 12 0 mm kg na 1 107 12-inc

branc

1.00 60.00 65 cm kg na t 1 149 some 

becaucompid.b.h. 

8.7 111.0 20 6 0 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourcecorrec

8.7 111.0 20 6 0 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourcecorrec

8.7 111.0 26 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourcecorrec

8.7 111.0 25 cm kg fl 1 55 equati

correc

31.00 90.40 7 12 cm kg agm a 1 91 logarit

same requirin orig

31.00 90.40 7 12 cm kg agm 1 91 equati

additioorigina

11.7 90.4 14 6 0 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourcecorrec

31.00 90.40 7 12 1 cm kg na 1 91 logarit

same requirin orig

31.00 90.40 7 12 1 cm kg na 1 91 equati

additioorigina

8.1 109.3 143 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

mentio

8.1 109.3 75 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

mentio

13.3 80.0 68 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

mentio
24 Table 3.—Continued.

11 Pacific silver fir 5 2 -6.1166 0 2.8421 1 d.b.h. yes 11 Pacific silver fir 5 1 3.096 1.327 0 BA no 11 Pacific silver fir 5 1 2.957 2.654 0 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 5 4 -42.324 1052.28 0 BA no 11 Pacific silver fir 5 2 -11.8442 0 2.5677 1 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 5 2 -10.8498 0 2.3179 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 5 2 -13.5169 0 3.0009 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 6 2 -9.46281 0 2.4762 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 6 2 -10.6483 0 2.7763 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 6 2 -9.9176 0 2.5867 1 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 8 2 -5.237 0 2.6261 1 d.b.h. yes 

11 Pacific silver fir 9 4 -7.558 103.675 0 0 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 9 1 2.019 1.317 0 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 10 4 -39.77 663.778 0 0 BA no 11 Pacific silver fir 10 4 -202.413 620.411 0 0 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 10 1 2.665 2.493 0 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 18 2 -4.5487 0 2.1926 1 d.b.h. yes 11 Pacific silver fir 23 4 -64.849 316.41 0 0 d.b.h. no 

11 Pacific silver fir 23 4 21.947 325.859 0 0 BA no 11 Pacific silver fir 23 1 2.457 1.789 0 d.b.h. no 11 Pacific silver fir 10,11 1 2.665 2.493 1 d.b.h. no 

12 balsam fir 1 2 0.6538 0 2.4872 1 d.b.h. no 

Species Common name Component ID Equation form ID a b c d e Diameter Corrected for bias 
25

11.7 90.4 14 6 0 cm kg na 1 55 includes 

sourcescorrecte

31.00 90.40 7 12 1 cm kg na 1 91 equation

variables 

31.00 90.40 7 12 1 cm kg na 1 91 equation

variables 

31.00 90.40 7 12 0 cm kg na 1 92

8.1 109.3 143 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see ref 6

mention 

8.1 109.3 75 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see ref 6

mention 

13.3 80.0 68 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see ref 6

mention 

8.1 109.3 75 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see ref 6

mention 

13.3 80.0 68 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see ref 6

mention 

8.1 109.3 143 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see ref 6

mention 

11.7 90.4 9 cm kg na 1 55 includes 

sourcescorrecte

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 logarithm

same daadditionareferenc

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 equation

variables 

31.00 70.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 includes 

equation equationvariables 

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 includes 

equation equationvariables 

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 includes 

presente(addition

11.7 90.4 9 cm kg fl 1 55 equation 

correcte

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 logarithm

same daadditionareferenc

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 equation

variables 

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 91 equation

variables 

31.00 90.40 7 cm kg na 1 92 branche10.16 33.02 40 in lb na 1 75 includes 

Sample Stump Top Units Units Component Ratio Segmented Equation

MinDiameter MaxDiameter size height d.o.b. diameter biomass Component sum equation equation number Source Notes
26

12 balsam fir 1 2 0.8162 0 2.414 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 1 2 7.5915 0 0.6 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 2 1 0.086 2.53 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 2 2 -2.2304 0 2.3263 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 2 2 -1.8337 0 2.1283 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 2 2 7.3736 0 0.6003 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 3 2 0.4441 0 2.4975 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 3 4 0 0 0.1746 2.1555 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 3 1 -0.4081 1.6217 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 3 4 0 0 0.0752 2.497 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 3 2 0.5958 0 2.4017 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 4 1 0.062 2.28 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 4 2 -4.0345 0 2.6909 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 4 2 -3.1144 0 2.3977 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 4 2 -3.2027 0 2.4228 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 4 4 0 0 0.0645 2.2962 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 5 1 -0.916 2.47 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 5 2 -5.2684 0 2.5467 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 5 2 -4.0499 0 2.1601 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 5 2 -4.4204 0 2.2391 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 6 2 -3.7775 0 2.6635 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 6 2 -2.801 0 2.3524 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 6 2 -2.9476 0 2.3932 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 6 4 0 0 0.0671 2.3381 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 6 1 -0.8858 1.8728 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 6 2 0.3487 0 2.4117 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 8 2 -4.3537 0 2.4263 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 12 1 0.226 2.11 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 12 2 -4.3612 0 2.0505 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 13 1 -1.294 3.22 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 13 2 -2.6293 0 1.7793 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 13 4 0 0 0.0909 1.8405 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 13 2 -2.206 0 2.4605 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 18 1 -1.258 3.21 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 18 2 -4.1778 0 2.3367 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 18 2 -2.7854 0 1.6737 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 18 4 0 0 0.09982 1.6421 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 18 2 -1.6452 0 2.4506 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 24 2 -3.1432 0 2.3013 1 d.b.h. yes 

Species Common name Component ID Equation form ID a b c d e Diameter Corrected for bias 

Table 3.—Continued.
27

2.54 50.80 95 in lb na 1 177 no c rep0.10 2.54 9 in g rts 1 177 no c rep2.54 25.40 101 0 in lb ag 1 9 no bias 2.50 28.30 30 0 cm kg ag 1 52 stump “1.50 32.10 50 0 cm kg ag 1 82 stump a0.10 2.54 13 0 in g ag 1 177 no c rep

10.16 33.02 40 6 in lb agm 1 75 6-inch s

0.10 40.00 200 6 cm kg na 1 83 Nova S

stump (

1.00 20.00 20 6 cm kg agm 1 100 bias co

assume 

2.50 40.00 60 6 cm kg na a 1 117 equatio

require (additio

2.54 50.80 95 6 in lb agm 1 177 6-inch s2.54 25.40 101 0 0 in lb na c 1 9 no bias 2.50 28.30 22 0 3.15 cm kg swm c 1 52 stump “2.50 28.30 30 0 0 cm kg na c 1 52 stump “

total ste

1.50 32.10 50 0 0 cm kg na c 1 82 stump a

given s

0.10 40.00 200 6 0 cm kg na 1 83 Nova S

stump (

2.54 25.40 101 0 0 in lb na c 1 9 no bias 2.50 28.30 22 0 3.15 cm kg sbm c 1 52 stump “2.50 28.30 30 0 0 cm kg na c 1 52 stump “

stem in

1.50 32.10 50 0 0 cm kg na c 1 82 stump a

given s

2.50 28.30 22 0 3.15 cm kg na c 1 52 stump “2.50 28.30 30 0 0 cm kg na c 1 52 stump “

bark on 

1.50 32.10 50 0 0 cm kg na c 1 82 stump a

given s

0.10 40.00 200 6 0 cm kg na 1 83 Nova S

stump (

1.00 20.00 20 6 0 cm kg na c 1 100 bias co

assume  to stem 

2.54 50.80 95 6 4 in lb na c 1 177 6-inch s2.50 28.30 30 cm kg na c 1 522.54 25.40 101 in lb na c 1 9 no bias 2.50 28.30 30 cm kg na c 1 522.54 25.40 101 in lb na 1 9 no bias 1.50 32.10 50 cm kg na 1 82 branch 0.10 40.00 200 cm kg na 1 83 Nova S

stump (

2.54 50.80 95 in lb na 1 177 no c rep2.54 25.40 101 in lb fl 1 9 no bias 2.50 28.30 30 cm kg fl t 1 521.50 32.10 50 cm kg fl 1 820.10 40.00 200 cm kg na 1 83 Nova S

stump (

2.54 50.80 95 in lb fl 1 177 no c rep2.50 28.30 30 cm kg na c 1 52 does no

(assum

Sample Stump Top Units Units Component Ratio Segmented Equation

MinDiameter MaxDiameter size height d.o.b. diameter biomass Component sum equation equation number Source Notes
28

12 balsam fir 24 2 -1.5924 0 1.8144 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 24 2 -2.0259 0 1.7433 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 24 1 -0.5856 1.3447 1 d.b.h. yes 12 balsam fir 29 1 0.618 2.45 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 29 4 -0.6653 0 0.066 2 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 33 2 -1.0678 0 2.4613 1 d.b.h. no 12 balsam fir 33 2 -0.7977 0 2.4515 1 d.b.h. no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 2 2 2.0656 0 0.9781 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 4 2 1.538 0 1.0088 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 5 2 -0.1066 0 0.8876 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 13 2 0.0356 0 0.9977 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 18 2 0.2464 0 0.6429 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 21 2 -0.0146 0 0.8374 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 26 2 -0.4874 0 1.0909 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 27 2 -0.651 0 0.9947 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 28 2 1.0137 0 0.4604 1 cbh no 13 silver fir (Himalaya) 29 2 0.5244 0 0.998 1 cbh no 15 White fir 2 2 4.36982 0 2.5043 1 d.b.h. yes 15 White fir 4 2 -11.2634 0 2.7856 1 d.b.h. no 15 White fir 4 2 3.11845 0 2.7011 1 d.b.h. yes 15 White fir 5 2 -11.7086 0 2.7271 1 d.b.h. no 15 White fir 5 2 2.36182 0 2.6201 1 d.b.h. yes 15 White fir 6 2 -10.8036 0 2.7727 1 d.b.h. no 15 White fir 8 2 2.82853 0 2.3418 1 d.b.h. yes 15 White fir 18 2 3.81947 0 1.8855 1 d.b.h. yes 15 White fir 23 2 4.47181 0 1.314 1 d.b.h. yes 17 Grand fir 6 5 0.62 0 0.8024 0.1724 d.b.h. no 

Species Common name Component ID Equation form ID a b c d e Diameter Corrected for bias 

Table 3.—Continued.
29

2.50 28.30 30 cm kg na c 1 52 does in

(assum

1.50 32.10 50 cm kg na c 1 821.00 20.00 20 cm kg na c 1 100 bias co2.54 25.40 89 in lb rto 1 10 assum

coeffX

5.50 20.50 173 cm kg rto 1 84 roots > 

range 

10.16 33.02 40 6 in lb rtm 1 75 to 6-in

2.54 50.80 95 6 in lb rtm c 1 177 no c re

30.00 370.00 12 0 cm kg ag a 1 2 uproot

height

30.00 370.00 12 0 0 cm kg na c 1 2 diame

range  top dia

30.00 370.00 12 0 0 cm kg na c 1 2 diame

range top dia

30.00 370.00 12 cm kg na c 1 2 diame

range 

30.00 370.00 12 cm kg fl c 1 2 diame

range 

30.00 370.00 12 cm kg na c 1 2 diame

range 

30.00 370.00 12 0 cm kg na r 1 2 diame

range for “stu to 1 m 

30.00 370.00 12 0 cm kg na r 1 2 diame

range for “lat1 m ra

30.00 370.00 12 0 cm kg na r 1 2 diame

range define1 m ra

30.00 370.00 12 0 cm kg rt b 1 2 diame

range 1 m de

7.00 98.00 12 40 cm g agm a 1 171 felled a

are co

14.4 158.4 56 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

mentio

7.00 98.00 12 40 0 cm g na c 1 171 felled a

are co

14.4 158.4 56 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

mentio

7.00 98.00 12 40 0 cm g na c 1 171 felled a

are co

14.4 158.4 56 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

mentio

7.00 98.00 12 cm g na c 1 171 felled a

are co

7.00 98.00 12 cm g fl c 1 171 felled a

are co

7.00 98.00 12 cm g na 1 171 felled a

are co

0.00 10.16 12 6 0 in lb na 1 21 assum

trees < 

Sample Stump Top Units Units Component Ratio Segmented Equation

MinDiameter MaxDiameter size height d.o.b. diameter biomass Component sum equation equation number Source Notes
30

17 Grand fir 6 4 -1.63 0 2.172 2 d.b.h. no 17 Grand fir 24 2 1.0152 0 1.6839 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 4 2 -9.84218 0 2.3971 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 4 2 -9.79725 0 2.3891 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 4 2 -9.92848 0 2.4428 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 5 2 -12.3983 0 2.5006 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 5 2 -11.5622 0 2.3149 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 5 2 -13.5028 0 3.1413 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 6 5 1.55 0 0 0.414 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 6 2 -9.74475 0 2.4028 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 6 2 -9.64298 0 2.3809 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 6 2 -9.96814 0 2.5265 1 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 35 4 7.345 0 1.255 2 d.b.h. no 19 Subalpine fir 36 2 -6.5431 0 4.0365 1 d.b.h. no 20 California red fir 2 2 2.61856 0 2.9121 1 d.b.h. yes 

20 California red fir 4 2 -11.1691 0 2.7621 1 d.b.h. no 20 California red fir 4 2 2.55249 0 2.7821 1 d.b.h. yes 

20 California red fir 5 2 -12.3441 0 2.8421 1 d.b.h. no 

20 California red fir 5 2 1.4053 0 2.8468 1 d.b.h. yes 20 California red fir 6 2 -10.7955 0 2.759 1 d.b.h. no 

20 California red fir 8 2 -1.82353 0 3.521 1 d.b.h. yes 

20 California red fir 18 2 -0.12667 0 2.9308 1 d.b.h. yes 20 California red fir 23 2 2.65541 0 1.611 1 d.b.h. yes 22 Noble fir 4 2 -3.7158 0 2.7592 1 d.b.h. yes 22 Noble fir 4 2 -10.2145 0 2.6043 1 d.b.h. no 22 Noble fir 5 2 -6.1 0 2.8943 1 d.b.h. yes 22 Noble fir 5 2 -11.0236 0 2.4313 1 d.b.h. no 22 Noble fir 6 2 -9.9228 0 2.5812 1 d.b.h. no 22 Noble fir 8 2 -4.1817 0 2.3324 1 d.b.h. yes 

Species Common name Component ID Equation form ID a b c d e Diameter Corrected for bias 

Table 3.—Continued.
31

0.00 10.16 8 6 0 in lb na 2 21 assum

trees 

2.54 30.48 15 in lb na 1 21 domin

15.6 68.7 17 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.6 68.7 21 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.7 46.9 11 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.6 68.7 17 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.6 68.7 21 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.7 46.9 11 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

0.00 10.16 12 6 0 in lb na 1 21 assum

15.6 68.7 17 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.6 68.7 21 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.7 46.9 11 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

2.54 33.02 16 in lb na 1 21 assum

domin

2.54 33.02 16 in lb na 1 21 domin

omittethey e

30.00 100.00 11 40 cm g agm a 1 171 felled 

are co

18.8 143.2 31 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

30.00 100.00 11 40 0 cm g na c 1 171 felled 

are co

18.8 143.2 31 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

30.00 100.00 11 40 0 cm g na c 1 171 felled 

are co

18.8 143.2 31 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

 ment

30.00 100.00 11 cm g na c 1 171 felled 

are co

30.00 100.00 11 cm g fl c 1 171 felled 

are co

30.00 100.00 11 cm g na 1 171 felled 

are co

18.8 111.0 6 6 0 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourccorre

15.9 235.5 310 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

18.8 111.0 6 6 0 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourccorre

15.9 235.5 310 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

15.9 235.5 310 6 0 cm Mg na 1 104 see re

ment

18.8 111.0 6 cm kg na 1 55 includ

sourccorre

Sample Stump Top Units Units Component Ratio Segmented Equation

MinDiameter MaxDiameter size height d.o.b. diameter biomass Component sum equation equation number Source Notes
32

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit

0 conifers (general)

10 fir spp. Pinaceae Abies spp. tf 0.357 0.375 

11 Pacific silver fir Pinaceae Abies amabilis tf 0.4

12 balsam fir Pinaceae Abies balsamea tf 0.34 0.375 

13 silver fir (Himalaya) Pinaceae Abies pindrow tf14 Bristlecone fir Pinaceae Abies bracteata tf15 White fir Pinaceae Abies concolor tf 0.37

16 Fraser fir Pinaceae Abies fraseri tf 0.34 0.4 17 Grand fir Pinaceae Abies grandis tf 0.3518 Corkbark fir Pinaceae Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica tf 0.2819 Subalpine fir Pinaceae Abies lasiocarpa tf 0.31

20 California red fir Pinaceae Abies magnifica tf 0.37

21 Shasta red fir Pinaceae Abies magnifica var. shastensis tf 0.3722 Noble fir Pinaceae Abies procera tf 0.3741 Port-Orford-cedar Pinaceae Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cl 0.3942 Alaska-cedar Pinaceae Chamaecyparis nootkatensis cl 0.4243 Atlantic white-cedar Pinaceae Chamaecyparis thyoides cl 0.31 0.4 

50 Cypress Cupressaceae Cupressus spp. wo

51 Arizona cypress Cupressaceae Cupressus arizonica wo58 Pinchot juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus pinchotti wo59 Redberry juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus erythrocarpa wo60 Common juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus communis wo 0.44 0.4 60 redcedar Cupressaceae Juniperus spp. cl 0.44 0.4 62 California juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus californica wo63 Alligator juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus deppeana wo 0.4864 Western juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus occidentalis wo65 Utah juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus osteosperma wo66 Rocky Mountain juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus scopulorum wo 0.44 0.4 67 southern redcedar Cupressaceae Juniperus silicicola cl 0.44 0.4 68 eastern redcedar Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana cl 0.44 0.4 69 Oneseed juniper Cupressaceae Juniperus monosperma wo70 larch (introduced) Pinaceae Larix spp. cl 0.48 0.4 71 tamarack (native) Pinaceae Larix laricina cl 0.49 0.4 72 Subalpine larch Pinaceae Larix lyallii cl 0.48

73 Western larch Pinaceae Larix occidentalis cl 0.4881 Incense-cedar Cupressaceae Calocedrus decurrens cl 0.3590 spruce Pinaceae Picea spp. sp 0.366 0.3 91 Norway spruce Pinaceae Picea abies sp 0.38 0.4 92 Brewer spruce Pinaceae Picea breweriana sp

93 Engelmann spruce Pinaceae Picea engelmannii sp 0.33 0.4 94 white spruce Pinaceae Picea glauca sp 0.37 0.29 95 black spruce Pinaceae Picea mariana sp 0.38 0.351 

96 blue spruce Pinaceae Picea pungens sp 0.38 0.4 97 red spruce Pinaceae Picea rubens sp 0.38 0.32 

98 Sitka spruce Pinaceae Picea sitchensis sp 0.37

100 pine spp. Pinaceae Pinus spp. pi101 Whitebark pine Pinaceae Pinus albicaulis pi102 Bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus aristata pi

103 Knobcone pine Pinaceae Pinus attenuata pi

Table 4.—Species key, suggested assignments for species groups to apply generalized equations, and specific gravity information (see Appe
33

104 Foxtail pine Pinaceae Pinus balfouriana pi105 jack pine Pinaceae Pinus banksiana pi 0.4 0.34 106 Twoneedle pinyon Pinaceae Pinus edulis pi107 sand pine Pinaceae Pinus clausa pi 0.46 0.45 108 Lodgepole pine Pinaceae Pinus contorta pi 0.38109 Coulter pine Pinaceae Pinus coulteri pi

110 shortleaf pine Pinaceae Pinus echinata pi 0.47 0.45 

111 slash pine Pinaceae Pinus elliottii pi 0.54 0.45 

112 Apache pine Pinaceae Pinus engelmannii pi113 Limber pine Pinaceae Pinus flexilis pi 0.37114 Southwestern white pine Pinaceae Pinus strobiformis pi115 spruce pine Pinaceae Pinus glabra pi 0.41 0.45 116 Jeffrey pine Pinaceae Pinus jeffreyi pi 0.37117 Sugar pine Pinaceae Pinus lambertiana pi 0.34118 Chihuahuan pine Pinaceae Pinus leiophylla pi119 Western white pine Pinaceae Pinus monticola pi 0.35

120 Bishop pine Pinaceae Pinus muricata pi

121 longleaf pine Pinaceae Pinus palustris pi 0.54 0.45 122 ponderosa pine Pinaceae Pinus ponderosa pi 0.38 0.4 123 Table Mountain pine Pinaceae Pinus pungens pi 0.49 0.45 124 Monterey pine Pinaceae Pinus radiata pi125 red pine Pinaceae Pinus resinosa pi 0.41 0.243 126 pitch pine Pinaceae Pinus rigida pi 0.47 0.45 127 California foothill pine Pinaceae Pinus sabiniana pi128 pond pine Pinaceae Pinus serotina pi 0.51 0.45 129 eastern white pine Pinaceae Pinus strobus pi 0.34 0.34 130 Scotch pine Pinaceae Pinus sylvestris pi 0.41 0.45 131 loblolly pine Pinaceae Pinus taeda pi 0.47 0.45 132 Virginia pine Pinaceae Pinus virginiana pi 0.45 0.45 133 Singleleaf pinyon Pinaceae Pinus monophylla pi 0.41 0.4 133 Austrian pine Pinaceae Pinus nigra pi 0.41 0.4 134 Border pinyon Pinaceae Pinus discolor pi135 Arizona pine Pinaceae Pinus arizonica pi136 Border pinyon Pinaceae Pinus cembroides pi145 Roxburg pine Pinaceae Pinus roxburghii (Himalayas) pi201 Bigcone Douglas-fir Pinaceae Pseudotsuga macrocarpa df202 Douglas-fir Pinaceae Pseudotsuga menziesii df 0.45 0.4 

211 Redwood Taxodiaceae Sequoia sempervirens cl 0.36

212 Giant sequoia Taxodiaceae Sequoiadendron giganteum cl221 baldcypress Cupressaceae Taxodium distichum cl 0.42 0.42 222 pondcypress Cupressaceae Taxodium distichum var. nutans cl

231 Pacific yew Taxaceae Taxus brevifolia tf 0.6241 northern white-cedar Cupressaceae Thuja occidentalis cl 0.29 0.29 242 Western redcedar Cupressaceae Thuja plicata cl 0.31251 California nutmeg Taxaceae Torreya californica tf260 hemlock Pinaceae Tsuga spp. tf 0.38 0.34 261 eastern hemlock Pinaceae Tsuga canadensis tf 0.38 0.34 262 Carolina hemlock Pinaceae Tsuga caroliniana tf 0.38 0.34 263 Western hemlock Pinaceae Tsuga heterophylla tf 0.42264 Mountain hemlock Pinaceae Tsuga mertensiana tf 0.42

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit
34

290 timber tree Mimosaceae Albizia falcataria (Hawaii) wo300 acacia various Acacia spp. wo 0.6 0.5 302 yellow paloverde Caesalpinaceae Cercidium microphyllum wo303 Australian blackwood Fabaceae Acacia melanoxylon (Hawaii) wo304 prickly acacia Fabaceae Acacia nilotica (India) wo305 earleaf acacia Leguminosae Acacia auriculiformis (Thailand) wo306 mangium Fabaceae Acacia mangium (Hawaii) wo307 black wattle Fabaceae Acacia mearnsii (Hawaii) wo308 willow acacia Fabaceae Acacia salicina wo309 black cutch Fabaceae Acacia catechu (India) wo310 Australian pine Casuarinaceae Casuarina equisetifolia (Hawaii) wo

311 Florida maple Aceraceae Acer barbatum mb 0.54 0.64 

312 Bigleaf maple Aceraceae Acer macrophyllum mb 0.44313 boxelder Aceraceae Acer negundo mb 0.44 0.5 314 black maple Aceraceae Acer nigrum mo 0.52 0.64 315 striped maple Aceraceae Acer pensylvanicum mb 0.44 0.45 316 red maple Aceraceae Acer rubrum mb 0.49 0.580317 silver maple Aceraceae Acer saccharinum mb 0.44 0.58 318 sugar maple Aceraceae Acer saccharum mo 0.56 0.635 319 mountain maple Aceraceae Acer spicatum mb 0.44 0.45 321 Rocky Mountain maple Aceraceae Acer glabrum wo 0.44 0.45 322 Bigtooth maple Aceraceae Acer grandidentatum wo330 buckeye, horsechestnut Hippocastanaceae Aesculus spp. mh 0.33 0.5 331 Ohio buckeye Hippocastanaceae Aesculus glabra mh 0.33 0.5 332 yellow buckeye Hippocastanaceae Aesculus octandra mh 0.33 0.5 333 California buckeye Hippocastanaceae Aesculus californica mh 0.33 0.5 334 Texas buckeye Hippocastanaceae Aesculus glabra var. arguta mh

335 horsechestnut Hippocastanaceae Aesculus indica (Himalayas) mh341 ailanthus Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima mh 0.33 0.45 

351 red alder Betulaceae Alnus spp. aa 0.37 0.4 352 White alder Betulaceae Alnus rhombifolia aa353 sitka alder Betulaceae Alnus sinuata aa355 serviceberry Rosaceae Amelanchier spp. mh 0.66 0.45 361 Pacific madrone Ericaceae Arbutus menziesii mh367 pawpaw Annonaceae Asimina triloba mh 0.47 0.45 370 birch spp. Betulaceae Betula spp. mb 0.54 0.5 371 yellow birch Betulaceae Betula alleghaniensis mb 0.55 0.56 372 sweet birch Betulaceae Betula lenta mb 0.6 0.67 373 river birch Betulaceae Betula nigra mb 0.56 0.5 374 water birch Betulaceae Betula occidentalis mb 0.53 0.5 375 paper birch Betulaceae Betula papyrifera mb 0.48 0.5 376 Western paper birch Betulaceae Betula papyrifera var. commutata mb379 gray birch Betulaceae Betula populifolia mb 0.45 0.5 381 chittamwood, gum bumelia Sapotaceae Bumelia lanuginosa mh 0.47 0.45 391 American hornbeam, musclewood Betulaceae Carpinus caroliniana mh 0.58 0.45 395 lead tree Fabaceae Leucaena leucocephala (Thailand) mh400 hickory spp. Juglandaceae Carya spp. mo 0.62 0.535401 water hickory Juglandaceae Carya aquatica mo 0.61 0.54 402 bitternut hickory Juglandaceae Carya cordiformis mo 0.6 0.54 403 pignut hickory Juglandaceae Carya glabra mo 0.66 0.54 

Table 4.—Continued.

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit
35

404 pecan Juglandaceae Carya illinoensis mo 0.6 0.54 405 shellbark hickory Juglandaceae Carya laciniosa mo 0.62 0.54 407 shagbark hickory Juglandaceae Carya ovata mo 0.64 0.54 408 black hickory Juglandaceae Carya texana mo 0.54 0.54 409 mockernut hickory Juglandaceae Carya tomentosa mo 0.64 0.54 421 American chestnut Fagaceae Castanea dentata mh 0.4 0.5 422 Allegheny chinkapin Fagaceae Castanea pumila mh 0.4 0.5 423 Ozark chinkapin Fagaceae Castanea ozarkensis mh 0.4 0.5 430 chinkapin Fagaceae Castanopsis spp. mh 0.42 0.45 431 Golden chinkapin Fagaceae Castanopsis chrysophylla mh450 catalpa Bignoniaceae Catalpa spp. mh 0.38 0.5 451 southern catalpa Bignoniaceae Catalpa bignonioides mh 0.38 0.45 452 northern catalpa Bignoniaceae Catalpa speciosa mh 0.38 0.5 460 hackberry spp. Ulmaceae Celtis spp. mh 0.49 0.5 461 sugarberry Ulmaceae Celtis laevigata mh 0.47 0.5 462 hackberry Ulmaceae Celtis occidentalis mh 0.49 0.5 471 eastern redbud Leguminosae Ceriss canadensis mh 0.58 0.5 475 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany Rosaceae Cercocarpus ledifolius wo476 True mountain-mahogany Rosaceae Cercocarpus montanus wo477 Hairy mountain-mahogany Rosaceae Cercocarpus montanus var. pauciden wo478 Birchleaf mountain-mahogany Rosaceae Cercocarpus montanus var. glaber wo

479 Littleleaf mountain-mahogany Rosaceae Cercocarpus intricatus wo491 flowering dogwood Cornaceae Cornus florida mh 0.64 0.5 

492 Pacific dogwood Cornaceae Cornus nuttallii mh 0.58500 hawthorn Rosaceae Crataegus spp. mh 0.62 0.45 510 Eucalyptus Myrtaceae Eucalyptus spp. mh

511 rose gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus grandis (Hawaii) mh

512 swamp mahogany Myrtaceae Eucalyptus robusta (Hawaii) mh513 sydney blue eucalyptus Myrtaceae Eucalyptus saligna (Hawaii) mh514 flat-topped yate Myrtaceae Eucalyptus occidentalis mh515 Tasmanian blue gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus globulus (Hawaii) mh516 Timor mountain gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus urophylla (Hawaii) mh521 common persimmon Ebenaceae Diospyros virginiana mh 0.64 0.5 531 American beech Fagaceae Fagus grandifolia mo 0.56 0.5 540 ash Oleaceae Fraxinus spp. mh 0.51 0.65 541 white ash Oleaceae Fraxinus americana mh 0.55 0.385542 Oregon ash Oleaceae Fraxinus latifolia mh 0.5543 black ash Oleaceae Fraxinus nigra mh 0.45 0.39 544 green ash Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica mh 0.53 0.407 545 pumpkin ash Oleaceae Fraxinus profunda mh 0.48 0.39 546 blue ash Oleaceae Fraxinus quadrangulata mh 0.53 0.39 551 waterlocust Leguminosae Gleditsia aquatica mh 0.6 0.5 552 honeylocust Leguminosae Gleditsia triacanthos mh 0.6 0.5 555 loblolly-bay Theaceae Gordonia lasianthus mh 0.37 0.5 571 Kentucky coffeetree Leguminosae Gymnocladus dioicus mh 0.5 0.5 580 silverbell Styracaceae Halesia spp. mh 0.42 0.5591 American holly Aquifoliaceae Ilex opaca mh 0.5 0.5 600 Walnut Juglandaceae Juglans spp. mh 0.51601 butternut Juglandaceae Juglans cinerea mh 0.36 0.5 602 black walnut Juglandaceae Juglans nigra mh 0.51 0.5 

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit
36

606 walnut Juglandaceae Juglans regia (Himalayas) mh

611 sweetgum Hamamelidaceae Liquidambar styraciflua mh 0.46 0.390

621 yellow-poplar Magnoliaceae Liriodendron tulipifera mh 0.4 0.364 631 Tanoak Fagaceae Lithocarpus densiflorus mh641 Osage-orange Moraceae Maclura pomifera mh 0.76 0.45 650 magnolia spp. Magnoliaceae Magnolia spp. mh 0.43 0.5 651 cucumbertree Magnoliaceae Magnolia acuminata mh 0.44 0.5 652 southern magnolia Magnoliaceae Magnolia grandiflora mh 0.46 0.46 653 sweetbay Magnoliaceae Magnolia virginiana mh 0.45 0.5 654 bigleaf magnolia Magnoliaceae Magnolia macrophylla mh 0.45 0.45 660 Apple Rosaceae Malus spp. mh 0.61 0.45 680 mulberry spp. Moraceae Morus spp. mh 0.59 0.5 681 white mulberry Moraceae Morus alba mh 0.59 0.5 682 red mulberry Moraceae Morus rubra mh 0.59 0.5 691 water tupelo Nyssaceae Nyssa aquatica mh 0.46 0.348692 ogeechee tupelo Nyssaceae Nyssa ogeche mh 0.46 0.45 693 blackgum Nyssaceae Nyssa sylvatica mh 0.46 0.446

694 swamp tupelo Nyssaceae Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora mh 0.46 0.35 701 eastern hophornbeam, ironwood Betulaceae Ostrya virginiana mh 0.63 0.45 

711 sourwood Ericaceae Oxydendrum arboreum mh 0.5 0.45 

712 Paulownia, Empress tree Bignoniaceae Paulownia tomentosa mh 0.38 0.5 721 redbay Lauraceae Persea borbonia mh 0.51 0.5 730 California sycamore Platanaceae Platanus racemosa mh 0.36731 sycamore Platanaceae Platanus occidentalis mh 0.46 0.517740 cottonwood Salicaceae Populus spp. aa 0.37 0.452 741 balsam poplar Salicaceae Populus balsamifera aa 0.31 0.452 742 eastern cottonwood Salicaceae Populus deltoides aa 0.37 0.452 743 bigtooth aspen Salicaceae Populus grandidentata aa 0.36 0.452 744 swamp cottonwood Salicaceae Populus heterophylla aa 0.37 0.452 745 plains cottonwood Salicaceae Populus sargentii aa 0.37 0.452 

746 quaking aspen Salicaceae Populus tremuloides aa 0.35 0.452 747 Black cottonwood Salicaceae Populus balsamifera sspp. Trichocar aa 0.31748 Fremont cottonwood Salicaceae Populus fremontii aa

752 silver poplar Salicaceae Populus alba aa 0.37 0.452 753 Narrowleaf cottonwood Salicaceae Populus angustifolia aa 0.37 0.452 760 cherry, plum spp. Rosaceae Prunus spp. mh 0.47 0.45 761 pin cherry Rosaceae Prunus pensylvanica mh 0.36 0.45 762 black cherry Rosaceae Prunus serotina mh 0.47 0.592763 chokecherry Rosaceae Prunus virginiana mh 0.36 0.45 764 Bitter cherry Rosaceae Prunus emarginata wo 0.47 0.45 764 plums, cherries, except 762 Rosaceae Prunus spp. mh 0.47 0.45 765 Canada plum Rosaceae Prunus nigra mh 0.47 0.45 766 wild plum Rosaceae Prunus americana mh 0.47 0.45 800 Oak-deciduous (woodland species) Fagaceae Quercus spp. wo801 California live oak Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia mo802 white oak Fagaceae Quercus alba mo 0.6 0.513 803 Arizona white oak, Gray oak Fagaceae Quercus arizonica, grisea wo804 swamp white oak Fagaceae Quercus bicolor mo 0.64 0.513 805 Canyon live oak Fagaceae Quercus chrysolepis mo 0.7806 scarlet oak Fagaceae Quercus coccinea mo 0.6 0.635

Table 4.—Continued.

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit
37

807 Blue oak Fagaceae Quercus douglasii mo808 Durand oak Fagaceae Quercus durandii mo 0.6 0.513 809 northern pin oak Fagaceae Quercus ellipsoidalis mo 0.58 0.6 810 Emory oak Fagaceae Quercus emoryi wo

811 Engelmann oak Fagaceae Quercus engelmannii mo

812 southern red oak Fagaceae Quercus falcata var. falcata mo 0.52 0.646813 cherrybark oak, swamp red oak Fagaceae Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia mo 0.61 0.629 814 Gambel oak Fagaceae Quercus gambelii wo815 Oregon white oak Fagaceae Quercus garryana mo 0.64816 bear oak, scrub oak Fagaceae Quercus ilicifolia mo 0.56 0.45 817 shingle oak Fagaceae Quercus imbricaria mo 0.56 0.6 818 California black oak Fagaceae Quercus kelloggii mo 0.51819 turkey oak Fagaceae Quercus laevis mo 0.52 0.45 820 laurel oak Fagaceae Quercus laurifolia mo 0.56 0.635 

821 California white oak Fagaceae Quercus lobata mo822 overcup oak Fagaceae Quercus lyrata mo 0.57 0.51 823 bur oak Fagaceae Quercus macrocarpa mo 0.58 0.513 

824 blackjack oak Fagaceae Quercus marilandica mo 0.56 0.6 825 swamp chestnut oak Fagaceae Quercus michauxii mo 0.6 0.513 826 chinkapin oak Fagaceae Quercus muehlenbergii mo 0.6 0.513 827 water oak Fagaceae Quercus nigra mo 0.56 0.622 828 Nuttall oak Fagaceae Quercus nuttalii mo 0.56 0.6 829 Mexican blue oak Fagaceae Quercus oblongifolia wo830 pin oak Fagaceae Quercus palustris mo 0.58 0.6 831 willow oak Fagaceae Quercus phellos mo 0.56 0.6 832 chestnut oak Fagaceae Quercus prinus mo 0.57 0.509 833 northern red oak Fagaceae Quercus rubra mo 0.56 0.629 834 Shumard oak Fagaceae Quercus shumardii mo 0.56 0.629 835 post oak Fagaceae Quercus stellata mo 0.6 0.515836 Delta post oak Fagaceae Quercus stellata var. mississippiensis mo 0.6 0.51 837 black oak Fagaceae Quercus velutina mo 0.56 0.568 838 live oak Fagaceae Quercus virginiana mo 0.8 0.51 839 Interior live oak Fagaceae Quercus wislizeni mo840 bluejack oak Fagaceae Quercus incana mo 0.56 0.45 843 Silverleaf oak Fagaceae Quercus hypoleucoides wo850 Oakevergreen (woodland species) Fagaceae Quercus spp. wo855 banj oak Fagaceae Quercus leucotricophora mo856 kharsu oak Fagaceae Quercus semecarpifolia mo899 scrub oak Fagaceae Quercus spp. mo 0.56 0.45 901 black locust Leguminosae Robinia psuedoacacia mh 0.66 0.286 902 New Mexico locust Leguminosae Robinia neomexicana wo920 willow Salicaceae Salix spp. aa 0.36 0.415 921 peachleaf willow Salicaceae Salix amygdaloides aa 0.36 0.45 922 black willow Salicaceae Salix nigra aa 0.36 0.5 923 diamond willow Salicaceae Salix eriocephala aa 0.36 0.45 925 Chinese tallowtree Euphorbiaceae Sapium sebiferum mh 0.47 0.45 931 sassafras Lauraceae Sassafras albidum mh 0.42 0.5 935 American mountain-ash Rosaceae Sorbus americana mh 0.42 0.45 936 European mountain-ash Rosaceae Sorbus aucuparia mh 0.42 0.45 

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit
38

950 basswood Tiliaceae Tilia spp. mh 0.32 0.420951 American basswood Tiliaceae Tilia americana mh 0.32 0.420

952 white basswood Tiliaceae Tilia heterophylla mh 0.32 0.420

970 elm Ulmaceae Ulmus spp. mh 0.5 0.377971 winged elm Ulmaceae Ulmus alata mh 0.57 0.5 972 American elm Ulmaceae Ulmus americana mh 0.46 0.5 973 cedar elm Ulmaceae Ulmus crassifolia mh 0.57 0.5 974 Siberian elm Ulmaceae Ulmus pumila mh 0.46 0.5 975 slippery elm Ulmaceae Ulmus rubra mh 0.48 0.5 976 September elm Ulmaceae Ulmus serotina mh 0.57 0.5 977 rock elm Ulmaceae Ulmus thomasii mh 0.57 0.5 980 tung-oil tree Euphorbiaceae Aleurites fordii mh 0.47 0.45 981 California-laurel Ericaceae Umbellularia californica mh 0.47 0.45 981 sparkleberry Ericaceae Vaccinium arboreum mh 0.47 0.45 983 chinaberry Meliaceae Melia azedarach mh 0.47 0.45 984 water-elm Ulmaceae Planera aquatica mh 0.53 0.45 985 smoketree Anacardiaceae Cotinus obovatus mh 0.47 0.45 986 mesquite Leguminosae Prosopis spp. wo 0.58 0.45 990 Tesota (Arizona ironwood) Leguminosae Olneya tesota wo

1000 hardwoods (general) General Hardwood spp. mh 0.5 0.5 

Table 4.—Continued.

Wood specific Bark spe

FIA ID Common name Family Genus Species Species group gravity gravit
39

Table 5.—Tree component key

Component description Component abbreviationa Component ID

Complete tree (above + belowground) BTT 1

Whole tree (aboveground) BAT 2

Whole tree (above stump) 3

Stem (wood only) BSW 4

Stem (bark only) BSB 5

Stem (wood + bark) BST 6

Stem top 7

Branches live BBL 8

Branches live < 2.5 cm BBL_1 9

Branches live 2.5-7.6 cm BBL_2 10

Branches live > 7.6 cm BBL_3 11

Branches dead BBD 12

Branches total (live + dead) BBT 13

Stem + branches (bark only) 14

Stem + branches (wood only) 15

Stem + branches (live) BAP 16

Wood, bark, branches (live + dead; no twigs or foliage) BAE 17

Foliage total BFT 18

Foliage new BFN 19

Foliage old BFO 20

Twigs total BBG 21

Twigs old BBG_O 22

Foliage + twigs BFG 23

Crown (branches + foliage + twigs) BCT 24

Roots, coarse > 3 mm dia BKL 25

Coarse stump roots BSR 26

Coarse lateral roots BLR 27

Fine roots BFR 28

Roots total BRT 29

Stump wood 30

Stump bark 31

Stump total 32

Stump + roots 33

Cones 34

Live crown (branches + foliage + twigs) BCL 35

Dead crown (branches + foliage + twigs) BCD 36

Small branches BBS 37

a

See BIOPAK compilation in Means et al. (1994).

Table 6.—Equation form key

Equation form description Equation form ID

log10 biomass = a + b * (log10(dia^c)) 1

ln biomass = a + b * dia + c * (ln(dia^d)) 2

ln biomass = a + b * ln(dia) + c * (d + (e * ln(dia))) 3

biomass = a + b * dia + c * (dia ^ d) 4

biomass = a + (b * dia) + c * (dia ^ 2) + d * (dia ^ 3) 5

biomass = a * (exp(b + (c * ln(dia)) + (d * dia))) 6

biomass = a + ((b * (dia ^ c))/((dia ^ c) + d)) 7

log100 biomass = a + (b * log10(dia)) 8

ln biomass = ln(a) + (b * ln(dia)) 9
40

Table 7.—Parameters for stem ratio equations for selected stem biomass

equations (See text for explanation of equation use)

Source Species Component a b c

33 316 st -2.27985 4.42188 -4.59723

33 400 st -2.70268 4.40866 -4.59728

33 544 st -0.79675 3.05645 -2.96884

33 611 st -2.17912 4.37749 -4.55793

33 621 st -0.86509 4.22701 -4.11086

33 691 st -1.66379 3.46696 -3.51675

33 693 st -1.27291 4.23402 -4.2434

33 802 st -1.43138 3.68884 -3.84353

33 820 st -2.12286 4.59564 -4.83455

33 827 st -1.28716 4.6938 -4.65009

33 316 sw -2.20332 4.56197 -4.71937

33 400 sw -2.7134 4.53012 -4.71976

33 544 sw -0.81859 3.16181 -3.08978

33 611 sw -2.13084 4.56383 -4.73251

33 621 sw -0.86026 4.31966 -4.19801

33 691 sw -1.65907 3.54754 -3.60457

33 693 sw -1.37905 4.35347 -4.40059

33 802 sw -1.47803 3.87194 -4.02826

33 820 sw -2.51431 4.93186 -5.22179

33 827 sw -1.26866 4.79701 -4.7429

34 316 st -0.7675 4.32891 -4.04315

34 400 st -8.75055 4.05001 -4.97494

34 611 st -1.70312 4.00522 -4.07778

34 621 st -1.7621 4.04115 -4.21537

34 731 st -2.30869 4.75038 -4.8381

34 802 st -1.91277 3.93041 -4.19809

34 806 st -4.0717 3.5959 -4.3308

34 812 st -1.9982 3.47308 -3.75484

34 832 st -1.21241 4.73014 -4.70501

34 970 st -1.85693 4.17785 -4.19195

34 316 sw -0.73261 4.3608 -4.05919

34 400 sw -8.62935 4.08077 -5.00432

34 611 sw -1.65108 4.08554 -4.15193

34 621 sw -1.71038 4.11441 -4.28158

34 731 sw -2.28046 4.80799 -4.88602

34 802 sw -1.85655 4.04282 -4.2976

34 806 sw -4.08401 3.68907 -4.42364

34 812 sw -2.07378 3.53706 -3.83789

34 832 sw -1.19487 4.87213 -4.83716

34 970 sw -0.56432 3.52387 -3.07702

35 400 st -3.10193 4.32745 -4.7071

35 611 st -2.07716 4.77234 -4.80657

35 621 st -1.97288 4.84199 -4.95434

35 802 st -2.03925 4.97981 -5.10296

35 806 st -2.00681 4.4127 -4.66309

35 812 st -3.83036 3.96024 -4.39942

35 835 st -1.91071 4.10398 -4.35362

35 400 sw -3.13482 4.40292 -4.78594

35 611 sw -1.93715 4.91375 -4.91348

35 621 sw -1.99918 4.96877 -5.08179

35 802 sw -1.95384 5.13262 -5.2319

Continued
41

35 806 sw -1.97765 4.48821 -4.73111

35 812 sw -3.85832 4.02836 -4.47336

35 835 sw -1.83838 4.18398 -4.41261

36 316 st -1.43083 4.05497 -4.12303

36 372 st -0.81251 4.21844 -4.08482

36 400 st -4.48018 3.83474 -4.43554

36 541 st -0.84279 3.28603 -3.33279

36 621 st -3.54839 3.17747 -3.76535

36 693 st -1.6209 4.27337 -4.51105

36 802 st -12.00001 2.64614 -3.9633

36 806 st -2.65117 3.58558 -4.09877

36 832 st -2.25664 4.00092 -4.35574

36 833 st -1.90345 3.95236 -4.27185

36 837 st -4.35164 3.85984 -4.49173

36 901 st -1.279 3.33578 -3.49181

36 951 st -1.28273 3.87891 -3.97929

36 316 sw -1.33864 4.16262 -4.20601

36 372 sw -0.72051 4.31785 -4.13646

36 400 sw -4.36489 3.93623 -4.52542

36 541 sw -0.80589 3.3815 -3.41391

36 621 sw -3.51229 3.24724 -3.83278

36 693 sw -1.34282 4.39292 -4.56007

36 802 sw -12.83857 2.72014 -4.08425

36 806 sw -2.49944 3.64618 -4.13742

36 832 sw -2.22131 4.1482 -4.50149

36 833 sw -1.76424 4.05667 -4.34109

36 837 sw -3.94567 3.93141 -4.53034

36 901 sw -1.27952 3.42285 -3.58019

36 951 sw -1.05926 4.01311 -4.0416

Table 7.—Continued.

Source Species Component a b c
42 Table 8.—Stump diameter regression coefficients, outside and inside bark, for tree species of the Lake States (fro

(See text for explanation of equation use)

Stump volume Number D.b.h. (inches) Outside bark 

Species group equation code of trees Min. Max. B R2 SEa A 

Eastern white pine 125 53 6.2 33.0 0.11694 0.89 1.2 0.913Red pine 129 228 3.4 23.0 0.08091 0.91 0.5 0.906Jack pine 105 579 3.4 19.4 0.08076 0.87 0.5 0.909White spruce 94 34 5.1 18.0 0.16903 0.86 1.2 0.954Black spruce 95 103 3.6 17.9 0.12147 0.73 0.9 0.941Balsam fir 12 119 4.3 15.4 0.15359 0.89 0.8 0.937Hemlock 261 57 5.8 29.0 0.12667 0.85 1.3 0.914Northern white-cedar 241 14 4.8 13.3 0.18850 0.89 0.9 0.946White oaks 802 61 4.2 26.0 0.14872 0.84 1.3 0.911Red oaks 833 214 2.5 28.7 0.12798 0.83 1.2 0.922Beech 531 29 4.5 24.3 0.15113 0.79 1.8 0.967Yellow birch 371 41 7.5 28.1 0.15350 0.78 2.0 0.944Hard maples 318 132 2.3 31.3 0.12111 0.76 1.6 0.938Soft maples 316 74 2.5 20.8 0.11585 0.77 1.2 0.941White/ green ash 541 37 7.3 24.7 0.12766 0.75 1.5 0.919Black ash 543 15 7.9 17.5 0.17376 0.93 0.9 0.935Paper birch 375 178 3.2 22.4 0.11655 0.77 1.0 0.937Bigtooth aspen 743 204 4.0 15.6 0.06834 0.82 0.5 0.916Quaking aspen 746 678 2.9 20.5 0.09658 0.83 0.8 0.918Basswood 950 38 6.4 26.7 0.14413 0.86 1.4 0.924Cottonwood 740 7 12.8 27.8 0.17123 0.85 2.1 0.927Elms 970 80 7.0 30.5 0.16638 0.84 1.6 0.932aInches.
43

Table 9.—Sources and general locations for all equations (see Appendix A)

Reference no. Reference Origin

1 Acker and Easter 1994 Pacific Northwest

2 Adhikari et al. 1995 Himalayas

3 Anurag et al. 1989 India

4 Bajrang et al. 1996 North Indian plains

5 Baldwin 1989 Louisiana

6 Barclay et al. 1986 Vancouver, BC

7 Barney et al. 1978 Alaska

8 Bartelink 1996 Nertherlands

9 Baskerville 1965 New Brunswick

10 Baskerville 1966 New Brunswick

11 Bergez et al. 1988 central France

12 Bickelhaupt et al. 1973 New York

13 Binkley 1983 British Columbia, Washington State

14 Binkley et al. 1984 Pacific Northwest

15 Bockheim and Lee 1984 Wisconsin

16 Boerner and Kost 1986 Ohio

17 Bormann 1990 Southeastern Alaska

18 Brenneman et al. 1978 West Virginia

19 Bridge 1979 Rhode Island

20 Briggs et al. 1989 New York

21 Brown 1978 Rocky Mountains

22 Bunyavejchewin and Kiratiprayoon 1989 Ratchaburi Province, Thailand

23 Busing et al. 1993 Tennessee

24 Campbell et al. 1985 Alberta

25 Carlyle and Malcolm 1986 Great Britain

26 Carpenter 1983 Minnesota

27 Carter and White 1971 Alabama

29 Chapman and Gower 1991 Wisconsin

30 Chaturvedi and Singh 1982 Lesser Himalayas

31 Chojnacky 1984 Nevada

32 Chojnacky and Moisen 1993 Nevada

33 Clark et al. 1985 Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains

34 Clark et al. 1986a Piedmont (Southeastern U.S.)

35 Clark et al. 1986b Upland South

36 Clark and Schroeder 1986 North Carolina, Georgia

37 Clary and Tiedemann 1987 Utah

38 Clebsch 1971 Tennessee

39 Cochran et al. 1984 Pacific Northwest

40 Crow 1971 Maine

41 Crow 1976 North-central U.S.

42 Crow 1983 Wisconsin, Michigan

43 Darling 1967 Arizona

44 Dudley and Fownes 1992 Hawaii

45 Dunlap and Shipman 1967 Pennsylvania

47 Espinosa-Bancalari and Perry 1987 Oregon

48 Fassnacht 1996 Wisconsin

49 Felker et al. 1982 California

50 Feller 1992 British Columbia

51 Freedman 1984 Nova Scotia

52 Freedman et al. 1982 Nova Scotia

53 Gary 1976 Wyoming, Colorado

54 Gholz 1980 Oregon

55 Gholz et al. 1979 Pacific Northwest

56 Gholz et al. 1991 Florida

57 Goldsmith and Hocker 1978 New Hampshire

58 Gower et al. 1987 Washington

59 Gower et al. 1993a Wisconsin, Montana

60 Gower et al. 1993b Southwestern Wisconsin

Continued
44

61 Gower et al. 1992 New Mexico

62 Green and Grigal 1978 Minnesota

63 Grier et al. 1992 Arizona

64 Grier et al. 1984 Washington

65 Grier and Logan 1977 Oregon

66 Grigal and Kernik 1978 Minnesota

67 Harding and Grigal 1985 Minnesota

68 Harmon 1994 Pacific Northwest

69 Harrington et al. 1984 Oregon

70 Harris et al. 1973 Tennessee

71 Hegyi 1972 Ontario

72 Helgerson et al. 1988 Oregon

73 Heth and Donald 1978 Cape Province, South Africa

74 Hocker and Early 1983 New Hampshire

75 Honer 1971 Ontario

76 Ivask et al. 1988

77 Jackson and Chittenden 1981 New Zealand

78 Johnston and Bartos 1977 Utah, Wyoming

79 Jokela et al. 1981 Minnesota

80 Jokela et al. 1986 New York

81 Ker 1980a New Brunswick

82 Ker 1980b Nova Scotia

83 Ker 1984

84 Ker and van Raalte 1981 New Brunswick

85 Kimmins 1973 British Columbia

86 Kinerson and Bartholomew 1977 New Hampshire

87 King and Schnell 1972 North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee

88 Klopsch 1994 Pacific Northwest

89 Koerper 1994 Pacific Northwest

90 Koerper and Richardson 1980 Michigan

91 Krumlik 1974 British Columbia

92 Krumlik and Kimmins 1973 British Columbia

95 Landis and Mogren 1975 Colorado

96 Lieffers and Campbell 1984 Alberta

97 Lodhiyal et al. 1995 Central Himalayas

98 Loomis et al. 1966 Missouri Ozarks

99 Lovenstein and Berliner 1993 Israel

100 Maclean and Wein 1976 New Brunswick

101 Marshall and Wang 1995 British Columbia

102 Martin et al. 1998 North Carolina

103 McCain 1994 Pacific Northwest

104 Means et al. 1994 Pacific Northwest

105 Miller et al. 1981 Nevada, eastern California

106 Monk et al. 1970 Georgia

107 Monteith 1979 New York

108 Moore and Verspoor 1973 Quebec

109 Morrison 1990 Northern Ontario

110 Naidu et al. 1998 North Carolina

111 Nelson and Switzer 1975 Mississippi

112 Ouellet 1983 Quebec

113 Parker and Schneider 1975 Michigan

114 Pastor et al. 1984 Eastern U.S.

115 Pastor and Bockheim 1981 Wisconsin

116 Pearson et al. 1984 Wyoming

117 Perala and Alban 1994 North Central States

118 Peterson et al. 1970 Alberta

119 Phillips 1981 Southeast U.S.

120 Pollard 1972 Ontario

Table 9.—Continued.

Reference no. Reference Origin

Continued
45

121 Rajeev et al. 1998 Haryana, India

122 Ralston 1973 North Carolina

123 Ralston and Prince 1965 North Carolina

124 Ramseur and Kelly 1981 Tennessee

125 Rawat and Singh 1993 Central Himalayas

126 Reid et al. 1974

127 Reiners 1972 Minnesota

128 Rencz and Auclair 1980 Quebec

129 Reynolds et al. 1978 New Jersey

130 Ribe 1973 Maine

131 Rogerson 1964 Mississippi

132 Rolfe et al. 1978 Southern Illinois

133 Ruark and Bockheim 1988 Northern Wisconsin

134 Ruark et al. 1987 Wisconsin

135 Sachs 1984 Pacific Northwest

136 Santantonio et al. 1977

137 Schmitt and Grigal 1981

138 Schnell 1976 Tennessee

139 Schnell 1978 Tennessee

140 Schroeder et al. 1997

141 Schubert et al. 1988 Hawaii

142 Siccama et al. 1994 New Hampshire

143 Singh 1984 Northwest Territories

144 Singh and Misra 1979 Uttar Pradesh, India

146 Snell and Little 1983 Pacific Northwest

147 Snell and Max 1985 Washington

148 Sollins and Anderson 1971 Southeastern U.S.

149 Sollins et al. 1973 Tennessee

150 St. Clair 1993 Oregon

151 Standish et al. 1985 British Columbia

152 Stanek and State 1978 British Columbia

153 Swank and Schreuder 1974 North Carolina

154 Tandon et al. 1988 Haryana, India

155 Telfer 1969

156 Teller 1988 Belgium

157 Ter-Mikaelian and Korzukhin 1997 North America

158 Thies and Cunningham 1996 Oregon

159 Tritton and Hornbeck 1982 Northeastern U.S.

160 Tuskan and Rensema 1992 North Dakota

161 van Laar 1982 South Africa

162 Van Lear et al. 1984 South Carolina

163 Vertanen et al. 1994 Kenya

164 Wade 1969 Georgia

165 Wang et al. 1995 British Columbia

166 Wang et al. 1996 British Columbia

167 Waring et al. 1978 Oregon

168 Wartluft 1977 West Virginia

169 Watson and O’Loughlin 1990 New Zealand

170 Weetman and Harland 1964 Quebec

171 Westman 1987 Sierra Nevada, California

172 Whittaker et al. 1974 New Hampshire

173 Whittaker and Niering 1975 Arizona

174 Whittaker and Woodwell 1968 New York

175 Wiant et al. 1977 West Virginia

176 Williams and McClenahan 1984 Ohio

177 Young et al. 1980 Maine

Table 9.—Continued.

Reference no. Reference Origin
Printed on Recycled Paper 

Jenkins, Jennifer C.; Chojnacky, David C.; Heath, Linda S.; Birdsey, Richard A. 

2004. Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions

for North American tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-319. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 45 p. [1 CD-ROM]. 

A database consisting of 2,640 equations compiled from the literature for predicting 

the biomass of trees and tree components from diameter measurements of species 

found in North America. Bibliographic information, geographic locations, diameter 

limits, diameter and biomass units, equation forms, statistical errors, and 

coefficients are provided for each equation, along with examples of how to use the 

database. The CD-ROM included with this publication contains the complete 

database (Table 3) in spreadsheet format (Microsoft Excel 2002® with Windows 

XP®). 

Keywords: allometric equations; biomass; forest; tree components; tree species 

This CD-ROM includes an electronic version of the publication in Adobe pdf 

format. Also included are folders containing the data spreadsheets in Microsoft 

Excel® and Adobe® pdf formats. Windows98® or newer is required to use the 

Excel® spreadsheet files. 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Research Station is in Newtown Square,

Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at:

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont

Delaware, Ohio

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University

Parsons, West Virginia

Princeton, West Virginia

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York,

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University

Warren, Pennsylvania

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, and 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 the 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. 

“Caring for the Land and Se ing for the Land and Serving People Thr ving People Thr ving People Through Resea ough Resea ough Reseaough Research”