United States 

Department of 

Agric uB ture 

Forest Service 

Weight, Volume, and Physical 

Properties of Major Hardwood 

ies in the Gulf and 

Atlantic Coastal Plains 

Southe astern Forest 

Experiment Station Alexander Clark Ill 

Research Paper Douglas R. Phillips 

~~-250 Douglas J. Frederick 
Weight, Volume, and Physical Properties 

of Major Hardwood Species in 

the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains 

Alexander Clark Ill, Wood Scientist 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

Athens, Georgia 

Douglas R. Phillips, Mensurationist 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

Clemson, South Carolina 

and 

Douglas J. Frederick, Associate Professor 

School of Forest Resources 

North Carolina State University 

Raleigh, North Carolina 
Contents 

Page 

Procedure 

Field................................ 9. 

Laboratory ............. .. .............. 3 

Analysis ............ .. ................ 4 

Results 

Physical Properties of Sample Trees .. ,. .. .. . .. ... .. . 6 

Prediction Equations ........................ 8 

How to Use Prediction Equations ................... 9 

Literature Cited ............................ 12 

Tables (.For hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal PI ains) 

1. Mean and range of tree age and measurements, by species and 

tree size class ......................... 13 

2, Average specific gravity of wood, bark, and wood and bark 

combined, by tree component and size class ..... .. .... 16 

3. average moisture content of wood, bark, and wood and bark 

combined, by tree component and size class .... .. ..... 23 

4. Average proportion of wood and bark green weight in hark, by 

tree component and size class .................. 28 

5. Average green weight per cubic foot of wood, bark, and wood and 

bark combined, by tree component and size class ... .. .... 30 

6. Average green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot of wood, 

by tree component and size class ................ 35 

7, Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the 

above-stump total-tree wood, bark and foliage, wood and bark 

combined, and wood a1 one, with d,b ,he as the independent 

variable ............................ 37 

8, Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of 

dotal-stem wood and bark combined and wood alone, with d.b,h. as 

the independent variable ............ .. ...... 40 

9. Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of the 

above-sdump total -tree wood and bark combined and wood alone, 

with d,b.h. as the independent variable .... ., ....... 42 

10, Regression equations for estimating cubic-fsot volume of total - 

stem wood and bark combined and wood alone, with d.k .he as the 

i ndependent vari abl e ...................... 43 
Page 

Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the 

above-stump total-tree wood, bark and foliage, wood and bark 

combined, and wood alone, with d.b.h. and total height as the 

i ndependent vari abl es ...................... Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of totalstem wood and bark combined and wood alone, with d.b.h. and total 

height as the independent variables ............... Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of the 

above-stump total -tree wood and bark combined and wood alone, 

with d.b .h. and total height as the independent variables .... Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of 

total-stem wood and bark combined and wood alone, with d.b.h. 

and total height as the independent variables .......... Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the 

above-stump total -tree wood, bark and foliage, wood and bark 

combined, and wood alone, with d.b.h. and height to a 4-inch 

top as the independent variables ................ Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of 

total-stem wood and bark combined and wood alone, with d.b.h. 

and height to 4-inch top as the independent variables ...... Regression equations for estimati ng cubi c-foot vol ume of the 

above-stump total -tree wood and bark combined and wood alone, 

with d.b.h. and height to 4-inch top as the independent 

variables ............................ Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of 

total -stem wood and bark combined and wood alone, with d.b.h. 

and height to 4-inch top as the independent variables ...... Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the 

above-stump total-tree wood, bark and foliage, wood and bark 

combined, and wood alone, with d.b.h. and saw-log merchantable 

height as the independent variables ............... Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the 

saw-1 og merchantabl e-stem wood and bark combi ned and wood a1 one, 

with d.b .h. and saw-1 og merchantable height as the independent 

variables ............................ Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot vo1 ume of the 

above-stump total -tree wood and bark combined and wood alone, 

with d.b .h. and saw-log merchantable height as the independent 

variables.. .......................... Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of the 

saw-log merchantable-stem wood and bark combined and wood alone, 

with d .b .he and saw-1 og merchantable height as the independent 

variables.. .......................... 
Page 

23. Regression coefficients for estimating above-stump stem weight 

to a specified rf.o.h. ,top diameter as a proportion of the total 

stem weight ........................... 63 

24, Regression coefficients for estimating above-stump stem vol ume 

to a specified d.o.b. top diameter as a proportion of the total 

stem volume ........................... 64 

25. Regression coefficients for estimating stem weight to a 

specified d.o.b. top diameter as a proportion of the saw-log 

stem weight ......................... .. 65 

25. Regression coefficients for estimating stem volume to a 

specified d.o.b. top diameter as a proportion of the saw-log 

stem volume ........................... 66 
The weight, volume, and physical properties of trees 1 to 20 

inches d,b,h, were determined For green ash, blackgum, red maple, 

sweetgum, water tupelo, yellow-poplar, hickory, laurel oak, water 

oak, and white oak in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, Ward 

hardwood, soft hardwood, and indi vidual species equations are presented for predicting green and dry weight and green volume of the 

total tree above stump and its components by using d,b,h, and 

total height, d.b,h, and height to a 4-inch top, d,b,h. and sawlog merchantable height, and d,b.h, atone. Average specific gravity, misture content, and weight per cubic foot of wood, bark, 

and wood and bark combined are presented for each species, by tree 

size class and component, Bark percent is also presented for each 

species by tree size class and component, 

Keywords: Biomass, equations, specific gravity, moisture percent, 

bark percent, weight per cubic Food. 

The hardwood forests of the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains can contribute 

significantly to supplies of sol id wood, fiber, and energy wood through improved 

utilization and forest management. Few data, however, exist on the weight, volume, 

and physical properties of the total tree and its components for hardwood species 

of this region. 

To meet this need, a southwide study was initiated by the North Carolina State 

Hardwood Research Cooperative and the lJSDA Forest Service. The primary objectives 

of this regional study were to determine the amount and distribution of biomass in 

even-aged fully stocked natural stands and to develop equations for estimating the 

weight and volume of forest stands, individual trees, and tree components. The 

secondary objectives were to determine the specific gravity, moisture content, and 

energy potential of southern hardwoods, and the distribution of the nutrients N, P, 

K, Ca, Mg. Portions of these data have been reported in earlier publications 

(Clark and others 1983; Frederick and others 1983; Gower and others 1983; Messina 

and others 1983). 

This Paper presents green volume and green and dry weight equations for the 

total tree 

Marsh.), hl 

ruhrum L.), 

me1 1 ow 

laurel oak 

alba L.). 

and tree components of 10 speci es --green ash (Fraxi 

ackgum (Nyssa syl vatica var. -- bi fl ora (Walt .) SEJ 

sweetaum (Liauidambar stvraci flua L.) , water tupel 

1-oo~l a6 (~iri ddendron tmi fera L. 1. ' hi ckorv s~kci " 8 

(~&?rcus -- '1 auri fol i a Mi r oak (Q. -- nigra L. 

Equations were develo~ed from tree data collected i 

nus 

. re 

es (Carya 

1. and white oak (0. 

Asthe Coastal ~lai;. 

These species: account for 77 per;ent of the commercial hardwood volume in the 

Coastal Plain. Equations were also developed for the combined hard hardwoods, soft 

hardwoods, and a1 1 10 species. 

Equations are given for estimating the weight and volume of wood and bark, and 

wood only in the total tree, total stem, and the saw-log component of the stem. 

Ratio equations are a1 so included for estimating saw-log stem weight or volume to 

any specified top diameter outside bark (d.o.h.). Wood and bark specific gravity, 

moisture content, bark content, and green weight per cubic foot are presented for 

the total tree and its components, by species and tree size classes. 

Procedure 

Field 

Twenty-fi ve l/l0-acre ci rcul ar biomass plots were sampled in mi xed, even-aged 

hardwood stands on the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains (fig. 1). Four age classes 

(10, 20, 40, and 60 years) were sampled on three site ty~es: 
Bottom land. Flood plain of a major drainage system in which ---- 

drainage is fairly rapid and the soils are loam do silt loam, 

Swamp, Broad interstream areas characteri zed by poor drai nage 

with silt loan to clay soil that contains large amounts of raw 

organic material . 

Wet flat, Broad interstream areas in which drainage is inter- --- mediate between bottom lands and swamps and the soils are 

nonal l uvial and contain some organic matter accumulation, 

A1 1 age and site combinations were replicated twice except the 40-year-old 

bottom-land site, which was repl-icated three times, Plots for all ages and site 

types were randomly located within representative fu1 ly stocked stands, Tree data 

collected on a1 1 plots except the 10-year-old plots were used to develop the species equations reported in this study. Not all diameter classes of some important 

species were filled. Figure 1 shows the location of the fixed area plots, by site 

type, as well as the supplemental plots established for sampling trees in diameter 

classes needed to develop the equations. 

Figure 1,--location of plots where trees were sampled for development of 

species equations. 
Data for above-stump total-tree and tree component weights and volumes were 

collected for trees 1 inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and larger. All 

trees ;. 5.0 inches d.b,h. on the 1/10-acre plots were sampled. At the center of 

each plot a concentric f/50-acre subplot was located on which all trees 1 .O to 4.9 

inches deb ,he were sampled, At the supplemental locations, a stratified random 

sample of three trees per 2-inch d,b,h, class was taken for commercially important 

species requi ring additional sample trees for equation development. Means and 

ranges in age and tree dimensions measured are shown in table 1 for each species 

and species group sampled, Stump he-ight averaged 0,2 feet for trees 1.0 to 4.9 

inches d.b,h., 0,s feet for trees 5.0 to 10.9 inches d,b,h,, and 0.7 feet for trees 

z 11.0 inches d.b.h. Form class of the sawtimber-size trees (2 11.0 inches d.b.h.) 

ranged from 63 to 37 and averaged 76 for the soft hardwoods, and ranged from 67 to 

85 and averaged 77 for the hard hardwoods, 

Each tree was felled and measured for d,o.b, at 4-foot intervals up the stem. 

Total height, and height to the saw-log top, 9-, 4-, and 2-inch d.o.b,, and base of 

full live crown were also recorded. Cross-sectional disks of wood and bark were 

removed from the stem and branches of sample trees For laboratory determination of 

specific gravity, moisture content, bark percent, energy value, and nutrient concentration. In all trees > 5.0 inches d.h.h, except sawtimber quality trees (> 

11.0 inches d.b.h. with a minimum of one 16-foot grade 3 log), disks were cut at 

the butt, d.b.h., and quarter-points to the 4-inch d.o.b. top and at the 2-inch 

top, In sawtimber trees, disks were removed at the butt, at each saw-log bucking 

point, and at the stem location where d.o.h. measured 9, 4, and 2 inches. For 

trees less than 5.0 inches d,b.h., three disks per stem were taken--at stump height 

and at 25 and 75 percent of total stem height, 

The branches of each tree were cut from the stem and weighed in four categories: extra large (a 4.0 inches d.o.b.), large (2.0 to 3.9 inches d.o.b.), 

medium (0.6 to 1.9 inches d.o.b.), and small (G 0.5 inches d.o.b.). Three crosssectional disks were cut from randomly selected branches in each category for analysis in the laboratory, Sample branches were randomly selected and weighed with 

and without foliage to estimate foliage weight, A subsampl e of the foliage was 

taken to determine fol i age moisture content. 

The stem of each tree was weighed by components (saw logs, pulpwood, and topwood) and the branches of each tree were weighted by size category, 

baboratorv 

Specific gravity was computed on green volume and ovendry weight . Moisture 

content was computed based on ovendry weight after samples were dried to a constant 

weight at 215 OF. Percentage of bark was determined from disks and based on the 

green wei ght of sample di sks , Moisture content, speci fi c gravity , and percentage 

of bark in stem, branches, and total tree were calculated by weighting disk values 

in proportion to the volume of the component they represented. Weighted values for 

moisture content were used to convert component green weight to ovendry weight. 

By using species diameter inside bark (d .i .b .) prediction equations, developed 

from d,o.h, and d.i .be stem disk measurements, and the d.o,b. and height measurements taken at 4-foot intervals up the stem of each tree, the volumes of wood in 

the stem to the saw log, 9-inch, 4-inch, 3-inch, 2-inch, and tip were calculated 

by Smalian's formula. Green weight per cubic foot of stem bark and branch wood and 

bark were cal cul ated from weighted values for speci f i c gravity and moi sture content 

with the equation: 
where: 

Green weight per cubic foot = . (SG) . (C) 

MC = weighted moisture content in percent 

SG = weighted speci fic gravity 

C = 62.4 pounds (weight of water per cubic foot) 

Cubic-foot volume of stem bark and branch wood and bark were computed by 

dividing green component weight by its green weight: per cubic foot. Cubic-foot 

volume of stem wood and bark combined was computed by adding the volume of bark to 

the volume of wood, 

Regression equations were developed to predict green and dry weight and green 

volume of wood and bark in the total tree above stump, stem from butt to tip, and 

saw-log stem. Independent variables were: diameter at breast height (D), total 

height (Th), saw-log merchantable height (Mh), and height to a 4-inch d.0.b. top 

(H4) @ 

A logarithmic transformation (base 10) was used to obtain a relatively homogeneous variance, which is assumed in regression analysis. Thus, regression 

equations for estimating weights and volumes were developed from the model s: 

log Y =a + b log XI +c log X2 + E 

where: Y = predicted component weight or volume 

XI = D' 

XZ = Th, H4, or Mh 

E = experimental error 

a, b, c = regression coefficients 

Plots of residuals showed that equations (2) and (3) underestimated total-tree 

and total -stem wei ghts and volumes of soft hardwoods--particul arly sweetgum and 

blackgum trees > 14 inches d.b.h.--when only ole equation was used for trees 1 inch 

and larger. When equation (3) was used with D +Mh for trees > 11 inches, the residuals indicated good predictability for all trees a 11.0 inches. Thus, equation 

(3) was selected for use with d.h.h. and saw-log merchantable height. Two equations were developed for the d.b.h., d.b.h. and total height, and d.h.h. and height 

to 4-inch top---one For trees < 11,0 inches d,h.h. and one for trees 2 11.0 inches 

d.b.h. The 11-inch point was not the optimum point to shift from one equation to 

the other for all species or tree components, but it was the most desirable from a 

practical standpoint, Hardwood trees < II inches in diameter are classified as 

sapling or poletimber, and trees 2 11 inches are classified as sawtimber. The procedure obtlined hy Draper and Smith (1981) for fitting two linear equations with a 

known point of intersection was used to develop the following equations: 
log Y, = a + b log X + E 

log Y, = a + b log (11'~) + c log (~~/11~) + E 

where: Y, = predicted component weight or volume for trees 

< 11.0 inches d.b.h. 

Y = predicted component weight or volume for trees 

z 11.0 inches d.h.h. 

E = experimental error 

a, h, c = regression coefficients 

Nhen logarithmic estimates are converted back to original units, they are 

biased downward because the antilogarithm of an estimated mean gives the geometric 

rather then the arithmetic mean (Cunia 1964). To adjust for this bias, a correction factor was computed and applied to each model by using Baskervi 1 le 's (1972) 

procedure. The final equations including correction factors were: 

y = 10 a + b log (D~) + c log (~h) + (s~~~~ log, 10)/2 (6) 

a + b log (D~H) + (s~~~~ log, 10)/2 

YP = (7) 

Equations (5), (7), and (8) can be simplified to: 

where: a' = a + (S2y.x log, 10)/2 

ah# = at (11~) b-c 

s2,., = error mean square from regression analysis 

Comparison of average deviations (actual mi nus predicted) by d .b .h . cl asses and the 

sums of the squared deviations for the single log-log equation and segmented loglog equation showed that segmented log-log equations (10) and (11) gave the best 

results for the deboh., deboh. and total height, and d.b.h. and height to 4-inch 

top independent variable combinations (Clark and others 1985). Equations (10) and 

(11) are more complex than a single equation, but the improved accuracy justified 

their use, 

The fol lowi ng exponenti a1 ratio equation was used to estimate the proportion 

of predicted total-stem weight or volume to a specified top d.0.b.: 
where: Y, = ratio of stem weight or volume to top d.0.b. to 

predicted total stem 

d = specified stem top diameter in inches 

D = tree diameter at breast height in inches 

a, b, c = regression coefficients 

e = base of natural log = 2,71828 

The following exponential ratio model was developed to estimate a ratio for 

expanding saw-log stem weight or volume to any d,o.b. top above the saw-log top. 

where: Y, = ratio of stem weight or volume to tpp d.0.h. 

sa 

Mh = saw-log merchantable height in feet 

d = specified top diameter in inches 

0 = tree diameter at breast height in inches 

.78 = constant based on average form class 

a, b, c = regression coefficients 

e = base of natural log 

Results 

Physical Properties of Sample Trees 

Hardwoods are often classified as soft hardwoods or hard hardwoods, based on 

their wood density expressed as specific gravity or dry weight per unit volume. In 

this study the species were classified into soft and hard hardwood groups based on 

thei r green wei ght per cubic foot, branchi ng habit (excurrent or del i quescent ) , and 

specific gravity, These criteria were used because the primary objective was to 

develop equations for estimating the weight of the total tree and its components. 

Based on these criteria, green ash, blackgum, red maple, sweetgum, water tupelo, 

and yellow-poplar were classified as soft hardwoods and hickory, laurel oak, water 

oak, and white oak were classified as hard hardwoods, 

The average specific gravity of wood and bark by tree component is shown in 

table 2 for individual species, soft hardwoods, hard hardwoods, and a1 1 trees combined. The average total -tree wood specific gravity of the soft hardwood species 

was 0.453 for saplings (1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.), 0.471 for poletimber (5.0 to 

10.9 inches d.b.h.), and 0.477 for sawtimber (2 11.0 inches d.h.h.) compared with 

hard hardwood species, which averaged 0.587 for saplings, 0.596 for poletimber, and 

0.617 for sawtimber. Water tupelo had the lowest average total -tree wood specific 
gravity and green ash the highest for the soft hardwood group. In the hard hardwood group, water oak had the lawest average tolaf -tree wood specific gravity and 

white oak the highest, 

On the average, branch wood specific gravity was slightly higher than that of 

stem wood for the soft hardwoods and hard hardwoods (table 2). Specific gravity of 

bark was 1 ower than that sf the wood for a1 1 soft hardwood species except red 

maple, and for a7 1 hard hardwood species except laurel and water oak, 

The average moi%ture content of wood and bark, by Lree component and size 

class, is shown in table 3 for the species and species groups sampled, Total-tree 

wood moisture content for the soft hardwoods averaged 75 percent for saplings, 96 

pewent for pol @timber, and 101 percent for sawtimber compared with the hard hardwoods, which averaged 72 percent for saplings and 73 percent for poletimber and 

sawtimber, In the soft hardwood group, sweetgum had the highest average total-tree 

wood moisture content compared with green ash, which had the lowest, In the hard 

hardwood group, hickory had the lowest total-tree wood moisture content compared 

with laurel and water oak, wkich had the highest, 

Average total -tree bark mi sture content was re1 ati vely uni form across tree 

size classes for 'the soft hardwoods but varied significantly with size class for 

the hard hardwoods (table 3). Total-tree average bark moisture content for the 

soft hardwoods was 112 percent in sap1 ings, 108 percent in poletimber, and 98 percent in sawtimber compared with 107 percent saplings, 73 percent for poletimber, 

and 66 percent for sawtimber for the hard hardwood species. 

Table 4 shows the average proportion of bark in the tree, based on green 

weight of wood and bark, by tree component and size class, for the species sampled, 

The percentage of stem weight in bark increased as stem d,o.b, decreased, Thus, 

the sap1 ing-size trees had a higher proportion of their green weight in bark than 

did poletimber or sawtimber-size trees. Branches had the highest percentage of 

green weight in bark, Yellow-poplar had the highest bark percentage of the soft 

hardwoods, and hickory had the highest for the hard hardwoods, 

The average green weight per cubic foot of wood and bark, by tree component 

and size class, is shown in table 5, The green weight per cubic foot of wood for 

the total tree averaged 50 to 60 pounds for the soft hardwoods and 62 to 66 pounds 

for the hard hardwoods, Green ash had the lowed average total-tree green weight 

of wood per cubic foot, and sweetgum had the highest of the soft hardwood species, 

Green ash had the lowest green weight of wood per cubic foot because of its low 

moisture content, whereas sweetgum had the highest because of its high moisture 

content (table 3). On the average, hickory had the lowest total -tree green weight 

of wood per cubic foot and white oak the highest of the hard hardwood species. 

The average green weight per cubic foot of bark for the total tree (table 5) 

was approximately 8 pounds less for the soft hardwood group compared with that for 

the hard hardwood group, Red maple had the highest average green weight per cubic 

foot for bark in the total tree of the soft hardwoods, and laurel oak had the 

highest for the hard hardwoods, 

The average green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot oP wood and bark for 

the total tree averaged 51 to 59 pounds for soft hardwoods and 62 ts 66 for hard 

hardwoods, 

The weight of wood and bark per cubic-foot volume of wood is a useful factor 

for estimating the volume of wood in a tree or its components when weight of wood 

and hark is known, The average green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot of 

wood, by tree component and size cf ass for the species sampled, is shown in table 

6, The green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot of wood for the total tree 

averaged 63 to 69 pounds for the soft hardwoods and 78 pounds for the hard hardwoods, Average total-tree green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot of wood was 

re1 ati vely uni form among the hard hardwood species ; however, it varied si gni f i - 

cantly among the soft hardwood species, with the lowest for green ash and the 

highest for sweetgum, 
The average green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot of wood was highest 

for branches and decreased with increasing stem diameter (table 6). 

Prediction Equations 

A series of equations was developed to predi ct total -tree and tree component 

weight and volume for each species, the soft hardwood and hard hardwood groups, and 

a1 1 species combined. Equations were developed for predicting the green and dry 

weight of wood, bark and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone in the 

above-stump total tree. Stem equations were developed for estimating the green 

and dry weight of wood and bark combined and wood alone from the total stem. 

Volume equations were also developed for wood and bark combined and for wood alone 

in the above-stump total tree and total stem. 

Since tree height is measured to different top limits by various organizations, equations were developed by using diameter (D) alone and in combination with 

total height (Th), height to 4-inch top (H4), and merchantable height (Mh) as independent variables. Equation (10) was used to estimate the weight and volume of the 

total tree and stem for trees 1.0 to 10.9 inches d.b.h., and equation (11) was used 

for trees 11.0 inches d.b.h. when D alone, D and Th, or D and H4 were the independent variables. Equations (10) and (11) were used for each species or species 

group sampled except water tupelo, green ash, and red maple. Insufficient numbers 

of trees 11 inches d.b.h. were sampled for these species (table 1) for development of segmented equations. Thus, a single equation having the same form as 

equation (10) was developed for a1 1 trees > 1.0 inch for these three species. When 

estimating weights or volumes of large trees (trees 16 inches), the equation for 

the soft hardwood group should be used .for these species. 

Equation (9) was used to estimate weight and volume of the total tree and sawlog merchantable stem for trees > 11.0 inches when D and Mh were the independent 

variables. Equations based on D and Mh were developed only for species sampled 

sufficiently in the sawtimber diameter classes. Equations were developed for the 

soft hardwoods, hard hardwoods, and a1 l species; and for sweetgum, blackgum, white 

oak, and water and laurel oaks combined. 

Equation (12) was used to estimate the proportion of total stem weight or 

volume in the stem to any d.0.b. top when stem weight or volume was estimated with 

D, D and Th, or D and H4 as the independent variable. Equation (13) was used to 

estimate a ratio for expanding estimated saw-log merchantable stem weight or volume 

to any d.0.b. top above the saw-log top when D and Mh were the independent 

variables . Equations that use D with Th or D with H4 fit the existing total-tree and 

total -stem weight and volume data we1 1, based on the criteria of mean square error 

and absolute deviation of observed from predicted. Equations using D and Mh fit 

existing saw-log merchantable stem weight and volume data we1 1 . When average tree 

height and stem taper are similar to those of our sample trees, the equations with 

D alone will result in good estimates of the tree weight and volume. When average 

tree heights by d.b.h. class are different, however, the equations that include a 

height variable should be applied directly, or used to develop local weight-volume 

tables based on D alone. 

Regression coefficients for estimating weight and volume are listed below, by vari - 

able and table number:. 

Independent 

variable 

D alone 

D and Th 

D and H4 

D and Mh 

Wei ght Vo 1 ume 

tables 7, 8 

tables 11, 12 

tahles 15, 16 

tables 19, 20 

tables 9, 10 

tahles 13, 14 

tables 17, 18 

tables 21, 22 
In addition to the regression coefficients, tables 7 through 22 contain the coefficients of determi nation and standard error (log lo) for each equation. 

Regression coefficients for estimating the proportion of the total-stem weight 

and volume in the stem to a specified d.0.b. top are given in tables 23 and 24. 

Table 23 contains coefficients for estimating ratios for stem green and dry weight 

of wood and bark combined and wood only, and table 24 contains the coefficients for 

stem vof ume of wood and bark combined and wood alone. Equation coefficients for 

expanding estimated saw-log merchantable stem weight and volume are shown in tables 

25 and 26, respectively. 

How to Use Prediction Equations 

The following examples illustrate how to use the equations in table 7 through 

26 to estimate the weight or volume of the total tree and its components. 

This tabulation presents the tree data needed to estimate weight and volume 

when d.h.h. and Th are measured and equations (10) and (11) are used: 

Example of trees < 11.0 inches d.h.h. 

D = 10.0 inches 

Th = 70 feet 

Example of trees 2 11.1) inches 

D = 24.0 inches 

Th = 90 feet 

To estimate total-stem wood and bark green weight (YsTEMwB) of a soft hardwood 

with these dimensions, the following equations would be selected from table 12 and 

solved as follows: 

Trees < 11.0 inches d.b.h--using equation (10) 

Ys~~~~~ = a' (~2~h)b 

= 0.22265 ((102) (70))0.94182 

= 0.22265 (7000) 0.941 82 

= 0.22265 (4,182.06) 

YSTEMWB = 931 pounds 

Trees a 11.0 inches d.b.h.--using equation (11) 

YSTEMWB = 3" (nqb (~hp 

= fl.11546 (142) 1 a07875 (90)0.94182 

= 0.11546 (196) 1 *"7S75 (90)0*9418* 

= 0.11546 (297.01) (69.27) 

Y = 2,375 pounds 
This same mathematical procedure would be used to solve equations (10) or (11) for 

any of the tree component equations in tables 7 through 22. 

To estimate the proportion of total -stem green weight of wood and bark in the 

stem of a 10-inch d.b.h. tree to a 4-inch d80.b. top (Y,), the following ratio 

regression coefficients for soft hardwoods wouf d be selected from table 23 and 

solved by using equation (12) as shown below. The same equation is used for all 

size trees. 

Stem weight to 4-inch top = (Y ,,,,,,) (Y,) 

Stem weight to 4-inch top = 907 pounds 

This procedure shown above can be used to estimate the proportion of total stem in 

the stem to any d.0.b. top by substituting for d in equation (12). 

The following tabulation shows the tree data needed to estimate weights and 

volumes when d.b.h. and Mh are measured and equation (9) is used. 

D = 14.0 inches d,b.h. 

Mh = 2.0 logs 

To use equation (9), Mh must be in feet, thus: 

Mh = 33.1 ft = (2.0 logs) (16.3 ft/log) + (0.5 ft for stump) 

To estimate the green weight of wood and bark in the saw-log merchantable stem' 

(YSAWWB) of a soft hardwood tree, the following equation coefficients would be 

selected from table 20 and solved as follows: 

YSAWWB = 1,565 pounds 

This same mathematical procedure would be used to solve equation (9) for any sawtimber tree component equation in tables 19 through 22. 
To estimate a ratio (Y,) for expanding estimated saw-log merchantable-stem 

green weight of wood and bark of the previous tree to weight to a 4-inch d.0.b. 

top, the following soft hardwood ratio equation would be selected from table 25 and 

solved by using equation (13) as shown below: 

Stem weight to 4-inch top = (Y ,Awws) (Y,) 

Stem weight to 4-inch top = 2,881 pounds 

The tree components predicted by using the equations provided can be used to 

calculate additional tree components. For example, to estimate the weight of 

fol i age, subtract estimated total -tree weight of wood and bark from estimated 

total-tree weight of wood, bark, and foliage. To estimate the weight or volume of 

the crown (branches, topwood, and foliage) subtract estimated weight of the stem to 

a specified d.0.b. top from total-tree weight of wood, bark, and foliage. The 

weight or volume of bark alone can also be estimated by subtracting component 

weight or volume of wood from wood and bark, 

Similar-size trees may vary in weight and volume because of differences in 

crown size, stem taper, and weight per cubic foot. Therefore, these equations 

should be applied only to trees growing in natural, fully stocked stands with 

tree dimensions and weight per cubic-foot values similar to the tree sampled. 
Literature Cited 

Baskervil le, G.L. Else of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass, 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 249-53; 1972, 

Clark, Alexander, 111; Muse, W. David; PhillSps, Douglas R.; Frederick, Douglas J. 

Use of segmented log-log equations to estimate tree biomass. I: Saucier, 

Joseph R., ed. Proceedings of the 1984 southern forest biomass workshop. 

Sixth annual rneeting of the Southern Forest Riomass Working Group; 1984 June 

5-7; ,\thens, GA. Asheville, NC: U,S, Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station ; 1985: 51-57, 

Clark, Alexander, I1 I ; Phi 11 ips, Douglas R.; Frederick, Douglas J. Riomass di stri - 

bution and production of Coastal Plain hardwood stands. IQ: Energy from 

biomass and wastes 7: proceedings of Institute of Gas Technology symposium; 

1983 January 24-28; Lake Buena Vista, FL; 1983: 101-115. [Available from 

Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL] 

Cunia, T. Weighted least squares method and construction of volume tables. Forest 

Science 10: 180-191 ; 1964. 

Draper, N.R.; Smith, H. Applied regression analyses. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & 

Sons, I~c.; 2981, 709 ppe 

Frederick, Douglas J.; Clark, Alexander, I11 ; Phillips, Douglas R. Riomass, 

nutrient and energy re1 ationships of Coastal Plain hardwoods. In: The hardwood 

resource and its utilization: where are we going?: 11th annual hardwood symposi um of the Hardwood Research Counci 1 ; 1983 May 10-13; High Hampton, NC ; 

1983: 139-147. [Available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Or1 eans , LA] 

Gower, S.T.; Frederick, D.J,; Clark, A,, 111. Caloric content estimation and 

distribution in seven bottomland hardwood tree species growing in natural 

stands in the South. In: Proceedings: fourth central hardwood forest conference ; 1982 November 8-10; Lexington, KY: Uni versi ty of Kentucky; 1983: 384-390. 

Messina, M.G.; Gower, S.T.; Frederick, D.J.; Clark, A,, 111; Phillips, D.R. 

Biomass, nutrient, and energy content of southeastern wetland hardwood 

forests. Hardwood Research Cooperative Series No. 2. Raleigh, NC: North 

Carolina State IJniversity; 1983: 28 pp, 
I tP--r-- t tmm 

I ewe lmcod 

,",C,C, 

'CCC 

d-dCJOj 

t I I I 

CCCUC 

a\(Tcn(r .... I d-COC 

4 N N I till 

COCC I . . . . dtr~dd 

4.44 ddd 

1111 

COCC 1111 *... OqNC 

. .. dmdd 4 

dmdd d 

V? 

b.'. aJ cn' a; *cc L et-4 ..c, 

m 0. a? cn* a .OC L e-d .c) 
t I ma I INN 

Cn m *ht-.. '0 * * ".4OO l NCV 10 ll 

C,,"",C". 

d '-4-4 

.4 
I 

cli Cn 

C 

CU: a 

a, 0, 

rCi I 

Cr) Z 

Q 

CU 0, 

it: tx m 

0, QI 

m 

b 

dW 

4 

a: 0-i 

C 

& m 

a: 0-i 

L m 

aJ 

4 

BI 81 

c 

& rO 

(U em 

m 

L 

aJ 

Q 

a;. 0, 

c 

& m

a;. ET, 

rZI t 

aJ > 

4 

(U em 

C 

u: ((7 

a 

a 

nr L 

a 

4 

'G CO I&d 

IIII 

0 6 

5 1: 

rD 

o? t' a 

it: 

c"m0 

mrc 

d'ma 

(dlr.b 

IIII 

I omo 

(lie-N 

(dl+- ..* 

moo NCV 

(It1 

tarn= ..* 

mdm d 
-a* 

C3CO 

+i+lil 

WhCn 

mmGa 

emm 

*I)* 

CCC 

CuCI~ 

erne 

?Ye", 

CGC 

+ I+ i+ l 

*mot 

mb"f*J w'em I*. 

CCO 

c,r * rt- C7 

&,? 

C 0 

i +I-+! 

b- U7 N d 

Ul lr= * e 

C C 

d C*j 

e e 

95 

0 0 

: +I+/ 

*** 

cce 

+ i+ l-r l ih3sJ-a 

Cvlc-0' e*e 

*a* 

COC 

UzP-a 

Lnem 

9563, 

CCC 

+ I* I+ i 

Ace 

LI?kr-- 

err- **' 

GCC 

r.dlc- EqF 

CCG 

+ l+ l+ I 

srkC 

P-4 Cn - em* 11 1 

CCC 

2d 

L V) 

32 rg-r c 

-'-- rCI 

tla 

0 

9% 

+- a cn 

0 its 

0 

-r w U 

mma 

mCir 

CCC 

*e* 

CGC 

g7ccw NMm 

CCC 

**s 

GOC 

+ I+ I+ i 02 ti e, MGm 

emLn *** 

oec 
mmrc 

4;btUPJ 

OOC 

*re 

aoC3 

+ 14- 1+ 1 r--O'Cc 

U3tnh 

7-5": 

000 

mm8S CRmm 

C,?? 

008 

+!-ct+l 

CuaV-+ 

4U3Cd;'f"", 

COO 

M m 

d'M 0 0 

* * 0 0 

: -+-/+I 

VI cO Lo 9+ 6 03 

*. 

0 C 

tn m m ati 

C",? 

0 @ 

: -I-/+\ 

U3 0 

'43 f-. * u 

. * C 0 

r. 

m 

C 

C 

: ;+I 

r. 

d; 

C 

mC6a 

tt-Mr) 

?Yo, 

GCC.2 

+ I+ 1-4- l 

mP-PdhCc 

rS*b '** 

GCC 

f-.m.--+ 

?--.r--T-- 

0,?9 

CCC 

emCO 

ae-m 

CCC 

e * * cce 

+ I+ 1" 1 WdP. 

GdC !&mu) (1 1. 

CCO 

m cc tc u? *a 11 me- 

* -3 dp=( C am 

'* mu" ru 2.q .* CC 

CGUj 

f-.mlm ccq . . cac 
wme eNN 

795 

OCC 

CDdW 

LC C% OI e* e 'a- 

. * 

Mdcn 

rnww 

0,C.Y COO 

+ 1+ I+ 1 N M N 

r-ha; 

596; 

CCC 

mdY, 

minus 

C,O.O, 

COO 

+ t+ I+ i r-.CVm 

u7a.h 

MMe- *.. 

COO 

r- 'a tQ bern qoo . * COO 

+ I+ I+ 1 earn u2mr- mm* 

**e 

G0O 

'a-memww 

?O,5 

0 C 0 

+/+I-(-1 

dMUP 

'a- e* -3 . * 000 

U# d d- WNC\J 

OOC 

I).. 

OOQ 

+l+l+l 

*dm 

mwr. 

rrrt-3 *.. 

Oc30 

turn 

wrn 

0.0. 

0 0 

: +[+I 

C cV, 

u3 m -3 -=3 

. 0 C 

Nzf c-4 

99 0 0 

: +I+( 

m o'? 10 Pd d 

. . 0 0 

10 

'si 

9 

0 

I t+i 

d 

cC 

b. 

0 

Ln IV 

9 

a 

f ;+I 

cO Pd 

0 

P-om 

NWtU 

0 0 0, 

. 000 

+[+/+I 

unNN 

Lnu2CC 

776; 

000 

0" Cn * 0 0. b d 

It.--( 

004 . dun A 

mcuo 72 

wNCS aJ COO 3 err C 

OOC3 ., 

d -3 

is. 0 

90. 

00 

f +I+/ 

cD-3 

m m b -3 

. 0 0 

0 

t :+I 

d 

N 

e 

0 

LC-, Cn CT w40 

9Y? 

OOC 

+ I+ I+ 1 

dam 

.--(+st 

77" 

OCC 
-0 

0 

-0 L 

r rrj 

L 

1C 0 

m V1

1- 

0 

N 5 

' ,-" 

!A 

w 

c 

i-J IT 

a, CT 

0 

a 

0 

a, 

L 

CI 

2, c m h Ln f-. d U3h I47 d Nd d m ru d Cu N N b b cncn b 'Ct C C 

t. 

O G 9s 6 0 

59 

0 0 7s c e 0.9 0 0 

9". a 0 0 5 

t t +I+/ : +[+I i +I+! : +l+l ( +I+! : +1+1 .F 

s3 Ln U3 LOU'S Y CON Vt N CG CON 2d ma c- m ru b bm mC") L 5 me cod 0 C mC U" U3 om L 

0 . ** m . . U3m rg mu3 * 0 *' 03 a. 

0 0 0 0 00 3 CjC C a 0 C 

2 L JC a C3 u .x -0 L C L C Q rd 5 a: C rtl C 9 3" m 

M a 0 1D 03 d -w a-7 D d -C? N N 0 N C3 d cC 0 'Ct c 

cb C. ? g * 4 0, 0 a: 0 C 

G C 0 I: 0 *I3 C 9 

0 

TIT; I I 

0 '3 I I +I ::+I : :+I : f+i t :+I : :+I 0 3 3 C h d- Cr) CV d r-. d r-. 

CV I-. .r d- d 

-0 +J "f. c? d; CC a U3 c C 5 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 0 - I At I L V, 

rg C m r-- G 63 C7 N d .r CV N Cd sf. 5 d G * ,--- rg 

0 9 C 6, 

0 C, 

C 

9 

0 9 u Q 0 0 

B r;;; 

I !+I ! :+I : :+I I I +I I t+/ f : +I 

C-" u? d- d 

N m -c Ln 0 cu 

m a: 'i- yt fC? Ti U3 0 0 rCI 

0 d; '9 CO 

40 a c c c 0 o +J 

.r >.r L" 

cb L w C 

Ql cb 

1- 

U -9 .r II: %- 

*Y hi t] C 

a w m rn '+- 

F 

&G3 

* 

Ql a;. > Ll +t 

4 

I .r c 

cvf y? 

(2' 

aJ -r- - 0 f3 d, 

rg a I-- cn 

m 

c m cvf 

0 C3 1) I 

C 0 

t +I+[ 

u3 (rib- m CV 

. 

0 0 

r-. €43 C3 

enhOU3 

COC 

ce-4 

rtbb 

CCC 

. *. CCC 

hCh 

KO4 

LS3t.ct.E **. COC 

N r-. mf-. 

0.9 

OC 

f +I+l 

ocn 

Ln cncn lo 

. . 

5 0 

0NCr 

WCnd emiG 

. . . COO 
ior-r-- 

mTtw 

U? SI -a* 

OGC 

*e* 

cec 

+ I+ I+ I m LT' CI e-ia c;, r"7i 03 me4 

'.&?%a ees, OOiW 

I*. a * * Vj w 1s * I. 

CCO OOC GOC 

*-Cn Inmw 

CCC * * * OaC 

+ l+ 14 I 

KFCc mr.0- 

ewe- *** 

aco 

dhi-. 

MC'7P-i 

63616 e * * CCC 

mmcc 

vICe 

Fe;? 

CCC 

+ I* I+ I 

I ,--- 

'C hi) 

si 0 a b 

i--- -rj 

m a * "C? 

d-4 

1 I4 cap" 
mzn 

r- e 

555 

COG 

+ li i-c- i NPJ-3 

CumCG 

LnICIB 11 1 

COCj 

CD-iO 

iti Cu CL 

COG *** 

C)@O 

+ I+ I+ 1 

Jlmc 

0-* 6 0 mcos * * * CCC 
-4 '& 

maC & 

cmw C;ec 

eem 

I.. 

GGC 
Table 3,--Average moisture content of ~ootl, hark, and wood and hark combined, hy tree component and size 

class, for hardwood species in the Gulf an& Atlantic Coastal Plains 

Averxe and standard deviation ------- --- -------- --------------------------------------Afree Stem ------- ------- -- -4 ------ - ----- size Total Rutt to C)-inch to Bbtt -t>- to 

cf ass tree 9-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

-- (inches) ------ ---- ---- 

Wood 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

GREEN ASH 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

Wood 

Continued 
EwS a 26 

O"11 + 001 

I'OT + LOT 

6"01 2 SO? 

C"6 I Elf 

1°91 -+ F11 

9.91 TIT I"P1 7 901 

6"ZI + 01'1 - '. 

- - - - 

6*9I ETI - - 9*er ozr O*II c 

- - Z6Z1: 9 011 6"OT-0"s 

8"EI + 011 6"P-0'1 

ssIE 801 

U"6T + LIT - - 

9'61 511 

E'trl; + 111 

@'ST + LOT 

b"6T -7 911 - - 

9"LT t EIP O"11 f 

S"EI _I 011 6"Cil-O"5 -- 6"bT + 901 6"P-0.1 

IJQg Pup POOH 

zerz 3 1401 

Zg9T _I 86 

8"ET + PO? 

xJea pue poo~ 

panuk?hto3--surold ~Q~SPO~ 3i?u~?i~y pGe aq? ui sal3ads POOMPJP~ JOJ 355i3 

azls pue luauoduo3 aaq Aq "pabiquo3 yJeq pue poon pue Q~oq 'ppao~ jo ?ua?uo3 aan2srw affe~ahk--'~ alqel 
Table 3.--Average mi stctre content of wood, bark, and wood and hark combined, by tree carnponent and sire 

class, for hardwood specips in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains--Continued 

and standard deviation ------- - Tree - St em 

size Total Butt to 9-4nch to Butt to 4-inch to Butt to 

cf ass tree 9-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

- (1 nches --- -- --- -- ---- ------------- ------- ---- - - -....------- 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

YELLOW-POPLAR 

Wood 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

- - - - - - - - -- - - 117 + 13.2 113 + 18.5 

110 - + 7.9 110 - + 7.9 110 l 8.0 Ill i 8.5 

NARD HARDWOODS 

Wood 

Rark 

Mood and Bark 

78210.6 82+15.1 

74 + 8-0 71 7 9.3 

75 z 10.8 64 2 6.3 

Conti nued 
Table 3.--Average moisture content of wood, bark, and wood and bark combined, by tree component and size 

class, for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains--Continued 

- A~-a?Astandarddeviati2np - ---- - - - - - - - ---- -- - - - - - Tree St ern -------- -- -------- --- - -------------- -------- ------ size Total Butt to cl-inch to Butt to 4-inch to Butt to 

class tree 9-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

---- (inches) --------- --I_---_-e-_ --I--_-- ---- --- -----__----- _ 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

LAUREL OAK 

Wood 

Rark 

1 .0-4.9 89 + 15.9 -- - - -- - - 88 + 17.2 98 + 25.6 

5.0-10.9 67 'i 7,5 - - - - 62 + 8.9 69 + 11.8 62 7: 9.2 85 -5: 13,6 

11*0 62 5 5.5 58 - + 9.5 56 + 7.7 57 'i: 8.0 58 T 8.8 57 T 7.8 74 -7 0.5 - - - - - 

Wood and Bark 

WATER OAK 

Wood 

Bark 

Continued 
Table 3.--Average moisture content of wood, bark, and wood and bark combined, hy tree component and size 

class, for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains--Continued 

----- Avcr 9?_ - ----- - -- - - free --- -------------- size Total Butt to 3 - i <cnuYt-t% 4-inch to Butt to 

class tree 9-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

--- j inches ) ------ -- -------------- -- - 

Wood and Bark 

WHITE OAK 

Wood 

Rark 

Wood and Bark 

ALL SPECIES 

Wood 

Rark 

Wood and Bark 
Table 4.--Average proportion of wood and bark green weight in bark, by tree component and size class, for 

hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains 

-_^__~-A__-_-_-__-- - --__--~-__

and standard deviation -------- - ---- ----- -- - - - - - -- - ------ ---- Tree St~m -_ _ ___L_____~_-4~__~_~--- - I---- - size Total Rutt to 9-inch to Butt to 4-inchto Buttto 

class tree If-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

[inches) _l_ll------------- - -I_- -- - ---------- - ---- - 

SOFT NARDMOODS 

GREEN ASH 

RED WPLE 

SWEETGUM 

WATER TULPELO 

YELLOM-POPLAR 

HARD WRDWOODS 

Cant i nued 
Table 4.--Average proportion of wood and bark green weight In bdrk, hy tree component and slze class, for 

hardwood species in the Gui f and Atlantic Coastal Pl ai ns--Conti nued 

-- deviation - - - Tree ------pee - SIZP Total Butt to %inch to Butt to 4-inch to Butt to 

cl ;is5 tree 9-jnch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip t: p Branches 

i I nch~s ) 

HICKORY 

LAUREL OAK 

MATER OAK 

WHITE OAK 

ALL SPECIES 
Table 5,--Average green rceight per cubic foot of wood, hark, and wood and bark combined, hy tree 

component and size class, for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains 

and standard - - deviation - ---- - - -- - free Stem ------------------------ - ----- mn-cT-t-o-------I-I------ - ---- size Tot a 1 Butt to 9-inch to Butt to Butt to 

GI dtjs tree %inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip t7p Branches 

j inches j -...---- -- - -- - - - - - - - --- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- --- - - - - - 

-------------- Pounds per cubic foot - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - -- 

SOFT HARDWOODS 

Wood 

Wood and Ratk 

GREEN ASH 

Wood 

Wood and Bark 

BLACKGUM 

Wood 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

Cont i nued 
Tahfe 5,--Average green weiqht per cubic foot of wood, hark, and wood and hark combined, by tree 

component and size class, for hardwood species in the Gul F and At1 antic Coastal Pla~ ns--Continued 

Tree 

s~ze Total Butt to %inch to Rutt to 4-inch to Rutt to 

class t ree %inch tap 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

f i nches 1 

-------------- Pounds per cubic faat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

RED MAPLE 

Wood 

52+ 3.5 - - - - - - - - 53 + 3-5 49 + 4.0 

52 3.6 - - - - 51 -+ 4-0 55 _l: 6.9 52 T 4-1 51 7 4.2 

53 T 4.2 53 _1: 4.7 - 54 2 6,6 53 ' 4.8 56 +- 7-1 53 Z 4,8 51 2,3 

Bark 

63 + 3.8 - - - .. - - - ." 63 + 3.5 64 2 14.8 

63 "C: 2.6 . - - - 62 + 3.6 64 +- 4.0 63 3.4 62 + 4.5 

647: - 1.9 65-+ 2.2 66 - + 3.6 652 2.5 64: 3.4 652 2-6 63f 1.3 

Wood and Bark 

Mood 

Wood and Bark 

WATER TUPELO 

Wood 

55 + 3-6 - - - - - - - - 55 2 3.7 53 + 10.6 

56 7 3.4 - - .. - 54 + 4-0 64 -1 3.6 56 _r 3.6 57 7 3-7 

53-i 4.1 54+ 4,4 - - 48 _f: 3-3 52 2 4.8 58 2 5,O 52 + 4.7 57 - T 1,9 

Rark 

45 + 1.9 - - .. - - - ..- 44 + 2,O 51 + 11.9 

48 'T 7.8 - - - - 46 + 7.8 51 _1r 4,4 47 'T 2.9 53 -7 3.8 

48 7; 2.0 47 2 3.0 - 47 + 7.3 - 47 2.6 52 + 0.7 47 2 2.4 52 2 0.6 

Continued 
Table 5,--4verage green weight per cuhic foot of wood, hark, and wood and bark cnii?b~ned, hy tree 

component and size class, for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains--Contioued 

Tree 

size 

c7 ass tree 9-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

- ( i nches ) -- 

---..----------Pounds Dercubjc foot ------- --------- ----- 

Wood and Bark 

Wood 

Rark 

Wood and Bark 

WARD MRDWOODS 

Bark 

Wood and Rark 

HICKORY 

Wood 
Table 5,--Average green weiqht per cubic foot of wood, hark, and wood and bark combined, by tree 

component and size class, for hardwood species in the Gulf and At1 antic Coastal Plains--Continued 

Tree 

size 

ci ass t ree 9-inch top &inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

LAUREL OAK 

Wood 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

WATER OAK 

Wood 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

Continued 
Table 5.--Average green weight per cubic foot of wood, hark, and wood and bark combined, by tree 

component and size class, for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal PI ai~s--Continued 

Average and standard deviation 

Tree St em 

size Total Rutt to 9-inch to Butt to --"'X%fc~~t~opp~ 

class tree %inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

(inches ) - 

WHITE OAK 

Mood 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 

ALL SPECIES 

Bark 

Wood and Bark 
Table 6,--Average green weight of wood and bark per cubic foot of ~ood, by tree component and size class, 

for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains 

Average and standard deviation 

stTm-- 

Total Butt to 9-inch to Butt to 4-inch to 

tree 9-inch top 4-inch top 4-inch top tip tip Branches 

Tree 

size 

class 

(inches) 

SOFT NARDWOODS 

GREEN ASH 

RED MAPLE 

WATER TUPELO 

Y ELLOW-POPLAR 

HARD HARDHOODS 

Cont i nued 
Table 5,--Average green weight of wood and bark per cubic Foot of wood, by tree component and size class, 

For hardwood species in the Gul f and At 1 ant I c Coastal Pl ai nr --Conk i nued 

tree 0-inch top 4-inch top &-inch top tip tip Branches 

Tree 

sire 

class 

-- j inches ) 

Pounds per cubic foot - - - - - - - - - - 

HICKORY 

LAUREL OAK 

WATER OAK 

WHITE OAK 

ALL SPECIES 
Table 7.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry we? ght of the above-stump total -tree wood, 

bark and Foliage, wood anti bark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic 

Coastal Plains, with d.6,h. as the independent variable 

Species 

0 r 

'rlei ght Coefficient Standard 

green Fe of error3 

speci es o r 

g rOuP dry a" b 

determination 

jRZ) 

TOTAL-TREE MOOD, BARK, AND FOLIAGE 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

RI ackgurn 

Ye1 1 ow-pop1 ar 

Water tupelo 

Green ash 

Red maple 

Hard Hardwoods 

Mhite oak 

Water oak 

Laurel oak 

Hickory 

A1 l Speclies 

Green 

firy 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

0 ry 

Green 

B' ry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

Sweet gum Greet7 

D r~ 

Bi ackgtrn Green 

D ry 

Yellow-poplar Green 

ry 

Water tupelo Green 

Dry 
Table ?.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the above-stump total -tree wood, 

hark and foliage, wod and bark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic 

Coastal Plains, with d.b.h, as the independent variable--Continued 

Speci es Wei ght CoeFf i cient Standard 

D r green of error3 

spec4 es o r determi nation (Sy ,, f 

c]rouP dry a ' h a " h hR2"1 

Green ash 

Red maple 

Ward Hardwoods 

White oak 

Water oak 

Laurel oak 

Hickory 

A1 1 Species 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

61 ackgum 

Ye1 1 ow-pop1 ar 

Water tupelo 

Green ash 

Red maple 

Hard Hardwoods 

Mhite oak 

Hater oak 

Laurel oak 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Cont i nued 
Table :.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the above-stump total -tree wood, 

bark and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic 

Coastal Plains, with d,h .he as the independent variable--Continued 

Species Weight Goef f i ci ent Standard 

o r green of error4 

speci es or determination (Sy m,) 

group d r.~ a ' h a IL" b (R2) 

Mi ckory Green 3.60535 1.22775 3,5001 0 1,73393 0.99 0,0075 

Dry 2,35840 1.27495 2,40089 1,22117 0.99 0,0637 

All Species Green 3.50390 1,33181 7.63227 1,39146 0.99 0,1049 

Dry 2,08485 1.21067 t ,63531 1,26131 0.98 0,1137 

'Trees < 11.0 inches d.h.h, 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

O = tree d.b.h, in inches 

a', b = regression coefficients 

2 Trees > 11-0 inches d,b.h. 

3 logl, form 
Table 8,--Regression equations for estimating green and dry wwqht of total stem wood and hark combined 

and wood alone for hardwood species in the C;rtlF and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d,b,h, as the 

i ndependenl vari able 

Spec i es ltjei ght GoeFFi ci ent Standard 

o P green Fei of error3 

spec7 es or betermiaatscn isY 1 

group d r.Y a b a " b (Rz) 

TOTAL-STEM WOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

Bl ackgum 

Yell ow-pop1 ar 

Water tupelo 

Green ash 

Red maple 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods 

Mhite oak 

Water oak 

Laurel oak 

Mi ckory 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

All Species Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-STEM WOOD 

Soft Wardn~sds Green 

Dry 

Sweet gum Green 

Dry 

Blackgum Green 

Dry 

Ye1 l ow-pop1 ar Green 

Dry 

Water tupelo Green 

Dry 
Table 8.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of total-stem wood and bark combined 

aud wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlaptic Coastal Plains, with d,b,h, as the 

:nnependent variable--Continued 

Spec i c.s Wei yht CoeFf i ci ent Standard 

o r green of error J 

specl; es o r determination (Sy 

Q rou P dry a" b a rr b (RZf 

Green 

n r.Y 

i;rt.~n asn 

9c-d maple Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods 

White oak 

Hater oak 

Laurel oak 

t4.i ckory 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

ry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

ry 

Green 

0 r.Y 

At l Species Green 

Dry 

'Trees < 11.0 inches d,b,h, 

Y = a1(n2)b 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

D = tree d,b,h. in inches 

a', b = regression coefficients 

2Tre~s > 11.0 inches d.h.h. 

Y = a"(D2)" 

slog, form 
5 

8, 

7 

- 2 

W3-C 

II II It 

7rtn 

m 7 Q (om3 

3 m-u m 0 ma3 

me m --'. 0- 3 0. r, 3 2- 

a c 

g d.2" msrc 

-h 

-6 4.2 n --*. 3 D 4. 

2s- 3 

m m JV)O 

r, t: in 2 

0 

m "h 

rt) c-t 

P? 

0 ;3 

a33 w N 

WOO 

ma 

ww 

. 

N r 

om as N 31 9 

0- 

PP 

3 Dcn 0 

cn3 0 Ocn -J

r F 

. N h N 

00 P m 32 

F cn C" 

03 00 cnCQ m-4 W'5 Cnm DN Pcn mcn orw 

WOO dm a- OOCD 

33 zs 

03 w- 0- 33 00 PW -U, 93 Nu) mcn WP 0-4 WCQ 5-(b COO1 as0 Ol- WLD NUI COO CDW 02-4 0103 w-4 ww 

NW 0C3 rw WW Nn) 

mu COU, ulul -.Jcn WC* W~Q ON rw C;DW 0- OOW OW COP -a OW ma chw 2202 303 mw 

PP 

00 mcn 

w '5 

fo0 mu3

- c.' 

. . 

N- C4 

w cn -03 0 -P 

0 3 . P.3 P? 2.3 PP PP PP PP PP ? ?? P'? -9 99 mu3 WQ m9 UiQ am -43 aa Qa a42 4242 COQ 99 9a 0232 Q'W Qa mm ma 99 99 ma 
Ft- t-r rr rr re rw . .......... WN Wr rr lur WN Nw -3 Om um r~ t-a om wo mt- rm rm mo mm aa PCn PW WP 

-4 OW m- mm zz 2% 

PW CnP OW I-W am mQ 

er b-w ww t-F--L 

........ 

ew NN wr t-r ON WrU WW WV, 

Pa7 mcn -4m 'JW 

Pt- OW \Dw wt--" -40 u- t-p, -JC, 

. o......... 

r 00 tom 00 NN r- PP Pa ra WW 4m rw lut- am am am urn mo -a Nm mm WW rm NP m mu ww luo PO ma 

PP P? PP PP P? ma tom tow QQ aw Qa I aa am ma aw 0-4 ma ?? 

PP PP PP P? P? P? 00 00 00 00 00 00 mm am am -.I Cnm a- tom -4N wr we mm lum r0 -Cn wr rW aw 
fable 11,--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the above-stump total-tree wood, bark 

and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone for harawood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

Plains, with d,h ,he and total height as the independent variable 

Spec i es Weight Coefficient Standard 

o r green of error3 

species o r determi nation (Sy *,) 

group dry a" is a t@ is c iRz) 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD, BARK AND FOLIAGE 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

Bl ackgurn 

Ye1 1 ow-pop1 ar 

Water tupelo 

Green ash 

Red maple 

Green 

i-l r?, 

Green 

D r.Y 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Cfry 

Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods 

White oak 

Water oak 

Laurel oak 

Hickory 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

A1 1 Species Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-TREE MOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

Rl ackgum 

Vel low-poplar 

Water tupelo 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Cont i nued 
Takl~ Il ,--Regression equations for est imad: ng green and dry weight of the above-stump total -tree wood, hark 

and foliage, wood and bark cnmnined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

Pi ai rs, with d ,b ,he and dot31 her ght as the independent vari abf e--Continued 

Spec I es MPI ght Coeff ~cient Standard 

o r qreen of error3 

spec; es o r determination fSy 

G rou p 4ry a" h a '" h c IRz) 

Green ash 

Red maple Green 

Dry 

Ma rd Hardwoods 

White oak 

Hater oak 

Lat~rel oak 

H? cknry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

ry 

Green 

Dry 

All Species Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD 

Soft Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

Sweet gum Green 

Dry 

Bl ackgum Green 

IJ ry 

Ye1 f ow-pop1 ar Green 

IJry 

Water tupelo Green 

Dry 

Green ash Green 

Dry 

Red maple Green 

0r.Y 

Ward Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

Uhite oak Green 

Dry 

Hater oak Green 

B ry 

Cont i nued 
Table 11 .--Regression equations for estimating green and dry we? ght of the above-stump total -tree wood, bark 

and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

PI ains, with d,b,h, and total hei ght as the independent variable--Continued 

Species Uei ght Coefficient Standard 

o r green of error3 

species or determination ICY ,, 1 

group dry a ' h a " h c (R;) 

Laurel oak Green 0,24140 0.96427 0.07215 1,21610 0.96427 0.99 6,0672 

Dry fl, 13530 0,96550 8.05566 1,15071 0.96550 0.99 0.0696 

Hickory Green 0,22218 0,93452 0,83009 1,35138 0,93452 0.99 0,0592 

D rJf 0,14575 0.33199 0.02074 1,33999 0,93199 0.99 0.0549 

All Species Green 0,24100 0.93821 0,07115 1,19260 0.93821 1). 99 0.0~58 

Dry 0.14946 0,92259 8,04728 1.16257 0.92259 0.99 0.1031 

-- 

!Trees < 11.0 inches d.b,h, 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

D = tree d,b,h. in inches 

Th = tree total height in feet 

a', b = regression coefficients 

'Trees 11,0 inches d,b,h, 

'log,, form 
C0 w6 0

corn 

99 

00 

om ma? cnm cnm cnm mm mcn mm cnm ma' cncn mm 01" wcs cr" * 0. .. Cn ma* m m "" men ma "a "" ** 0. 8. .. 0. 

OC OC CC 0C GC 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 

o\Os OIm 01Q\ Olm 06 01" 

. * YO: Yo1 YO: ?a: 

a0 00 a0 00 C2C 

ln m rn LC '43 

U7 nl Y) 

a; 

c c2 

u V) 

CZ1 +-i 

"4 0 

WN 

55 ri 4 

P- a' b c m a '3 

4 Cc e 

e ', 0 CL: 

mu, 

Ln % '42 CV 

LC 0" U) m 

. 

C2 6 

CV 

r- m of, 

r-- m ot r-4 

B. cn I * 0 0 

IX C\i 

m 

px cn Cc8 -a- C 

95 '4 v-4 

m d 

r- r. 

a- 4 

a cc u c 

I * C C: 

w f-. 0s (73 

r- m CC d 

m rS 0. 

G C 

mN cnw dcn dCd mw CPI Qd mcu w4 cn- am ma; mm mm cum ma Nm me- 04 mcn "cr cncr ** *. .. ma 8 0 

00 C3Q 80 6C OB 

r--m me- PI+ em em om em .to 

'-4e 400 r-m OCn bcC cad -PI wcr) CUC~ mu3 

om . * 9". a*? om '-94 .I ** 40 do 6c 40 dd 

om cum mu3 ma WPI am U30 drt m-4 am dm "a3 caw *d mw r-4 aC3) aa 00 am 

cne wd OOR mi- mo P.O mm am dw =PI bm *a) 4N NN PIN mcu hen ccm SC PIm "-44 40 cum dd CC 

Cnb d* Ce me d-m 0 PI 

a gg E% 2% m OC 8 gG 2% zg 2s 

~4 NW -m ww mw cnw cum den ad b PI 0 mN 0- 6-4 Qh Wd orn ma ow cum CnPI wm ma 10m om w +-i m w wm ma wm ma cd 99 s,y a,"* "" . .Yo1 ?? ?a: 70": dd CO 00 00 00 C0 OC C6 CC 

mw W,C em crn r-w -m wo 4-e- ow om mh mm tcm acs -C om ew am om mr-. mm -a-u- mw cub N- ccz wm ma be as ma wm wm ~a PI& cum dm ee SO md CP- mm am cuo d~ mm mi-- 

hd0 '4N RCU Ncu wF-4 em mw r-P- d-d r--C iam mm r-~0 

WQ '4+ mk -40 P-'4 dd LI)N 60 -0\. l-40 

c c C c t: a,,,, QJ a,% aJ,, QJ ?=, GJ E2 

&A && && aCL3 ec 

-c rr ma, L >, .F-QiOI 

ajL -73 Z3 cn 
Table 12.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of total -stem wood and bark combined and 

wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.b.h. and total height as the 

i ndependent vari abl e--Cont i nued 

Speci es Weight Coefficient Standard 

o r green o f error3 

species or determination 

Q coup dry a b a " 5 c (R2) 

Green ash Green 

Dry 

Red maple Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

White oak Green 

Dry 

Water oak Green 

Dry 

Laurel oak Green 

Dry 

Hickory Green 

Dry 

All Species Green 

Dry 

'Trees < 11.0 inches d.b.h. 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

D = tree d.b.h. in inches 

Th = tree total height in feet 

a', b = regression coefficients 

*Trees > 11.0 inches d,b.h. 

310glo form 
Tab1 e 13 .--Regression equations for estimating cuhi c-foot volume of the above-stump total -tree wood and bark 

combined and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.b.h, and total 

hei ght as the independent vari ab1 es 

Spec i es Vo 1 ume Coef f i ci ent Standard 

o r wood & bark of error3 

species or determi nation (Sy *,) 

wood only a ' b a 'I b t (R2> 

TOTAL TREE 

Soft Hardwoods Wood & bark 

Wood 

Sweet gum Wood & bark 

Wood 

Blackgum Wood R bark 

Wood 

Yellow-poplar Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water tupelo Wood & bark 

Wood 

Green ash Wood & bark 

Wood 

Red maple Wood & bark 

Wood 

Hard Hardwoods Wood & bark 

Wood 

White oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water oak Wood R bark 

Wood 

Laurel oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Hickory Wood R bark 

Wood 

A1 1 Species Wood & bark 

Wood 

'Trees < 11.0 inches d.b.h. 

Where: Y = co~nponent volume in cubic feet 

D = tree d.b,h, in inches 

Th = tree total height in feet 

a', b = regression coefficients 

2Trees 11.0 inches d.b.h. 
Table 14,--Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot vot ume of total -stem wood and bark combined and wood 

alone for hardwood species in the &If and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d,b,h, and total height as the 

f ndependent varf ables 

Species Vol ume Coef f i ci en% Standard 

or wood & bark of error3 

spec4 es or determination ($,,f 

group wood mly a b aif b c P21 

TOTAL STEM 

Soft krdwoods Wood & bark 

Mood 

Sweet gum Wood & bark 

Wood 

Bl ackgum Wood & bark 

Wood 

Yellow-poplar Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water tupelo Wood & bark 

Wood 

Green ash Wood & bark 

Wood 

Red mple Mood & bark 

Wood 

Hard Hardwoods Wood & bark 

Wood 

White oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water mk Wood & bark 

Wood 

Laurel oak Wood ik bark 

Wood 

Hickory Wood Et bark 

Wood 

All Species Wood & bark 

Wood 

'Trees < 11.0 inches deb ,he 

Were: V = conrl;tonent volunre In cubic feet 

D = tree deb ,h, fn inches 

Ih = tree total height in feet 

a\ b = mgresslon coefficients 
Table 18.--Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of total-stem wood and bark combined and wood 

alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.b.h. and height to 4-inch top as the 

i ndependent vari ahles 

Speci es Vo 1 ume Regression equation coefficients Coefficient Standard 

o r Wood & hark TT of error3 

species or determination (Sy 

group wood only a ' b a " h c (R2) 

TOTAL STEM 

Soft Hardwoods Wood K bark 

Wood 

Sweet gum Wood R bark 

Wood 

Bl ackgurn Wood & bark 

Wood 

Ye1 low-poplar Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water tupelo Wood & bark 

Wood 

Green ash Wood & bark 

Wood 

Red maple Wood & bark 

Wood 

Hard Hardwoods Wood & bark 

Wood 

White oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Laurel oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Hi ckory Wood & bark 

Wood 

A1 1 Species Wood & bark 

Wood 

'Trees < 11.0 inches d,b,h, 

Where: Y = component volume in cubic feet 

D = tree d.b,h, in inches 

H4 = tree total height in feet 

a', b = regression coefficients 

2Trees > 11,O inches d.b,h, 

3109, form 
Tab1 e 19,--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of tPe ahove-slump total -tree wood, 

bark and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Guf f and Atlantic 

Coastal Plains, with d.h.h, and saw-log wrchantable height as the independent varliables 

Species Weight Coefficient Standard Number 

o r green of error -2 trees 

a b c deterini nati on (Sy ,x samp! ed 

--- (RZi iN) --------------- d ---- 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD, BARK AND FOLIAGE 

Soft Hardwoods Green 3,97S72 1,00446 0.35301 0.R6 0.0672 130 

Dry 2,26575 1,03448 0,26566 0.86 0.0668 130 

Sweet gum Green 2.49534 1,10102 0,35467 0,92 0, Q528 6 2 

Dry 1.37758 1,09257 0,33664 O,R8 0,0634 62 

Rl ackgum Green 3.21543 1.00773 0,39137 8.91. 0,0494 3 9 

Dry 1.56381 0.98763 0,44209 O,R9 13,0557 3 9 

Hard Hardwoods Green 3.65175 1.11015 0.26892 0.89 0.0603 8 5 

Dry 1,95583 1.06896 0.35726 0.87 0.0664 8 5 

White oak Green 1.85132 1.22370 0,27207 0.92 0.0604 26 

Dry 1.00194 1.19826 0,35155 0,91 0,0654 2 6 

Water & laurel Green 4.25294 1.05557 0,31428 0.85 0.0648 4 4 

oaks Dry 2,86450 1.01336 0,32776 0.92 0,0707 44 

All Species Green 4.88085 1.11343 0,15131 0.83 0.0754 2 15 

Dry 3,40047 1.16003 0.00479 0.74 0.0967 215 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods Green 3,77347 0,99168 0.37605 O,R6 0,0683 130 

Dry 2.17341 1,02737 0,28312 O,R5 0.0679 130 

Sweet gum Green 2.36634 1.08639 0.38399 0.91 0,0539 6 2 

Dry 1,27348 1,09223 0,34485 0.88 0,0641 6 2 

Rlackgum Green 3.04226 0.99253 0,42279 0.91 0.0508 39 

Dry 1.48749 0.96988 0,46997 0,839 0.0573 3 9 

Hard Hardwoods Green 3,46982 1.11055 0,27344 0.90 0.0597 8 5 

Dry 1.88424 1,06903 0.35965 0,88 0.0662 8 5 

White oak Green 1.72384 1,22793 0,28571 0.92 0.0596 26 

Dry 0,93222 1,19703 0,36529 0,91 0,0649 26 

Water & laurel Green 3,81019 1,06177 0,32638 0,RS 0.0642 4 4 

oaks Dry 2,63835 1,01781 0.33601 0.83 0.0703 44 

A? 1 Species Green 4,63509 1,10518 0.27018 0.83 0,0756 21 5 

Dry 3.22370 1,15314 0,02403 8.74 0.0957 215 

TOTAL-TREE MOOD 

Soft Hardwoods Green 3,fl0714 0,98326 0,40966 

Dry 1.71959 0.99782 0,34780 

Sweet gum Green 1.87725 1.08275 0,41514 

Dry 1.01259 1,06278 0.40913 

Rl ackgum Green 2,35544 0,98841 0,45689 

Dry 1,09467 0,95035 0,53695 

Continued 
lahle 15,--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the above-stump total -tree wood, bark 

and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone f"or hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

Plains, with d,b,h, and height to a 4-inch top as the independent variables 

Speci es Height 

or green 

species o r 

group do a" h a b c 

Coefficient Standard 

of error3 

determination (Sye,) 

la21 

TOTAL-TREE MOOD, BARK AND FOLIAGE 

Soft Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

Sweet gum Green 

Dry 

R1 ackgum Green 

Dry 

Yellow-poplar Green 

Dry 

Water tupelo Green 

Dry 

Green ash Green 

Dry 

Red maple Green 

Dry 

Ward Hardwoods Green 

White oak Green 

Dry 

Water oak Green 

Dry 

Laurel oak Green 

Dry 

Hickory Green 

Dry 

A1 1 Species Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

Sweet gum Green 

Dry 

Bl ackgum Green 

Dry 

Yellow-poplar Green 

Dry 

Water tupelo Green 

Dry 

Continued 
Table 15.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the ahove-stump total -tree wood, hark 

and foliage, wood and bark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

Plains, with 4,h.h. and height to a 4-inch trip as the indep~nd~nt variahfes--Cnntinu~cl 

Speci es Me4 ght Coefficient Standard 

or green of error3 

speci es o r determination (Sy ,) 

group d ry a ' b a I' b c (R2) 

Green ash Green 

Dry 

Red maple Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

White oak Green 

Dry 

Water oak Green 

'ry 

Laurel oak Green 

Dry 

Hickory Green 

Dry 

A1 1 Species Green 

Dry 

TOTAL-TREE WOOD 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

B1 ackgum 

Ye1 low-pop1 ar 

Water tupelo 

Green ash 

Red maple 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods 

White oak 

Water oak 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Green 

Dry 

Continued 
Tahle 15. --Regression equations for estimating green and dry wei ght of the above-stump total -tree wood, bark 

and foliage, wood and hark combined, and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and ktlantic Coastal 

Plains, with d.b.h. and height to a 4-inch top as the independent vari ables--Continued 

Species Weight Coefficient Standard 

o r areen of error3 

species o r determination fSy .,) 

Q P dry a ' b a b c (R2) 

Laurel oak Green 1,77235 0.76435 0.23323 1.18723 0.76435 0.97 0.0585 

Dry 1,06736 0.75680 0.17696 1.13151 0.75680 0.96 0.0663 

Hickory Green 1.53149 0.75817 0,20647 1.17600 0.75817 0.99 0.0337 

Dry 0.97146 0.76020 0.14171 1,16159 0.76020 0.99 0,0380 

A1 1 Species Green 2.48379 0.70249 0.23590 1.19337 0.70249 0.97 0.0812 

Dry 1.43843 0.69464 0.15335 1,16142 0.69464 0.95 0.0971 

1Trees < 11.0 inches d.b.h. 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

D = tree d.b.h, in inches 

H4 = tree total height in feet 

a', b = regression coefficients 

2Trees 2 11.0 inches d.b.h. 

3109,~ form 
Table 16,--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of total-stem wood and bark combined and 

wood alone for hardwood species in the Guf f and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d,h.h. and height to 4-inch top 

as the independent variables 

Species Weight Coefficient Standard 

o r green of error3 

speci es o r determination ISy j 

group r"i $Y a h a b e (R2) 

TOTAL-STEM MOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods Green 2,42427 0,69922 0,36858 1,09199 0,69922 0.98 0,0664 

Dry 1,30027 0,69496 0,25405 1,03542 0,69496 0,9R 0.0523 

Sweet gum Green 2.22317 8,12051 0,40881 1.07362 0,72051 0.93 0.0490 

Dry 0,94694 0.73562 0.22704 1,03341 0,73562 0,98 0,0510 

B1 ackgum Green 2,11885 0,71813 0,53222 1.00613 8.71813 0,99 0.0450 

Dry 1,21193 0,70517 0,28033 1,01044 0,70517 0,539 0.0495 

Ye1 low-pop1 ar Green 0,72031 0,84000 0,49988 0.91617 0.84000 0.99 0.0393 

Dry 0,33839 0,83922 0,19917 0.94974 0.83922 0,99 0,0348 

Water tupelo Green 6.61837 0,55741 

Dry 3,35058 0,56061 

Green ash Green 2,85181 0.65974 

Dry 1,60158 0,67554 

Red mple Green 1,93524 0,71819 

Dry 1.13174 0,71733 

Hard Hardwoods Green 2.07883 0.73676 0.63920 0,98267 0,73676 0.99 0.0454 

Dry 1,13472 0.74403 0.40474 0.95899 0,74403 0.99 0.0483 

White oak Green 1.36944 0,78518 0,58963 0.96089 0,78518 0.99 0.0333 

Dry 0,67675 0.80722 0,34331 0.94873 0.80722 0,99 0.0370 

Water oak Green 1,87527 0,75424 0.81647 0.92762 0.75424 0.99 0.0438 

Dry 1,05296 0.75707 0,64269 0.86001 0.75707 0.99 0.0445 

Laurel oak Green 2,16714 0.73413 0.59449 1.00384 0.73413 0,99 0.0311 

Dry 1,36503 0.72171 0.48422 0.93781 0.72171 0.99 0.0334 

Hickory Green 2.27031 0.71473 0.46314 1.04619 0.71473 0.99 0,0332 

Dry 1.40078 0.71557 0.29969 1.03771 0.71557 0.99 0.0375 

All Species Green 2,37622 0,70805 0,42781 1.06557 0.70805 0.98 0.0658 

Dry 1,32663 0,70403 0,27608 1.03133 0.70403 0.97 0.0775 

TOTAL -STEM WOOD 

Soft Hardwoods Green 1,87816 0,71342 0,30153 1,09483 0,71342 0.97 0.0697 

Dry 1,02975 0.70567 0,22401 1,02474 0,70667 0.98 0,0639 

Sweet gum Green 1.80824 0,72955 0.31540 1.09368 0,72955 0.98 0.0514 

Dry 0.78637 0,74111 0,18546 2,04233 0.74111 0,9R 0.0515 

Bl ackgum Green 1,56216 0,73646 0.41013 1,01532 0,73646 0.99 0,0458 

Dry 0,90264 0,72005 0,22149 1,02264 0,72005 0.98 0.0554 

Yellow-poplar Green 0.61077 0,84195 0,47874 0.89273 0.84195 0,99 0.0417 

Dry 0,28873 0,84242 0,29120 0.92835 0,84241 0,99 0,0379 

Water tupelo Green 5,73940 0,56009 

Dry 2,92373 0,56361 

Cont i nued 
Tahle 16.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of total-stem wood and bark combined and 

wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.b.h. and height to 4-inch top 

as the independent vari ables--Continued 

Species Weight Coefficient Standard 

o r green a f error 3 

species or determinaLion (Sy*,) 

group d r~ a" b a " b c (R2) 

Green ash Green 

ffry 

Red maple Green 

Dry 

Hard Hardwoods Green 

Dry 

White oak Green 

Dry 

Water oak Green 

Dry 

Laurel oak Green 

Dry 

Hickory Green 

Dry 

A1 1 Species Green 

Dry 

'Trees < 11.0 inches d.b.h. 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

D = tree d.b.h, in inches 

H4 = tree total height in feet 

a ', b = regression coefficients 

2Trees 2 11.0 inches d,b,h. 

3log,, form 
Table 17,--Regression equations for est imatjng cubic-foot volume of the above-stump tntat -tree wood and bark 

combined and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.b.h. and height to 

4-i nch top as the independent variables 

Species Volume Regression equation coefficients Coefficient Standard 

o r Wood (P bark Trees < 11.0 in cf.h.h.1 Trees > 11.0 in d.b.h.2 o f error5 

species o r determi nation fSy *,) 

group wood only a ' b a " b c (R2) 

TOTAL TREE 

Soft Hardwoods Wood & bark 

Wood 

Sweet gum Wood & bark 

Wood 

Bl ackgum Wood & bark 

Wood 

Yellow-poplar Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water tupelo Wood & bark 

Wood 

Green ash Wood R bark 

Wood 

Red maple Wood R bark 

Wood 

Hard Hardwoods Wood R bark 

Wood 

White oak Wood & bark 

Wood 

Water oak Wood & hark 

Wood 

Laurel oak Wood It bark 

Wood 

Hickory Wood b bark 

Wood 

A11 Species Wood & bark 

Wood 

'Trees < 11,O inches debeh, 

Where: Y = component volume in cubic feet 

D = tree deboh, in inches 

H4 = tree total height in feet 

a', b = regression coefficients 

2Trees > 11,O inches d,b,h, 

310g10 form 
Table 19.--Regression equations fat estimating green and dry weight of the ahove-stump total -tree wood, 

bark dnd foliaqe, wood and hark combined, and wood alone for bardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic 

Coastal Plains, with d,h,h, and saw-log nwrchantable height as the independent variahles--Continued 

Spec i es Weight Coefficient Standard Number 

o r green of error 2 trees 

species or a b c determination ~sy.xj sampI eci 

grocip T.Y fRz) 

Hard Hardwoods Green 

D f-Y 

bihite oak Green 

Dry 

Water K laurel Green 

oaks Dry 

A1 1 Species Green 

Dry 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

= tree d,h.h. in inches 

Yh = tree saw-log wrchantahle height in feet 

a,h,c - regression coefficients 
Table 20.--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight of the saw-log merchantable stem 

wood and bark combined and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, 

with d.b.h. and saw-log merchantable height as the independent variables 

Speci es Weight Regression equation coefficients 1 Coefficient Standard Number 

o r green of error 2 trees 

species or a b c detercni oat i on !Sy ,x ) samp 1 ed 

group dry (R2) (HI 

SAW-LOG STEM MOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods Green 0.87401 0,88900 0,79965 0.90 0.0524 130 

Dry 0.50131 0,92331 0.70736 0.92 0.0545 130 

Sweet gum Green 0.79308 0.92245 0.79545 0.94 11.0493 6 2 

Dry 0.41966 0.92088 0.76707 0.93 0.0517 62 

61 ackgum Green 0.85293 0.90659 0,77323 0.96 0.0349 39 

Dry 0.40178 0.88080 0,83500 0.96 0,0377 3 9 

Hard Hardwoods Green 0,61442 0.96619 0.81400 0.95 0,0443 85 

Dry 0.31829 0.91843 0.91625 0.95 0.0477 8 5 

White oak Green 0.48441 1.01256 0.80658 0.98 0.0317 2 6 

Dry 0.25925 0.97581 0.89259 0.97 0.0349 26 

Water & laurel Green 1,01066 0,90432 0.77494 0.96 0,0342 44 

oaks Dry 0.76711 0,84107 0.77939 0.95 0,0371 4 4 

All Species Green 0.88040 0.95844 0,70536 0.91 0,0604 215 

Dry 0.58791 0.99735 0.57903 0.87 0.0727 215 

SAW-LOG STEM WOOD 

Soft Hardwoods Green 0,74173 0.88455 0.81914 0.90 0.067 1 130 

Dry 0.43430 0.89051 0.76056 0.92 0.0563 130 

Sweet gum Green 0.65538 0.92346 0,81779 0.93 0.0519 6 2 

Dry 0.35422 0,89014 0,82529 0.93 0.0525 6 2 

Bl ackgum Green 0.71851 0,90529 0.78833 0.97 0,0344 39 

Dry 0,31052 0,85953 0.89994 0.95 0.0447 39 

Hard Hardwoods Green 0.54531 0.95556 0.82625 0.94 0.0486 85 

Dry 0.31094 0.88863 0.92803 0.94 0,0492 8 5 

White oak Green 0.47241 1.03334 0,75032 0.97 0.0354 26 

Dry 0.26686 0,99830 0,81576 0.97 0.0386 26 

Water & laurel Green 0,88424 0,89109 0,79523 0.95 0,0368 44 

oaks Dry 0,64376 0.82294 0.81366 0.93 0.0436 44 

A1 1 Species Green 0.74691 0.94575 0.73580 0.91 0.0635 2 15 

Dry 0,52476 0.96152 0,62755 0.87 0,0723 215 

Where: Y = component weight in pounds 

D = tree d,b,h. in inches 

Mh = tree saw-log merchantable height in feet 

a,b,c = regression coefficients 
Tahfe 21.--Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of the above-stump total-tree wood and bark 

combined and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gu1 f and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.b.h, and saw-log 

m~rchantable height as the independent variables 

Species Vol ume Regression equation coefficients 1 Coefficient Standard Number 

o r wood K bark o f error2 trees 

species or a h c determination isy.,) sampled 

group wood on1 y fR2) fNt 

Soft Hardwoods 

Sweet gum 

Bl ackgum 

Hard Hardwoods 

White oak 

Water R laurel 

oaks 

A1 1 Species 

Wood R hark 

Wood 

Wood R hark 

Wood 

Wood K bark 

Wood 

Wood R bark 

Wood 

Wood & bark 

Wood 

Wood R bark 

Wood 

Wood P1 bark 

Wood 

TOTAL TREE 

1 .no818 n. 35337 

1. nor155 0.38585 

1.07609 0.40322 

1.07502 0.43883 

0.96847 0.47172 

0.96393 0.50801 

Where: Y = component volume in cubic feet 

D = tree d.b.h. in inches 

Mh = saw-log merchantable height in feet 

a,b,c = regression coefficients 
Tahle 22.--Regression equations for estimating cubic-foot volume of the saw-log merchantale stem wood and 

bark combined and wood alone for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, with d.h.h. 

and saw-log merchantable height as the 'independent variables 

Speci es Vol ume Coef FI ci ent Standard Number 

o f wood i?r bark of error 2 trees 

species of a b c determ~ nat i on !Sy .x) sampled 

QrouP wood only fR2) f4 1 

Sweet gum 

Rl ackgum 

SAW-LOG STEM 

Soft Hardwoods Wood & bark 0.01355 0.91502 0.78524 

Wood 0.01109 0.91458 0.80416 

Wood R hark 0.01148 0,93311 0.R0577 

Wood 0.00891 0.93978 0.83198 

Wood R bark 0.01468 0.86996 0.83477 

Wood 0.01235 0.86759 0.84637 

Hard Hardwoods Wood K hark 0.00831 0.99382 0.80697 

Wood 0,00681 1.00006 0.81544 

White oak Wood R bark 0,00451 1,0R084 0.95951 

Mood 0,00410 1.01997 0.93249 

Water R laurel Wood & hark 0.01517 0.93536 0.72406 

oaks Wood 0,01311 0.93552 0.72780 

A7 I Species Wood & bark 0.01144 0.95237 0.77719 

Wood 0.00933 0.95371 0.79429 

Where: Y = component volume in cubic feet 

D = tree 4.b.h. in inches 

Mh = saw-log merchantable height in feet 

a ,b ,c = regression ~oefficients 

21og,, form 
Table 23,--Regression coefficients for estimating above-stump stem weight to a specified d.0.b. 

top diameter as a proportion of the total -stem weight for hardwood species in the Gulf and 

Atlantic Coastal Plains 

-- 

Rearession eauat i on and coefficients 1 

Species 

Green weight Dry weight 

a h c a b c 

WOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods 

Green ash 

Bl ackgum 

Red maple 

Sweet gum 

Water tupelo 

Ye1 1 ow-pop1 ar 

Hard Hardwoods 

Hickory 

Laurel oak 

Water oak 

White oak 

A1 1 Species 

WOOD ONLY 

Soft Hardwoods 

Green ash 

Bl ackgum 

Red maple 

Sweet gum 

Water tupelo 

Ye1 1 ow-pop1 ar 

Hard Hardwoods 

Hickory 

Laurel oak 

Water oak 

White oak 

A1 1 Species 

'Where: YR = stem weight to top d.o.b./total -stem weight ratio 

d = stem specified top d.0.b. in inches 

D = tree diameter at breast height in inches 

a,b,c = regression coefficients 

e = 2.71828 (base of log E) 
Table 24,--Regression coefficients for estimating above-stump stem volume ds a speci fied d.o ,A, 

top diameter as a proportion of the total stem-volume for hardwood species in the &IF and 

At1 ant f c Coastal PI ai ns 

Mood and bark Wood 

a b c a c 

Soft Hardwoods -1,95391 4.37630 -4,52302 -1,47142 4.49327 -4,50952 

Green ash -0,75040 3,47756 -3,30574 -0,769 74 3,72773 -3,54962 

Sl ackgucn -1,32367 4,18073 -4.22831 -1.04441 4.01532 -4,01211 

Red maple -2,22665 4,34852 -4,51943. -2,18979 4,48186 -4,54393 

Sweet gum -2,45614 4.42270 -4.66557 -2.09610 4,70899 -0,85274 

Water tupelo -1,57486 3,61210 -3,63518 -1,13533 3,54342 -3,43534 

Ye1 1 ow-pop1 ar -1,24111 4.23982 -4.28488 -1.83627 4,40258 -4 , 57745 

Hard Hardwoods -1.59973 4,42029 -4,51789 -1,03613 4.42268 -4,34872 

Hickory -3,09998 4.48297 -4.74816 -3, f 3295 4,65737 -4,92347 

Laurel oak -1,94345 4.53074 -4,75648 -2. i 5829 4,87144 -5,12303 

Water oak -1,31611 4.75279 -4.72974 -1,20950 4,92378 -4.84797 

White oak -1,83212 3.67631 -3,94651 -1,97649 3,89778 -4,18706 

A1 l Species -1.82731 4,40555 -4,53990 - 1,36256 4,50290 -4.50250 

'Where: YR = stem volume to top d.o.b,/total-stem volume ratio 

d = stem specified top d,o.b, in inches 

D = tree diameter at breast height in inches 

a,b,c = regression coefficients 

e = 2,71828 (base of 109 E) 
Tahle 25.--Regression coefficients far estimating stem wei yht to a specified d.o.h. top diameter 

as s proportion of the saw-log stem weight far hardwood species in the Gulf and i\tlaniic Coastal 

Plains 

___-X___~I_L_~I__-__-~-_ _Ip---p- _---I 

-pep-- 

Ratio equation and coefficients 1 

d 

Spec'i ec; y = ,ai~h,b j~1-j-)2)Z)c .7RD 

.--pp-- 

WOOD AND BARK 

Soft Hardwoods 8,37557 -0,92624 0.48987 10,93751 -0.496513 0.47563 

Ulaciiyum 3.07492 -0,55386 11.51846 3.58985 -0,70132 0.50i80 

Sweet y rlm 4.22292 -0,94293 0,43055 13,01029 - 1,03030 0.41477 

Hard Hardwoods 9,73549 -0.96150 0,40328 11.13972 -0.99333 0.41138 

Water R laurel 

oaks 6.67459 -0.85062 0.40331 6.52912 -0.83960 0.40760 

White oak 7.59699 -0,92120 0.36812 9,07229 -0,96632 0.38099 

A1 1 Species 9,51900 -0.9594 1 0.44152 11.52701 -1.00732 0.44078 

WOOD ONLY 

Soft Hardwoods 8.26423 -0.93307 0.48211 11 -00373 -1.00921 0.47185 

131 ackgum 2.65186 -0.62289 0.50880 2.90934 -0.64793 0.51068 

Sweet gum 9.23108 -0.95380 0.42459 13.36831 -1.04941 0.40957 

Hard hardwoods 9.47626 -0.95940 0.39910 9.65663 -0,95967 0.40228 

Water & laurel 

oaks 6.62924 -0.85318 0.39894 6.54618 -0.84499 0.40288 

White oak 7.59855 -0.92818 0.36469 7.64818 -0.926 14 0.36572 

A1 1 Species 9.50009 -0.96728 0.43572 10.92035 -1.00248 0.43448 

- 

?Where: Y, = stem weight to top d.o.b./total stem weight ratio 

d = stem specified top 4.o.h. in inches 

D = tree diameter at breast height in inches 

a ,b ,c = regression coefficients 

e = 2,71828 (base of log Ej 
Table 26.--Regcession coefficients for estimating stem volume to a specified d .o .b. top diameter 

as a proportion of the saw-log stem volume for hardwood species in the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal 

Plains 

Ratio equation and coefficients 

cl 

Species y, = ea(t4hlb ((1-(-)2)2)C ,780 

- Wood and hark -- Wood only 

a b c a h c 

Soft Hardwoods 10.93583 -1.01701 0.49330 11.40582 -1.04277 0.48530 

Bl ackgum 3.12362 -0.67621 0.54114 2.47014 -0.62586 0.53201 

Sweet gum 9.99452 -0.98178 0.43551 10.23031 -1,00270 0.42875 

Hard Hardwoods 9.47896 -0.96426 0.41017 9.12129 -0.96109 0.40654 

Water & laurel 

oaks 6.37261 -0.84302 0,40716 6.28001 -0.84489 0.40280 

White oak 7.82275 -0.94615 0.36791 7.77524 -0.95538 0.36407 

All Species 10.75977 -1,00806 0.44887 10.92899 -1.02381 0.44312 

'Where: YR = stetn volume to top d,o,b./total stem volume ratio 

d = stem specified top d.0.b. in inches 

D = tree diameter at breast height in inches 

a ,b ,c = regression coefficients 

e = 2.71828 (base of log E) 

C U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-549-089