United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station

Weight and Volume of

Plantation-Grown

Choctawhatchee Sand Pine

W. Henry McNab

Research Paper Kenneth-W. Outcalt

SE-252 Raymond H. Brendemuehl
October 1985

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

200 Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, North Carolina 28804
Weight and Volume of Plantation-Grown

Choctawhatchee Sand Pine

W. Henry McNab, Research Forester1

Asheville, North Carolina

Kenneth W. Outcalt, Research Forester

Olustee, Florida

Raymond H. Brendemuehl, Soil Scientist 2

Marianna, Florida

ABSTRACT

The aboveground green weight of the total tree and

its major components, the main stem and crown, were

determined in eight stands of planted Choctawhatchee

sand pine ranging in age from 7 to 27 years. Eightythree trees, ranging in d.b.h. from 0.7 to 11.1 inches

and from 11 to 59 feet in total height, were sampled.

After testing for significant differences, data were

stratified to provide two sets of composite equations:

one for the six stands with a closed canopy, i.e.,

ages 12 to 27 years, and one for the young stands

where crown closure had not yet occurred. Equations

for predicting individual tree green and dry weights

and cubic vol_umes of wood, and of wood and bark, were

developed for the main stem and crown of each canopy

class. Ratio equations were developed to allow

estimation of weights and volumes to specified top

stem diameter. Tables for estimatiny green and dry

weight and cubic volume are given for the total tree

and its major components, based on d.b.h. and total

height.

Keywords: Pinus clausa var. imnuginata, biomass,

prediction equations.

The Choctawhatchee variety of sand

pine (Pinus clausa var..immuginata D. B.

Uard) isthe preferred commercial ti

species for reforestation of xeric,

sand sites in northwest Florida

(Brendemuehl 1981). In addition to

area in Florida where it is endemic

Choctawhatchee sand pine has been pi

mber

deep

the

anted

with good success on similar deep sand

sites in Georgia and South Carolina (Hebb

1982; McNab and Carter 1981; Outcalt and

Brendemuehl 1985) (fig. 1). Choctawhatchee sand pine can be used for sawtimber and plywood and is suitable for

production of both bleached and unbleached

kraft papers of high strength (Taras

1973).

As with other pine species,

commercial measurement of harvested

Choctawhatchee sand pine is typically

estimated by using scaling factors to

convert truck-load weight totals to

conventional units of volume. Applicable

scaling factors for plantation-grown

Choctawhatchee sand pine, however, are

not available, and conversion factors for

other pine species must be used. In

addition, there are no satisfactory

equations for estimating standing tree

volumes in plantations. The purpose of

this Paper is to present summary tables

and equations for estimating the aboveground weight and volume of various ages

of Choctawhatchee sand pine planted at

typical stand densities. Similar

information is available for natural

stands of Choctawhatchee sand pine (Taras

1980) but may not be applicable to plantations because of differences in form

class, crown characteristics, and wood

physical properties.

Procedures

Field Procedures

Eight Choctawhatchee sand pine plantations, two each of ages 7, 18, and 27,

and one 12 and one 13 years old, were

selected for sampling during May 1981,

after the major portion of the current

year's growth had occurred. All plantations were growing on excessively

drained, infertile, sandy soils of the

*This research was completed when McNab was with the

Utilization of Southern Timber Work Unit, Athens,

Georyia.

2

Now retired.
L

LLIBERTY COUNTY

CALHOUN COUNTY

ENDEMIC RANGE

.:.:.‘..:.‘.‘, *z;;j;!; SANDHILLS SOILS

F iguw 1 .--The endemic rdnge of sand pine (Pinus clausa) in Fiorida and - -

andhill soils in Georgia and South Carolina where t!le Choctdwktchee

variety is a:so planted. The two study sites in Florida are shown.

2
Lakeland series, 4 thertzlic, coated Typic

Quartzi'psamment. These plantations had

been established by similar site preparation and planting procedures. All

seedlings originated from seed collected

from nat$Aral stands of Choctawhatchee

sand pine.

All plantations sampled blere located

in northwest Florida (fig. 1). The two

27-year-old plantations rqere in Liberty

County, and the other six stands were in

the Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station's Chipola Experimental Forest,

Calhoun County. Stocking and basal area

of the sample stands were typical of

other stands of similar age in northwest

Florida (table 1). Site qua1 i ty varied

only slightly among the sample stands.

At least 10 trees were selected for

sampling in each of the eight stands to

cover the range in d.b.h. and crown class.

Table 2 gives means and ranges of sampletree data by d.b.h. class for. each aye

class. The two stands sampled in each of

the two older age classes represented a

low and high level of stocking.

After selection, sa:nple trees were

felled and measured. Each tree was

separated into its tbnlo major components

of main stern and crown. The main stem

extended from the butt to l-inch diameter

outside bark (d.o.b.) and was marked at

7, 4, and 2 inches d.o.b. to simulate

sizes of pine main stems typically harvested for merchantable products of

sawtimber, pulpwood, and topwood,

respectively. The length of each section

was measured and then weighed on portable

platform scales to the nearest l/10 pound.

The live crown was separated into lower,

middle, and upper sections and each

section was weighed. The main stem less

than l-inch d.o.h. was included in the

upper crown section. Dead material was

separated from all crown sections and

combined for a single biomass component.

Three sample whole branches were collected

from each section to determine the ratio

of needles to branch wood and bark.

Sample disks were collected from the

stem and branches to determine physical

,oroperties of wood by laboratory analysis.

Oisks, each about 1.5 inches thick, were

cut at the butt and at S-foot intervals

along the stem of each tree. Similar

sample disks were cut from sample branches

in each crown section and dead crown material. About 0.05 pound of current and

previous year's needles were collected

from each crown section and combined into

a single sample. The disks and a needle

sample were sealed in individual polyethylene bdgs and returned to the laboratory to determine specific gravity,

moistlure content, and bark content.

The diameter and weight of stem and

branch disks were determined both with

and without bark except for sample disks

from dead branches, which were processed

with bark attached. The proportion of

bark vJas calculated on d green weight

basis. After soaking for 2 to 3 days,

specific grdvity of wood dnd bark was

determined from immersed green volu!Te and

dry weight (Heinrichs and Lassen 197U).

The moisture content of wood, bark, and

Table 1. --Chardcteristics of pldnted

Choctawhatchee sand pine stands sampled

in northwest Florida

---___-_

Age Stocking Basal Site

CTdSS level area quality'

(yr)

Trees/acre Ft*/acre_ - -

27 225 94 53

27 630 135 50

it3 801 114 49

1 3 560 65 52

1 2 647 57 49

7 831 1 5 52

7 955 45 54

'Total height at 25 years.
Table 2 .--Diameters and heights of sample planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees, by

age and d.b.h. class

D.b.h. Sample D.b.h. Total Height

class trees Mean Rang? I\lean R.dnge

No. _ _ _ ^ Inches - - - - - - - - Feet - - - -

7 YEARS

0 1 0.70 -- 11.0 --

2 16 2.05 l.O- 2.9 15.5 11-18

4 3 3.40 3.1- 3.7 21.2 21-21

12 YEARS

2 3 2.47 2.3- 2.6 21.0 19-22

4 5 4.06 3.2- 4.5 26.6 25-28

6 2 5.40 5.3- 5.5 29.0 29-29

13 YEARS

2 -. 1 2.90 -- 22.9 __

4 5 4.22 3.6- 4.9 30.8 25-34

6 4 5.68 5.3- 5.9 34.4 33-37

18 YEARS

2 1 2.80 -- 34.0 __

4 7 4.03 3.0- 4.9 38.0 33-43

6 7 6.10 5.3- 6.8 42.4 40-45

8 6 7.93 7.2- 8.6 47.8 46-50

10 1 9.10 -- 50.0 --

27 YENS

2 2 2.75 2.6- 2.9 35.0 31-39

4 3 4.33 3.9- 4.9 45.7 39-52

6 6 5.98 5.3- 6.7 54.5 49-57

8 8.00 7.3- 8.8 58.2 54-63

10 ! 9.60 9.0-10.6 58.8 57-60

12 1 11.10 -_ 59.0 --
needles was determined on a dry weight

Sasis after drying the individual samples

of each component to a constant weight at

217 "F. The ratio of needle to branch

wood plus bark in each crown section was

determined by drying sanple branches,

separating out the needles, and weighing

the needles and the woody components.

This ratio was then applied to the total

weight of each crown section to estimate

total dry needle wei yht.

Mean values of specific gravity,

moisture content, and bdrk content for

the stem were estimated by weighting disk

sarlple values by the volume3 of the

section they represented. The weighted

specific gravity and moisture content was

then used to determine the green weight

per unit voluine as follows:

Green weight per ft3 =

[1+19C/lOil] x SG x c (I)

where: MC = weighted moisture content

in percent

SG = weighted syecific gravity

C = weight of water per cubic

foot (62.43 pounds)

The weighted value of specific

gravity for each section was used to

calculate dry weight per cubic foot:

Dry weight per ft3 = SG x C (2)

The cubic volume of wood and bdrk in

the stern were estimated by using dry

weight and component weight per cubic

foot:

Component volu;le (ft3) =

component dry weight/component

dry weight per ft3

Mean Qhysical properties of wood and

bdrk for each crown section was estimated

from simple averages of branch disk

sa:qples. Total crown properties were

determined by combining the three sections

for each tree, with dry weight as a

3

Computed by hd1idil's forlllu~d.

weighting factor. Only results concerning

the total crown will be presented and

discussed in this report. Weight dnd

volume of wood and bark components in the

total crown were calculated in a manner

similar to that used for the stem. __

Total-tree weight, volume, and

physical properties were obtained by

combining appropriate components and

weighting by cubic volume.

Analysis

Linear regression equations with

independent varidbles of d.b.h. squared

times total height (U*Th) were developed

to predict green and dry weights and green

volumes of wood and bark in the total

tree and its components. tirouping the

data into D2Th classes and plotting the

variance of Y over D2Th indicated that

the var

volumes

A logar

10) was

geneous

regress

ante of predicted weights and

increased wit0 increasing D2Th.

thmic transformation (to the base

used to obtain a relatively homovariance that is assumed in

on analysis. Thus, regression

coefficients for tree and component

weights and volumes are calculated by

using the equation:

log Y = b, + b, x log(D2Th) + e (3)

where: Y = weight or volume of component

e = sampling error

b 3 ' h

= regression coefficients

When a logarithmic estimate is

converted bdck into origindl units it is

biased downward because the antilogarithm

of the estimated mean gives the geometric

rather than the arithmetic mean (Cunia

1964). To account for this hias, a correction factor was computed by a procedure

described by Baskerville (1972) and

applied to each equation. The form of

the equation, includiny the correction

factor, is:

Y = lO(b,,+b, x log(';)Th) - t

y2(3/*x) x log,(l0)1/2+e) (4)

wher?: S2fyax) = error l:iean square frol;i

regression andlysis

5
Equation (4) was simplified to:

Y = a(DxTh)h, (5)

where: a = 10(bo+[S2(y.x) X lO!Je(lO)I/2)

Analysis of saryple plot yreen weight

and volurle data revealed significant

differences in slope and intercept for

trees in young stands with open canopies

compared with older trees on plots with

closed canopies. No significant

difference, however, was found between

plots within a canopy class. Therefore,

sample Height and voluine data were gooled

into two groups for analysis and presentation of results: (1) trees in young

stands that had not reached crown closure,

and (2) trees in closed-canopy stands.

In sa:npling over the range of

didmeters present in each stand, only

single trees were measured in the O-inch

class4 of open-canopy stands and the

12-inch d.b.h. class of trees in

closed-canopy stands (table 1). Since

inferemes concerning a single tree could

be misleading, these trees were included

tiith the Z-inch and lo-inch d.b.h.

Cldsses, respectively, for presentation

of results. The analysis of data was

unaffected since measured d.b.h. of each

sample tree was used as the independent

variable.

Results

Main Stem Heights -.

Main stem lengths within a diar;leter

class to the 4-inch and Z-inch d.o.b.

points were about two times greater for

trees growing in stands with a closed

canopy compared with the young open-canopy

plots (table 3). This is primarily due

to the difference in ages of the trees.

In the closed-canopy stands, height to a

4-inch top averaged about 6.2 feet in the

4-inch diameter class and incredsed to

inore than 40 feet for trees in the lo-inch

d.b.h. class. Trees in the g-inch d.b.h.

class averaged 11.4 feet in height to a

7-inch d.o.b. top, hence most dere too

short for harvesting as a rlerchantable

sawtimber product. All trees sarIpled in

the lo-inch class, however, had at least

one 15.3-foot saw log to a -/-inch d.o.b.

top. Wane of the trees of sawtimber size

had any defects, and d.o.b. at merchantable height was 7.0 inches. Girard form

class5 averaged 76 and ranged from 72 to

83 for the six sawtimber-size tr-ees

greater than 9.0 inches d.b.h.

-II-- Total-Tree !Jei_(Fhts --I

Total-tree green weights dbove sturlp

ranged from 37.1 pounds for Z-inch d.b.h

trees to 1,059.g pounds for lo-inch d.b.h.

class trees. The proportion of total-tree

weiyht in wood, bark, and needles varied

with tree size. The proportion of totaltree weight in wood increased and the

proportion of bark and needles decreased

as tree size increased for Choctawhatchee

sand pines sampled in stands with closed

canopies (table 4). The average tree

sanpled in closed-canopy stands was 5.7

inches d.b.h. and contained 79 percent

wood, 13 percent bark, and 8 i>ercent

needles on a green-weight basis. The

proportion of needles was greater and the

proportion of wood was less for youny

trees in open stands compared with older

trees in closed-canopy Stdnds. The proportion of tree dry weiyht iby component

differed only slightly from green-weight

proportions primarily because of differences in ,Wisture content.

Table 5 shows the breakdown of

sampled trees into stem, branches, and

needles. As tree size increased, the

proportion of green weight in the stem

generally increased, whereas the proportion in branches remained relatively

constant. The proportion in needles

decreased from 10 percent in Z-inch trees

to dbout 5 percent in lU-inch trees. The

averaye tree in a stand with closed

cdnopy contained 75 percent of its green

weight in the main stem, 17 percent in

branches, and 8 percent in needles. By

coqlarison, youny trees in open-canopy

stands contained about a third of their

green weight in each colaponent. Thus,

a hipher proportion of their green Neiyht

was in branches and needles, with less in

the main stem.

‘l1.b.h. ranye, U.l to 0.9 inches.

‘l1.i.h. dt 17 feet/d.b.h.

6
Table 3. e of d.b.h. and height to various d.o.b.

--'lea" and rankd closed-canopy stands

top diameters for planted Choctawhatchee sand

pine sampled in open-

_-_---I_--------_l- -PI__----__---__---------_____------ --.-._---._______

D.b.h. Sample Mean Stem heiyht to d.o.b. of: Total _.__.-~._~-‘----

class trees d.b.h. -7--------. 7 inches ---TTEheT ----2inches. I inch

------r-- __-wml_ _----_-_- _--._.--.__-

heiyht~-

(in.) Mean tiange Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

__l_------- I_ __------- .___-_----.----_l_---_--- - --

No. __

Inch _____ _ ____ __ _ _ _--Feet __ __- - - - - - - - - - - - --

2 1 7 1.97 --

4 3 3.40 --

2 7 2.66 _-

4 20 4.13 --

6 1 9 5.90 2.1

8 11 7.96 11.4

10 6 9.50 21.4

OPEN

^_ 0.6 -- 5.1 l-8 9.1 1-13 15.4 11-19

__ 2.2 2-3 10.5 9-12 15.0 14-16 21 .I) 21-21

CLOSED

__ - - -_ 11.8 7-22 20.4 13-33 26.7 19-39

__ 6.2 1-15 22.4 13-40 28.6 19-46 34.5 25-52

l-4 21.5 10-37 33.0 20-48 37.6 24-52 43.2 29-57

4-24 33.8 25-47 42.8 35-55 47.1 40-59 52.5 46-63

17-29 40.8 35-45 48.4 41-51 52.6 45-56 57.0 50-6U

_--_---ml_---_.-.-_-l_ _______~______.__________-__-_-_--~.--.-.-_.___________ _--___

4
Table 4. --Average green and dry weight of total tree and proportion of tree in wood,

bark, and needles for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in open- and closedcanopy stands

D.b.h. Total Tree component Total Tree componentclass green proportions (green) dry proportions (dry)

(in.) weight Wood Bark Needles weight Wood Bark Needles

-

Lb _ _ _ _ percent - - - -

-

Lb - - - - Percent - - - -

OPEN

2 29.0 53.6 14.6 31.8 11.7 53.2 13.7 33.1

4 91.6 64.2 13.5 22.2 36.1 65.0 14.1 20.9

Mean 38.4 55.2 14.4 30.4 15.4 55.0 13.7 31.3

CLOSED

2 37.1 72.7 17.1 10.2 17.1 73.9 16.5 9.6

4 130.4 77.2 14.0 8.7 59.5 78.5 13.4 8.1

6 326.4 79.4 12.3 8.3 146.4 80.6 11.6 7.8

8 645.5 83.2 10.8 6.0 277.5 83.9 10.0 6.1

10 1059.9 84.7 10.1 5.2 479.8 85.6 9.2 5.2

Mean 357.6 79.2 12.9 7.9 159.1 8U.2 12.2 7.6

8
Table 5. --Average green and dry weight of total tree and proportion of tree in the

main stern' and crown (branches and needles) for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine

sampled in open- and closed-canopy stands

D.b.h. Total Tree component Total Tree component

class green proportions (green) dry proportions (dry) . .

(in.) weight Stem Branches Needles weight Wood Branches Needles

2

4

OPEW

29.0 38.3 29.9 31.8 11.7 37.7 29.2 33.2

91.6 46.1 31.7 22.2 36.1 46.6 32.5 20.9

Mean 38.4 39.5 3U.l 30.3 15.4 39.0 29.7 31.3

2

4

6

8

10

CLOSED

37.1 72.9 - 16.9 10.2 17.1 73.8 16.6 9.6

130.4 73.9 17.4 8.7 59.5 75.0 16.9 8.1

326.4 73.3 18.3 8.3 146.4 74.4 17.8 7.8

645.5 79.0 15.0 6.0 277.5 79.5 14.4 6.1

1059.9 77.6 17.2 5.2 479.8 78.7 16.1 5.2

Mean 357.6 74.9 17.1 8.0 159.1 75.8 16.6 7.6

-

Lb - - - - Percent - - - - -

Lb - - - - Percent - - - -

'Butt to .-inch d.o.b. top.
The averaye yreen and dry weiyht dnd

distribution of all wood in Choctawhatchee

sand pines are yiven in table 6. A

pulpwood-size tree in the &inch d.b.h.

class would have about 61 percent of its

green ;qood bveight in the pulpwood portion

of the stem, 15 percent in topwood, and

19 Qercent in branches. Small sawt'imbersize trees in the IL)-inch d.b.h. class

had, on average, 56 percent of their

green wood tiveiyht in saw-log material, 24

percent in pulpwood, 3 percent in topwood, and 17 percent in branches. The

distribution of wood in the tree on a

dry-weight basis was about the sane as

found on a green-weight basis.

Choctatihatchee sand pines grotiing in

the young, open-canopy stands tended to

have a laryer portion of their yreen

wood weight in branch components. For

trees of the same d.b.h. class, trees in

older, closed stands contained a 20 to 25

percent yreater proportion of wood in

the stem portion, compared with trees in

open-canopy stands.

The distribution of bark among

various tree components is shown in

table 7. On the average, a pulpwood-size

tree in the 6-inch d.b.h. class had 59

percent of the yreen bark weight in the

pulp~~ood portion of the main stem, 13

percent in topwood, and 27 percent in

branches. The aver-aye tree in the lo-inch

d.b.h., ma1 1 sawtimber size class, had

50 percent of its total green bark weiyht

in the saw-log stem, 19 percent in pulpwood, 3 percent in topwood, and 28 percent

in branches. On a dry-weight basis, the

proportion of bark tended to be less for

branches compared wi%h the same components

on a yreen-weiyht basis, and greater for

the butt to 7-inch stern sect i orl.

Table 8 shows the distribution of

Mood and bark in the stem to a l-inch

d;o.b. top. The proportion of sten

bvleiyht in vJood increased and the proportion in bark decreased with increasiny

tree size. On the averaye, 87 percent of

",he yreen stem weight was wood and 13 percent was bark. For an averaye pulpwoodsize tree in the B-inch d.o.b. class, the

Fercentaye of wood in the yreen stem was

about 9U percent. The distribution of

biomass between tiood and bark in the stem

was about the sa:le for both the greenand dry-weight basis.

Crown Biomass _--

Average proportion of the green and

dry weiyht of wood, bark, and needles in

the crown is given in table 9. For both

open- and closed-canopy stands, the proportion of yreen crown weiyht in wood

increased as tree d.b.h. increased and

needle proportion decreased. On the

averaye, 56 percent of crovJn green weiyht

was wood, 13 percent was bark, and 31

percent was needles.

Mean yreen and dry cretin weiyhts

were yreater for trees in open-canopy

stands than for similar-size trees in

closed stands. Irl stands with an open

canopy, the proportion of crown dry

weiyht in needles averayed 19 percent

greater than for trees in closed stands.

Oead 3rdncii Plateri al_ ______

Field and dry weiyhts of dead

branches by d.b.h. class are shown beloa

for stands with a closed canopy:

D.b.h. Field Dry

class - -

weiyht wei&

_ _ _ Pounds _- - ---

2 1.9 0.8

4 4.2 3.4

6 11.0 9.2

8 20.3 17.0

10 39.8 33.7

Weighted

average 12.1 10.1

';,>iyht increased as d.b.h. class ini-:,eased. The averaye field Imoisture

c ontent for dead branches equaled 19.8,

\:'herZas specific gravity ranyed from

a.392 to 0.487 and averayed 0.441.

Altnost qo dead crown material was found

in the 7-year-old trees in the two stands

witri an open overstory canopy.

10
Table 6 .--Average green and dry weight of wood in total tree and distribution of

wood in min stem! and branches for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in

operi- and closed-canopy stands

__I__----____--____---.--l_.----I_ .--__-----_ll_-_l_

D.b.h.

cl ass

(in.)

Total Prgortion of wood in:

--.---__

Total

-----

stem Branches

Lb _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ percent _ - - - - - - - - - - - -

- _---

OPEN-GREEN

2 16.8 -- 0.1 37.5 19.2 56.8 43.2

4 59.11 __ 12.2 45.8 2.2 60.2 39.8

_-I_- __-_ ----._-.------ -----.--l_____

Mean 23.2 - - 2 .0 38.7 16.6 57.3 42.7

CLOSED-GREEN

2 27.1 - - _- 79.5 10.8 81.3 18.7

4 101.3 - - 25.3 53.0 2.4 81.7 18.3

6 26U.9 4.2 60.8 15.2 0 . 5 80.7 19.3

8 5313.5 34.4 44.2 6.1 0.2 84.9 15.0

10 897.6 56.5 23.8 2.6 0.1 d3.U 17.0

_.__-------_I- -------.- --_

Mean 293.4 6.4 42.8 30.6 2.2 82.0 18.0

OPEN-DRY

2 2::: -_ 0.1 37.7 17.8 55.6 44.4

4 - - 12.5 43.7 1.9 58.1 41.9

Mean 9.2 _- 2.0 38.6 15.4 56.0 44.0

CLOSED-DRY

2 12.9 __ - - 72.0 8.9 80.9 19.1

4 47.2 - - 27.6 52.2 1.8 81.6 18.4

6 118.7 4.6 61.9 13.9 0.3 80.7 19.3

8 233.4 37.6 42.2 5.3 u.1 85.2 14.8

10 410.6 60.1 21.5 2.1 ( ‘) 83.8 16.2

__ ---- ---- - ----_ -- -

Mean 132.1 7.6 43.0 29.9 1.6 82.1 17.9

_----.-----I_~ -------_----~_I_ ---

'Butt to l-inch d.o.b. tgp.

2Less then 0.1 percent.
Table 7 .--Average green and dry weight of bark in total tree and distribution of

bark in main stem' and branches for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in

open- and closed-canopy stands

D.b.h. Total Proportion of bark in:

class bark Main stem component (d.o.b.) Total .

(in.) weight Butt-7 l-4 4-2 2-l stem Branches

Lb _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ percent. _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _

-

OPEN-GREEN

2 4.9 __ 0.1 34.7 16.2 51.0 49.0

4 12.5 -_ 12.0 40.6 1.7 54.3 45.6

Mean 5.5 -- 1.9 35.6 14.0 51.5 48.5

CLOSED-GREEN

2 6.4 -- -_ 69.5 7.8 77.4 22.6

4 17.8 -- 27.0 45.8 2.0 74.8 25.2

6 39.8 5.0 54.5 12.9 0.6 73.0 27.0

8 69.5 34.4 36.0 5.9 0.3 76.6 23.4

10 106.1 49.9 19.4 3.0 0.2 72.5 27.5

Mean 40.6 6.7 38.6 27.5 1.8 74.6 25.4

OPEN-DRY

2 1.7 -- 0.2 40.5 14.3 55.0 45.0

4 5.1 -- 15.5 47.1 F) 62.6 37.4

Mean 2.1 -_ 2.5 41.5 12.1 56.1 43.9

CLOSED-DRY

2 2.8 -- _- 76.9 3.7 80.6 19.4

4 7.7 -_ 35.2 43.4 0.4 79.0 21.0

6 17.0

4z

60.8 9.1 (*) 77.6 22.4

8 27.6

61:3

30.0 3.8 (*) 79.2 20.8

10 44.1 13.2 1.4 (*) 76.0 24.0

Mean 16.9 10.1 42.0 25.9 0.5 78.5 21.5

IButt to l-inch d.o.b. top.

*Less then 0.1 percent.

12
Table 8 .--Average green and dry weight of stem' and proportion of stem in wood and

bark for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in open- and closed-canopy stands

D.b.h. Green Stem proportion (green) Dry Stem proportion (dry)_

class weight Wood Bark weight Wood Bark

2 12.1 79.9 20.1 4.8 79.5 20.5

4 42.2 84.0 16.0 16.8 81.1 18.9

Mean 16.6 80.6 19.4 6.6 79.8 20.2

CLOSED

2 27.6 81.6 18.4 13.1 81.3 18.6

4 93.3 85.8 14.2 44.9 85.7 14.3

6 243.1 87.8 12.2 10.9 87.7 12.3

8 511.4 89.5 10.5 221.5 90.0 10.0

10 822.0 90.6 9.4 377.5 91.1 8.9

Mean 274.5 87.0 13.0 123.8 87.1 12.9

- - - Percent - - - -

Lb - - - Percent - - -

OPEN

‘Butt to l-inch d.o.b. top.

13
Table 9. --Average green and dry weight of crown and proportion of crown in wood,

bark, and needles for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in open- and closedcanopy stands

D.b.h. Crown Crown proportion (green) Crown Crown proportion (dry)

class weight Branch Branch. weight Branch Branch

(in.) (green) wood bark Needles (dry) wood bark Needles

-

Lb _ _ _ _ - Percent - - - - - I& - - - - - Percent - - - - -

OPEN

2 17.0 37.7 11.6 50.7 6.9 38.1 9.7 52.2

4 49.4 47.2 11.5 41.3 19.3 50.8 9.8 39.4

Mean 21.8 39.1 11.6 49.3 8.8 39.9 9.8 50.3

CLOSED

2 9.5 48.4 15.1 36.5 4.0 51.3 13.3 35.6

4 34.2 52.6 13.5 33.9 14.6 55.5 11.4 33.1

6 83.3 56.0 12.6 31.4 35.5 58.1 10.5 31.4

8 134.1 59.6 12.1 28.3 55.9 60.1 10.2 29.6

10 237.9 64.1 12.6 23.2 102.3 65.0 10.7 24.2

Mean 83.1 55.5 13.1 31.4 35.3 57.5 11.1 31.4

14
I

Wood and Bark Physical Properties

Average specific gravity, moisture

content, and green weight per cubic. foot

are shown in table 10 for the major components of trees growing in open-canopy

stands. Similar statistics for trees in

closed-canopy stands are given in table

11. Total-tree wood specific gravity

averaged 0.443 for trees growing in

closed-canopy stands. Wood specific

gravity averaged 0.480 in the saw-log

stem, 0.461 in the pulpwood portion, and

0.426 in branches. Compared with the

specific gravity of the four major southern Dines (P. taeda. P. echinata. P.

palustris,‘P. nttTi), Choctawhatchee

sand pine specific qravity was, on the

average, higher in the main stem but lower

in branch wood (Clark and Taras 1976;

Taras and Clark 1975, 1977; Taras and

Phillips 1978). Bark specific gravity

averaged 0.377 for the total tree, 0.398

for the main stem, and 0.294 for branches.

Moisture content of wood averaged

120 percent for the total tree, 103

percent in the saw-log stem, and 114

percent in the pulpwood portion of the

main stem compared with branch wood,

which had an average moisture content of

128 percent. Compared with Virginia pine

(P. virginiana) (Saucier and Boyd 1982),

m%n stem wood moisture content was about

25 percent greater for sand pine. Bark

moisture content was higher than wood

moisture content for the total tree and

branches. Within the main stem, bark

moisture content was lower for the sawlog and pulpwood components than for the

topwood portions. For the total-tree

bark, moisture content averaged 135

percent, 79 percent for the saw-log stem,

and 103 percent for the pulpwood portion.

Moisture content of the branch bark averaged 181 percent, more than 50 percent

higher than branch wood on a dry basis.

The green weight of wood per cubic

foot of wood varied only slightly for

tree components, and ranged from 60 pounds

for branches to 61 pounds for stem wood

from a 2- to l-inch top. The green weight

of wood and bark per cubic foot of wood

and bark averaged about 58 pounds for

branches, and was lowest among the various tree components.

The weight per cubic foot of wood

for branches, in relation to other tree

components in planted Choctawhatchee sand

pine, is opposite to the trend reported

for natural Choctawhatchee sand pine

(Taras 1980) and natural Virginia pine

(Saucier and Boyd 1982). Natural stands

tend to, have variable spacing which

results in poorer pruning and large,

older live branches in lower crowns that

have denser wood. In contrast, close

spacing in planted stands increases

natural pruning and results in small

branches that have lower wood density.

The trend in green bark weight per cubic

foot of bark for the components was

similar to the other species.

The weight of wood and bark per unit

volume of wood is a useful factor for

estimating the volume of wood in a tree

or its components when weight with bark

is known; for example, in weight-scaling

truckloads of tree-length logs. For

trees in closed-canopy stands, the

average green weight of wood and bark per

cubic foot of wood was 71 pounds for the

total tree, 70 pounds for the stem to a

2-inch d.o.b. top, and 69 pounds for the

stem to a -/-inch top. For branch material, the green weight of wood and bark

per cubic foot of wood averaged 75 pounds.

Prediction Equations

Tables 12 and 13 contain equations

for predicting total-tree and component

green and dry weights based on D2Th, and

tables 14 and 15 give equations for estimating cubic volume of wood and bark,

with D2Th also used as the independent

variable. Each prediction equation is

shown with statistics including the

coefficient of determination (R2) and

standard error of estimate (Syax). The

corrected sum of squares and mean value

of D*Th and the independent variable are

also shown for use in calculating

confidence intervals (Appendix, tables

12, 13).

Prediction equations that use tree

d.b.h. alone were not developed because

the equations might not be applicable to

trees in stands on other sites with different diameter:height relationships.

However, since local weight and volume

15
Table 10 .--Average wood and bark specific gravity, moisture content, and green weight

per cubic foot for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in open-canopy stands, by

tree component

Tree Specific

component gravity

Moisture

content

Green weight per

cubic foot

Total tree

Butt to 4-inch d.o.b.

4-inch to 2-inch d.o.b.

2-inch to l-inch d.o.b.

Main stem

Branches

Total tree

Butt to 4-inch d.o.b.

4-inch to 2-inch d.o.b.

2-inch to l-inch d.o.b.

Main stem

Branches

Total tree

Butt to 4-inch d.o.b.

4-inch to 2-inch d.o.b.

2-inch to l-inch d.o.b.

Main stem

Branches

WOOD

0.408 + O'.U18

.437 r .041

.409 + .029

.388 r .028

.396 5 .021

.337 Z L .025

BARK

.337 - I .U25

.444 f .036

.367 + .029

.348 * .028

.354 4 .033

.394 + .015

WOOD AND BARK

.394 t .015

.439 ? .032

.391 + .031

.371 + .029

.387 t .017

.386 4 .U16

Percent

149 I ? 12

141 t 14

152 f . 16

153 2 15

150 + 15

142 + 16

159 t 25

9 1 + 13

125 + 28

119 t 27

123 + 28

197 ? 20

151 ? 1 0

131 ! I 10

154 t 16

155 I!z 15

144 t 12

156 + _ 15

Pounds

63.4 I ! 1.2

65.6 + 2.3

64.0 + 1.5

63.9 t 1.5

64.1 & 1.5

62.9 ? 2.7

54.1 * 3.0

52.9 + 2.1

51.1 & 3.8

50.8 + 3.8

51.2 ? 3.8

54.9 * 4.7

61.1 + 1.5

63.0 t 2.1

61.8 + 1.3

61.2 * 1.4

62.0 t 1.6

60.8 * 2.7

Mean + standard deviation.

1 6
Table 11 .--Average wood and bark specific gravity, moisture content, and green weight

per cubic foot for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine sampled in closed-canopy stands,

by tree component

Tree Specific

component gravity

Moisture

content

Green we-ight per

cubic foot

Total tree

Butt to 7-inch d.o.b.

7-inch to 4-inch d.o.b.

4-inch to Z-inch d.o.b.

2-inch to l-inch d.o.b.

Main stem

Branches

Total tree

Butt to 7-inch d.o.b.

7-inch to 4-inch d.o.b.

4-inch to 2-inch d.o.b.

2-inch to l-inch d.o.b.

Main stem

Branches

Total tree

Butt to 7-inch d.o.b.

7-inch to 4-inch d.o.b.

4-inch to 2-inch d.o.b.

'L-inch to l-inch d.o.b.

Main stem

Branches

WOOD

0.443 + 0.028

.480 + .048

.461 f .039

.415 + .038

.395 ? .036

.443 + .031

.426 f . .024

BARK

.337 t .027

.453 f .041

,422 t .034

.327 f . .046

,311 t .044

.398 + .030

.294 + .027

WOOD AND BARK

.435 t .026

,476 + .044

.455 + .035

.400 + _ .035

.380 + .033

.436 + .029

.396 f . .022

Percent

120 + 15

103 f 18

114 + 18

139 + 25

146 + 26

121 + 17

128 ? 16

135 + 20

79 + 25

103 _ + 27

198 + 63

208 2 66

126 + 21

181 2 22

121 + 15

99 2 19

112 + 18

150 + 26

157 + 24

122 + 18

139 ? 14

Pounds

60.6 & 2.4

60.5 ? 2.3

61.2 2 2.6

61.4 r t 3.0

61.5 + 3.0

60.9 ? 2.7

60.4 + 3.5

55.1 + 3.8

50.2 + 4.5

53.1 + 4.9

59.2 + 6.6

59.5 + 6.7

55.0 - t 4.7

51.4 r t 4.9

59.6 + 2.2

58.8 r 2.0

59.8 ? r 2.1

61.0 + 2.7

61.3 + 2.9

59.8 + 2.5

58.3 + 3.1

Mean ? standard deviation.

17
tables are commonly used in timber stand

cruising, an appropriate table can be

easily developed by the user. First, the

mean height of trees in each d.b.h. class

of the stand must be determined. These

heights are then used to solve the appropriate weight or volume prediction equation at the midpoint of each d.b.h. class.

For most tree components, with the

exception of the crown, the high correlation coefficient indicates a close correlation between the independent variable

(D*Th) and component weights and volumes.

The crown weight and volume data were

more variable than stem data, due to

greater variation in crown morphology.

Sample trees were selected from all crown

cl.asses, from suppressed to dominant, and

included a wide variation in branch and

needle characteristics, and hence prediction equations had a lower coefficient

of determination.

Specific equations were not developed

to predict weight or volume of the stem

pulpwood to various top diameters because

of the wide range of pulpwood merchantability limits, and because of possible

changes in utilization standards. Instead,

a separate nonlinear relationship was

developed to enable the user to obtain

estimated stem weight or volume to any

main stem top diameter larger than l-inch

outside bark. Based on a nonlinear model

presented by Burkhart (1977), and a modified exponential form presented by Van

Deusen and others (1981), Clark and

Thomas (1984) developed a model for

estimating the proportion of weight or

volume to various top diameters of the

main stem for hardwood and pine species

in the Southeast:

R = e(b,[(d.O.b. bz)(d.b.h. b3)]) (6)

where: R =

d.o.b: =

d.b.h. =

b,, b,, b, =

ratio of weight or volume

natural base logarithm

diameter outside bark at

specified point

diameter outside bark at 4.5

feet

regression coefficients

Prediction equations were derived to

estimate the ratio of stem weight or

volume to a specified diameter to stem

weight or volume to a l-inch top.

Tables 16-18 (Appendix) contain

values of these weight and volume ratios

for various commonly used combinati_pns of

d.b.h. and top d.o.b. limits. Examination

of ratio values for green weight of wood

and bark of a lO-inch d.b.h. tree reveals

that proportions range from about 100

percent of total stem weight contained in

the stem to a l-inch d.o.b. top, to 12

percent for the stem to a lo-inch top, or

to a height of 4.5 feet in this example.

Yield Tables

Appendix tables 19-34 were developed

from the equations given in tables 12-15

to show total tree and tree component

weight and volume by d.b.h. and total

height classes. Additional tables may be

constructed to show the weight or volume

of stem material to various top diameters

by applying the ratio values in table 16

to weights and volumes to a l-inch d.o.b.

stem top shown in table 24. For example,

to estimate the green weight of wood and

bark to an 8-inch d.o.b. top contained in

a lo-inch d.b.h. tree 60 feet in height,

multiply 933 pounds by 0.518 = 483 pounds.

Similar values of weights to a 4- and

7-inch d.o.b. top are shown in tables

26-29.

Similar-size trees may vary in

weight and volume because of differences

in crown size, stem taper, and weight per

cubic foot. Therefore, the equations and

tables should be applied only to trees

growing in planted, fully stocked stands

of Choctawhatchee sand pine that have

weights per cubic foot and physical

characteristics similar to the trees

sampled.

Computation of Confidence Limits

Approximate confidence limits in

conventional units of measure can be

calculated for lognormal means by using a

modification of Cox's formula (Land 1972).

By using the statistics of standard

errors of the estimate, the sample mean

of DzTh, and the corrected sums of

squares for D*Th of each equation in

18
log,, form (tables E-15), confidence n =

intervals in pounds or cubic feet may be

obtained by the equation: y=

where:

YU,L =

Y =

Z =

sy.x =

upper and lower limits for Y

predicted weight or volume of

component from equation (5)

value from the standard normal

table appropriate confidence

level

standard error of estimate for

prediction equations

(x-x)* =

x =

number of observations used to

develop equation

sample mean of log x -- (from

table of equations)

corrected sums of squares for

log x -- (from table .pf

equations)

value of independent variable

in log,, form

Cox's method of approximation sufficiently

estimates actual confidence limits when

applied to samples with small variances

as occur in the total-tree and stem

weight and volume data sets. Thus, equation (7) should be used to approximate

confidence limits for the single variable

equations presented in this Paper.

*

19
Literature Cited

Baskerville, G.L. USC! of loyarithmic reyression in

the estimation of planted biomass. Canadian

Journal of Forest Research 2:4Y-53; 1972.

Brendemuehl, R.H. Options for management of sandhill

forest land. Southern Journdl of Applied Forestry 5(4):216-222; 1981.

Burkhart, Harold E. Cubic-foot volume of loblolly

pine to any merchantable top limit. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry 1(2):7-Y; 1977.

Clark, Alexander, III; Taras, Michael A. Comparison of

aboveground biomasses of the four major southern

p i n e s . Forest Products Journal 26(10):25-29;

1976.

Clark, Alexander, III; Thomas, Charles E. Weight equations for southern tree species--where we are and

what is needed. In: Uaniels, R.F.; Dunham,

P.H.,eds. Proceedings of the 1983 southern forest

biomass workshop. Fifth annual meeting of the

Southern Forest Biomass Working Group: 1983

June 15-17; Charleston, SC. Asheville, NC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1984:100-106.

Cunia, T. Weighted least squares method and construction of volume tables. Forest Science lO:lW-191;

1964.

Hebb, Edwin A. Sand pine performs well in the GeorgiaCarolina Sandhills. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry-6(3):144-147; 1982.

Heinrichs. J. Frank; Lassen, L.E. Improved technique

for determining the volume of irregularly shaped

wood blocks. Forest Products Journal 20(4):24;

197u.

Land, C.E. An evaluation of approximate confidence interval estimation I&hods for loclnorin~~l mnari\.

Technometrics 14(1):!45-158; 1972.

McNab, W. Henry; Carter, Allen R. Sand pine performance on SoiJth Carolina Sandhiils. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 5(3):,34-38; 1981.

Gutcalt, Kenneth W.; Brendemuehl, Raymond H. Growth of

Choctawhatchee sand pine plantations in tieorgia.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 9(1):62-64;

1985.

Saucier, Joseph R.; Boyd, John A. Aboveground biomass

of Virginia pine in north Georgia. Res. Pap.

SE-232. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station; 1982. 32 pp.

Taras, Michael A. Aboveground biomass of Choctawhatthee sand pine in Northwest Florida. Res. Pap.

SE-210. Asheville, NC: U.S. Uepartment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; 198U. 23 pp.

Taras, Michael A. Properties, uses, and potential market of sand pine. In: Proceedings, sand pine symposium. 1972 December 5-7; Panama City, FL. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SE-2. Asheville, NC: 1J.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Souttiedstern

Forest Experiment Station; 1973; 28-54.

Taras, Michael A.; Clark, Alexander, III. Aboveground

biomass of loblolly pine in a natural, unevenaged sawtimber stand in central Alabama. TAPPI

58(2):103-105; 1975.

Taras, Hichael A.; Clark, Alexander, III. Aboveground

biomass of longleaf pine in a natural sawtimber

stand in southern Alabama. Res. Pap. SE-162.

Asheville, NC: 1J.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station; 1Y77. 32 pp.

Taras, Michael A.; Phillips, Douqlas R. Aboveqround

biomass of slash pine in a natural sawtimber

stand in southern Alabama. Res. Pao. SE-188.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Oepartment of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station; 1978. 31 pp.

Van Deusen, Paul C.; Sullivan, Alfred D.; Matney,

Thomas G. A prediction system for cubic foot

volwe of loblolly pine applicable through

much of its range. Southern Jo!lrndl of Applied

Forestry 5(4):136-191; lY81.

20
APPENDIX

Conversion factors: English to Metric

Multiply -BY To obtain

Inches 2.540 centimeters

Feet .3048 meters

Pounds .4536 kilograms

Cubic feet .02832 cubic meters

Pounds per

cubic foot 16.02 kilograms per

cubic meter

All English units of measure in this

report can be converted to metric units

by multiplying the appropriate conversion

factor listed above.

. .

I

21
Table 12 .--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight and weight ratios

of aboveground biomass of planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees and tree components

in open-canopy stands, with d.b.h. and total height used as independent variables

_-----_ -------._---.--_I_-.-------------.-------------------_---.---I

Coefficient of Standard

Weight (Y) Regression equation' determination error2

(R2) (Sy.,)

Total tree (including needles):

Green Y = 0.63010(D2Th)0*90'o'

Dry Y = 0.26422(D2Th)0.89'73

0.97 0.07956

.96 .08432

Total tree (excluding needles):

Green Y = 0.24419(D~h)'*0378g

Dry Y = 0.09922(D;7h)'*03'84

-98 .07382

.98 .07014

Total tree wood:

Green Y = 0.17028(D2Th)'.067*6 .98 .07975

Dry Y = 0.07293(D2Th)'.05'*4 .98 .07523

Wood and bark in total stem from stump to a l-inch top d.o.b.:

Green Y = O.O9924(D2Th)'J'*59 .98

Dry Y = O.O3745(D2Th)'J23** .98

.06878

.06588

Wood in total stem from stump to a l-inch top d.o.b.:

Green Y = O.O7154(D2Th)'J396 .98

Dry Y = O.O2912(D2Th)'J*"7 .98

Crown weight (including branch wood, branch bark, and needles):

Green Y = 0.57116(D2Th)0.804*8 .93

Dry Y = 0.24750(D~h)O*79025 .92

.07500

.07169

.10526

.11541

Needles:

Green

Dry

Y = 0.49455(D2Th)0*"6638 .88 .11559

Y = 0.22327(D2Th)0*"487g .83 .13957

Wood and bark in crown material:

Green Y = 0.14383(D2Th)0*96g56

Dry Y = 0.05988(D2Th)0*"575"

.94 .11645

.94 .11709

Wood in crown material:

Green Y = 0.09739(D2Th)'~0002"

Dry Y = 0.04248(D*Th)0*98739

.94 .12657

.94 .12586

N = 20; Corrected SS for D2Th = 4.18715; Mean D2Th = 1.80830.

'Y = bo(Dqh)b,

where: Y = weight of tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

b,,h, = regression coefficients

*Standard error in log,, form.

22
Table 13 .--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight and weight ratios

of aboveground biomass of planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees and tree components

in closed-canopy stands, with d.b.h. and total height used as independent variables

_-----_ --~ -~ .--

Weight (Y) Regression equation'

Coefficient of

determination

Standard

error*

(R*) (Sy.x)

Total tree (including needles):

Green Y = 0.28927(D2Th)0~g5482

Dry Y = O.l3420(D*Th)o*949*7

0.97

.97

0.08204

.07260

Total tree (excluding needles):

Green Y = 0.22798(D2Th)0*g76'3

Dry Y = 0.10806(D2Th)0*g6836

.98 .06993

.98 .06372

Total tree wood:

*Green Y = O.l5928(D*Th)'*oO5“5 .98

Dry Y = 0.07544(D2Th)o*g9909 .98

Wood and bark in total stem from stump to a l-inch top d.o.b.:

Green Y = O.l4906(D*Th)'*0048* .99

Dry Y = O.O7063(lPTh)0~99*" .99

Wood in total stem from stump to a l-inch top d.o.b.:

Green Y = O.l0571(D*Th)'*03394 .99

Dry Y = O.O4846(D*Th)'.03*67 .99

Crown weight (including branch wood, branch bark, and needles):

Green Y = 0.15755(02Th)o.854*8 .70

Dry Y = 0.06840(D*Th)o.85137 .70

Needles:

Green

Dry

Y = O.l0836(D;rTh)oJ3980 .64 .25762

Y = O.O3832(D2Th)oJ64** .66 .25028

Wood and bark in crown material:

Green Y = 0.07629(D2Th)o*g046'

Dry Y = 0.03617(D2Th)0~8g038

.72 .26343

.70 .27150

Wood in crown material:

Green Y = 0.05260(D*Th)0.9*800

Dry Y = 0.02700(D*Th)0.908**

.72 .26784

.69 .27842

Fuelwood (branches, needles and stem > 4-inches d.o.b.):

Green Y = 4.00910(DTTh)oJ7660 .81

Dry Y = 2.12189(D*Th)0*44547 .78

Fuelwood (branches and stem > 4-inches d.o.b.):

Green Y = 4.39949(D *Th)o*43‘+'2 .80

Dry Y = 2.49000( D2Th)o*3956' .74

.06903

.06343

.04416

.04868

.04598

.05255

.25609

.25854

.10621

.11009

.09899

.10964

Continued

23
Table 13 .--Regression equations for estimating green and dry weight and weight ratios

of aboveground biomass of planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees and tree components

in closed-canopy stands, with d.b.h. and total height used as independent

variables--Continued

Weight (Y) Regression equation'

Coefficient of

determination

(R 2,

Standard

error2

(Sy.x)

Wood and bark in dead crown material:

Green Y = 0.00342(D2Th)'*'0260

Dry Y = O.O0279(D2Th)'J05aO

.76 .28736

.76 .28737

RATIO EQUATIONS3

Wood and bark in stem to any top d.o.b.:

Green Yr = e-O.44474(dt 5.28683)(D-4.60481)

Dry Y, = e-Os42872(dt 5.54740)@-4.89752)

Wood in stem to any top d.o.b.:

Green Y, = e-Oe46227(dt 5.31122)(D-4.62988)

Dry y, = e-O.46OI9(dt 5.52156)(D-4.88689)

where: Yr = ratio of stem weight or volume to any d.o.b. top

dt = specificied stem top d.o.b. in inches

D = tree d.b.h. in inches

e = base of natural log

N = 63; Corrected SS for D2Th = 13.00063; Mean DiTh = 3.04845.

'Y = b,(D'r)),

where: Y = weight of tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

b,,b, = regression coefficients

2Standard error in log,, form.

3Yr = Weight to any given top d.o.b. (dt) by using ratio technique.

Statistics (R*) and (Syex) cannot be calculated.

24
Table 14. --Regression equations for estimating green cubic-foot and volume ratios of

aboveground biomass of planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees and tree components

in open-canopy stands, with d.b.h. and total height used as independent variables

Cubic-foot

volume (Y) Regression equation'

Coefficient of Standard

determination error2

(R 2, (Sy.x)

Total tree:

Wood u bark

Wood

Y = 0.0092588(D2Th)O.e8462 0.98 0.06116

Y = 0.0063652(D2Th)o*gog45 .98 .06309

Total stem to a l-inch top d.o.b.:

Wood C L bark Y = O.O016357(D2Th)'*"Oe

Wood Y = O.O011852(D2Th)'J2889

.98 .06943

.98 .07570

Live branch material:

Wood a bark Y = O.O025967(D2Th)0*94*53

Wood Y = O.O015654(D2Th)o*99'56

.94 .11841

.94 .12538

N = 20; Corrected SS for D2Th = 4.18715; Mean DzTh = 1.80830.

'Y = b,(D?Th)b,

where:. Y = volume of tree or component in cubic feet

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

bosh 1 = regression coefficients

2Standard error in log,, form.

25
Table 15 .--Regression equations for estimating green cubic-foot and volume ratios of

planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees and tree components in closed-canopy stands,

with d.b.h. and total height used as independent variables

Cubic-foot

volume (Y) Regression equation'

Coefficient of Standard

determination error*

(R*) (Sy.x)

Total tree:

Wood a bark

Wood

Y = O.O06084(D2Th)o*9'556 0.98 0.05319

Y = 0.003882(D*Th)o.955's .99 .05269

Total stem to a l-inch top d.o.b.:

Wood a bark Y = 0.002686(D*Th)o.99'7“

Wood Y = 0.001757(D2Th)'*032'8

.99

.99

Live branch material:

Wood a bark Y = U.001542(D2Th)0~88200

Wood Y = 0.000969(D*Th)o*9'5'5

.70

.70

Fuelwood (branches and stem > 4-inches d.o.b.):

Wood a bark Y = 0.0Q000(D2Th)0~4'750

Wood Y = 0.00000(D2Th)0*43246

.78 .10113

.79 .10397

Dead branch material:

Wood a bark Y = 0.000100015(D2Th)'*'073' .76 .28487

RATIO EQUATIONS3

Stem volume to any top d.o.b:

Wood a bark

Wood

y, = e-O.44534(dt 5.38627)(t)-4.71582)

y, = e-0a48022(dt 5.37425)(i)-4.72508)

where: Yr = ratio of stem weight or volume to any top d.o.b.

dt = specificied stem top d.o.b. in inches

D = tree d.b.h. in inches

e = base of natural log

.04210

.04464

.26478

.27714

N = 63; Corrected SS for DZTh = 13.00063; Mean D*Th = 3.04845.

'Y = bo(Dqh)b,

where: Y = volume of tree or component in cubic feet

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

b,,b, = regression coefficients

*Standard error in log,, form.

'Yr = Volume to any given top d.o.b. (dt) by using ratio technique.

Statistics (R2) and (Syex) cannot be calculated.

26
Table 16. --Ratio of green weight of wood and bark in main stem to a l-inch top d.o.b.

based on d.b.h. class and desired top d.o.b. for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine

trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida

~-------~~ -

D.b.h.

h-d Y------2

Top diameters outside bark (inches)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

WOOD AND BARK'

0.64099 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.ooooo o.ooooo o.00000

.98189 .48991 .00227 .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99718 .89557 .39030 .01349 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .OOOOO

.99925 .97110 .77869 .31829 .02412 .00006 .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99973 .98956 .91437 .66385 .26370 .03035 .00037 .OOOOO .OOoOO .OOOoO

.99988 .99548 .96207 .83782 .56231 .22103 .03304 .OOlOO .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99994 .99777 .98117 .91667 .75345 .47605 .18697 .03348 .00178 .00002

.99997 .99880 .98977 .95404 .85807 .66943 .40388 .15935 .03260 .00254

.99998 .99930 .99404 .97302 .91486 .79190 .59032 .34377 .13665 .03099

.99999 .99957 .99633 .98330 .94669 .86621 .72290 .51824 .29369 .11782

.99999 .99972 .99763 .98920 .96530 .91155 .81123 .65455 .45386 .25187

.99999 .99981 .99841 .99275 .97662 .93985 .86923 .75284 .58909 .39706

L'OOD 2

162985 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .00000 .00000

.98163 .47894 .00176 .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOo .OOooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99718 .89388 .38041 .01163 .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99926 .97090 .77539 .30962 .02160 .00004 .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99974 .98957 .91363 .65947 .25618 .02769 .00029 .OOOOO .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99989 .99551 .96197 .83639 .55741 .21455 .03049 .00083 .OOOOO .OOOOO

.99994 .99780 .98122 .91633 .75138 .47105 .18140 .03114 .00153 .OOOOl

.99997 .99882 .98985 .95406 .85742 .66689 .39904 .15457 .03049 .00223

.99998 .99931 .99411 .97314 .91479 .79092 .58749 .33925 .13255 .02912

.99999 .99958 .99638 .98344 .94684 .86601 .72164 .51529 .28956 .11431

.99999 .99973 .99767 .98933 .96551 .91170 .81088 .65308 .45093 .24815

.99999 .99982 .99845 .99286 .97683 .94013 .86936 .75237 .58750 .39425

‘Yr = e

_o.444,4(dt5.28683)(D_4.60481)

*Yr = e- o.46227(dt5.3"*2)(D-4.63988)

where: Yr = ratio of stem weight or volume to any top d.o.b.

dt = specificied stem top d.o.b. in inches

D = tree d.b.h. in inches

e = base of natural log

27
Table 17. --Ratio of dry weight of wood and bark in main stem to a l-inch top d.o.b.

based on d.b.h. class and desired top d.o.b. for planted Choctawhatchee sand pine

trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida

D.b.h. Top diameters outside bark (inches)

(in*) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - 10

1

:

4

z

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

:

4

z

7

8

9

10

11

12

0.65134 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

.98572 .51034 .00170 .ooooo . 00000 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99803 .91179 .41666 .01332 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99952 .97768 .80737 .34803 .02627 .00005 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99984 .99246 .93078 .70198 .29518 .03492 .00037 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99993 .99691 .97105 .86512 .60677 .25318 .03954 .00114 .ooooo .ooooo

.99997 .99854 .98629 .93417 .79070 .52432 .21906 .04138 .00220 .00002

.99998 .99924 .99285 .96521 .88505 .71482 .45406 .19089 .04146 .00331

.99999 .99957 .99598 .98031 .93372 .82814 .64182 .39449 .16733 .04046

.99999 .99975 .99760 .98820 .95989 .89355 .76744 .57395 .34399 .14742

.99999 .99984 .99849 .99258 .97466 .93186 .84707 .70601 .51216 .30107

.99999 .99990 .99902 .99515 .98338 .95496 .89728 .79666 .64601 .45662

.63116

.98457

.99786

.99947

.99982

.99993

.99997

.99998

.99999

.99999

.99999

.99999

.ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.48945 .00123 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.90619 .39686 .01084 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo. .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.97614 .79727 .32979 .02230 .00003 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99192 .92669 l 68881 .27858 .03027 .00028 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99668 .96925 .85819 .59195 .23815 .03470 .00089 .ooooo .ooooo

.99843 .98540 .93053 .78125 .50889 .20550 .03661 .00177 .00001

.99918 .99237 .96320 .87938 .70345 .43870 .17866 .03687 .00273

.99954 .99570 .97914 .93026 .82052 .62917 .37963 .15630 .03613

.99973 .99743 .98748 .95772 .88851 .75814 .56058 .32987 .13748

.99983 .99839 .99212 .97325 .92849 .84047 .69540 .49852 .28781

.99989 .99894 .99484 .98243 .95266 .89262 .78864 .63445 .44305

WOOD AND BARK'

WOOD*

'*r = e-0.42e72(dt 5,54740)(D-4.89752)

2Yr = e

_o.4601g(dt5.52’56)(D_4.88689)

where: Yr = ratio of stem weight or volume to any top d.o.b.

dt = specificied stem top d.o.b. in inches

D = tree d.b.h. in inches

e = base of natural log

28
Table 18. --Ratio of cubic volume of wood and bark contained in main stem to a l-inch

top d.o.b. based on d.b.h. class and desired top d.o.b. for planted Choctawhatchee

sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida

D.b.h. Top diameters outside bark (inches) . .

(in.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

:

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

:

3

4

5

6

7

:

10

11

12

0.64061 (( 3.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

.98320 .49224 .00185 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99750 .90056 .39447 .01252 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99936 .97339 .78698 .32365 .02346 .00004 .ooooo .ooooo . 00000 .ooooo

.99977 .99063 .91977 .67445 .26978 .03026 .00033 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99990 .99602 .96522 .84646 .57435 .22753 .03350 .00094 . 00000 .ooooo

.99995 .99808 .98304 .92258 .76488 .48888 .19365 .03438 .00174 .OOOOl

.99998 .99897 .99093 .95798 .86693 .68300 .41703 .16606 .03384 .00255

.99999 .99941 .99478 .97567 .92133 .80351 .60540 .35692 .14328 .03248

.99999 .99964 .99682 .98512 .95137 .87537 .73687 .53428 .30661 .12429

.99999 .99977 .99797 .99048 .96869 .91859 .82300 .67038 .47039 .26440

.99999 .99985 .99865 .99368 .97912 .94522 .87876 .76697 .60632 .41373

.61865 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.98201 .47090 .00129 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99733 .89506 .37536 .01007 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo * 00000

.99931 .97193 .77750 .30695 .01987 l 00003 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99976 .99013 .91605 .66265 .25533 .02633 .00024 .ooooo .ooooo .ooooo

.99990 .99582 .96363 .84040 .56167 .21509 .02964 .00074 .ooooo .ooooo

.99995 .99798 .98228 .91950 .75697 .47627 .18297 .03077 .00142 .00001

.99997 .99892 .99053 .95633 .86230 .67389 .40506 .15688 .03055 .00214

.99999 .99938 .99456 .97473 .91859 .79754 .59571 .34587 .13541 .02953

.99999 .99963 .99669 .98456 .94969 .87152 .72989 .52448 .29661 .11754

.99999 .99976 .99789 .99013 .96763 .91608 .81816 .66276 .46086 .25547

.99999 .99984 .99860 .99345 .97843 .94355 .87543 .76134 .59838 .40469

WOOD AND BARK1

WOOD *

‘Yr = e-0.44534(dt 5.38627)@-4.71582)

2yr = e-Oe48022(dt 5.37425)@-4.72508)

where: Yr = ratio of stem weight or volume to any top d.o.b.

dt = specificied stern top d.o.b. in inches

D = tree d.b.h. in inches

e = base of natural log

29
Table 19 .--Predicted weight of total tree (wood, bark, and needles) aboveground for

planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in open-canopy stands in northwest

Florida'

- ----~--- -.111-.--

D.b.h.

(in.) I _------ Total-tree - -hei=*-- Lfeetl_ - -~-11--------

10 12 14 16 18 20 22

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

?o"

3:5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

________________ pourlds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

--

GREEN3

202.2 220.3

236.5 257.7

DRY4

45.8

55.3

50.9 1 55.9 1 $4”

61.4 67.4 .

79.9 87.0

93.3 101.G

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.63010(D2Th)0~90'0'

4Y = 0.26424(DZTh)0.89'73

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

30
Table 20. --Predicted weight of total tree (wood, bark, and needles) aboveground for

planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest

Florida'

_--------~-._--_I-.--.- II-__ __-- -------

D.b.h. . .

(in.)

1_------~------ Total-tree height* (feet) _

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

-~~~_~~~~~~-~-~~~

----____---____- Pounds ________________

- -

GREEN3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3

10

21

37

56

1 1

2 4

3 10

4 17

5 25

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

118

204

312

442

593

765

DRY"

361

512

687

886

1110

1357

1628

1923

161

227

305

392

491

600

718

847

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.28927(D~h)0*g5482

4Y = 0.13420(D?h)O*g49*7

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

31
Table 21. --Predicted weight of total tree (wood and bark) aboveground for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in open-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

10 12

Total-tree height* (feet)

14 16 18 20 22"

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

:*o"

3:5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

____________-- _ _ pounds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GREEN3

1 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0

2.7 3.2 3.8

4

4.3

6.2 7.5

1;::

10.1 11.4 12.7 r. .

11.2 13.6 18.3 20.7 23.1

21.6 25.3 29.1 32.9 36.6 40.5

31.5 r 37.0 4 42.4 48.0 53.5 59.1

50.9 58.5 66.1 73.7 81.3

67.1 77.1 87.2 97.2 107.3

98.5 111.3 124.1 137.1

122.6 138.5 154.5 ' 170.6

188.3 207.9

225.6 249.0

DRY4

1 0.3 1 0.3 0.4

1.1 1.3 1.5

2.5 3.0 3.5 5.0

4.5 r5.4 6.3 9.1

a.5 10.0 14.5 16.0

12.4 14.6 21.1 23.2

20.0 29.0 32.0

26.4 * 30.3 34.2 38.2 42.1

38.6 43.6 48.6 53.7

48.0 54.2 60.5 66.7

73.6 81.2

88.1 97.2

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.24419(D~h)'*0378g

4Y = 0.09922(DTTh)'*03'84

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

32
Table 22. --Predicted weight of total tree (wood and bark) aboveground for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

10 20

Total-tree height* (feet)

30 40 50 60 . 70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

________---_____ pounds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GREEN3

2 4 6

3 16 I

24 32 40

18 36 5471 39 106

32 64 94 125 155 186

50 98 193 240 287 334

140 276 343 410

,

477

190 373 464 554 644

484 602 719 836

609 757 905 1052

748 930 1111 1292

1120 1339 1556

1328 1586 1844

DRY“

.: *----E-l 2 11 3 15 18

3

15 :: 43 24-l 56

40 48

70 33

23 44 t 66 87 108 129 149

63 94 124 153 I 183 + 213

85 -1261 167 207 247 286

163 216 268 320 371

271 337 401 466

332 413 492 572

496 592 633

587 701

T

814

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

2Incl udes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.22798(D;lrh)0*9'6'3

4y = 0.15928(Dqh)O.96836

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

33
Table 23. --Predicted weight of total-tree wood aboveground for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h. Total-tree

(in.)

--__--_-~-- I__--___~-heis:.*) _~I_--_-_---___._ --

10 20 30 40 50 GO 70

-I-- -- ~-- I_____-____-__.I___-_I.~I_

_______-_______ _ pounds _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-_I

GREEN3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

:

9

10

11

12

2

7

15

26

41

i

7

12

19

L 53 79 106 --

82

- L

124 165

119 -.--- 179 239

162 244

319

x 325

426 1

33

---- 74

132

207

299

407

533

-L39

159

249 .------

359 1

489

640 I

539 811

667 I-___!?&-- 1204

1010 L_._--__ 1002 1214 i 144G

DRY“

75

::;

--m-----i

15

34 ----.---

60

94

135

184

240

243

300

L 303

---374 ---L 453

539

41

72

-__---- 112

162 1

220

288

364

449

290

419

571

747

947

1170

1417

1688

131

189

257

335

424

524

634

754

I___.___-___.___I__.-I__. _-- .____. ___I____

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

2Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.15928(D?Th)'*oo545

4Y = 0.07544(D2Th)"*9gg0g

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

34
Table 24. --Predicted weight of total-stem wood and bark for planted Choctawhatchee

sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

------I_ ---__--- --

D.b.h.

(in.)

-.--l_-- Total-tree height2 (feet)

. .

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

_____---____--__ pounds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GREEN3

:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

:

5

6

7

;

10

11

12

2 3 5

6

14

24

38

DRY4

i i!i I ii

:B --f, ,;

134

226 283 340 396

280 349 r '419 489

423 507 591

503 603 704

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

2Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.14906(DZTh)'*00482

4Y = 0.07063(Dqh)0*9987'

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

35
Table 25. --Predicted weight of total-stem wood (bark excluded) for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

10 20

Total-tree height2 (feet)

30 40 50

. .

60 70

:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

:

3

4

6 "

7

8

9

10

11

12

________---_-___ pounds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GREEN3

1

5

11

;:

1

2

5

9

15

2 4

10 I15 25

23 41 59 71

41 63 84 106 128

65 99 134 168 203

95 145 195 245 296

131 199 1 268 338 408

262 353 1 445 537

DRY“

4-l : 9 12

10 16

:"o 45 28

:; I 27 32

61 48 76 92 58

43 66 89 111 135

59 ,,90 122 153 185

119

I

160 202 244

204 257 311

254 320

+

386

390 470

466 563 ’

108

158

217

286

364

453

552

660

238

347

478

630

804

999

1217

1457

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

2Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.10571(02Th)1.03394

4Y = 0.04846(Dqh)'*o3267

where: Y = weight of total tree or component in pounds

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

36
Table 26. --Predicted weight of wood and bark in stern to 4-inch top d.o.b. for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

10 20

Total-tree height* (feet)

30 40 50 60 . + 70

4

z

7

;

10

11

12

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

________-------- pounds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

GREEN 3

l

8 I 16 23 31 39 47

25 51 77 102 128 154 180

93 139 186 233 I 280 f

327

138 -m---l 278 348 417 487

283 378 l

473 568 663

489 611 734 857

610 r 764 ’ 917 1071

930 1117 1305

1112 1336 7

1559

DRY4

4 ’ 8 16

i: 49

19 ,23

12 25 61 74 86

65 87 109 131 +

44 152

64 961, 128 160 192 224

130 173 216 259 302

222 277 333 388

276 345 414 483

419 503 587

500 600 ,

700

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3 Y = 0.14906(0 2Th) 1.00482

R = e-o.44(dt5* *‘)(D-4.6’)

Yr = R(Y)

4 Y = O.O7063(D2Th)o*998"

R = e-o.43(dt5*55)(D-4*g0)

Yr = R(Y)

where: Y =

dt =

D =

Th =

R =

Yr =

e =

total stem weight in pounds

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

d.b.h. in inches

total height in feet

ratio of weight to 4-inch top to total stem weight

estimated stem kqeight to 4-inch top d.o.b.

base of natural log 37
Table 27 .--Predicted weight of wood excluding bark in stem to 4-inch top d.o.b. for

planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest

Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

10 20

--

_-- Total-tree height_llfeetl_ I_ -

30 40 50

- --

__------

60 70

4

;

7

8

9

10

11

12

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

____--_---_____- pounds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GREEN3

309 373

DRY"

200 L- 252 -~

251 316

387

464

38

157

291

438

601

782

983

1204

1447

1;;

202

275

357

447

547

657

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

21ncludes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3 Y = O.l0571(D2Th)'.o3394

R = e-o.,6(dt5*3')(D-4.64)

yr = R(Y)

4 Y = 0.04846(D2Th)'*0=67

R = e-0.46(dt5*52)(D-4*89)

Yr= R(Y)

where: Y =

dt =

D =

Th =

R =

Y, =

e =

total stem weight in pounds

specified stem top d.o.b. in inches

d.b.h. in inches

total height in feet

ratio of weight to 4-inch top to total stem weight

estimated stem weight to 4-inch top d.o.b.

base of natural log
Table 28. --Predicted weight of wood and

bark in stem to 7-inch top d.o.b. for

planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees

growing in closed-canopy stands in

northwest Florida'

D.b.h. Total-tree height* (feet)

(in*) 30 40 50 60 70

7

8

9

10

11

12

;

9

10

11

12

____-- Pounds - - - - - - ______ Pounds - - - - - -

GREEN3 GREEN3

DRY4 DRY“

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

2Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.14906(D?Th)'*00482

R = e-o.44(dt5**9)(D-4*60)

yr = R(Y)

4 Y = 0.07063(D2Th)0*gg87'

R = e-0.43(dt5.55)(D-4.90)

Y, = R(Y)

where: Y = total stem weight in pounds

dt = specified stem top d.o.b.

in inches

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

R = ratio of weight to 7-inch

top to total stem weight

Yr = estimated stem weight to

7-inch top d.o.b.

e = base of natural log

Table 29 .--Predicted weight of wood

excluding bark in stem to -/-inch top

d.o.b. for planted Choctawhatchee sand

pine trees growing in closed-canopy

stands in northwest Florida'

~._--- ~._ . .

D.b.h. Total-tree height* (feet)

(in') 30 40 50 60 70

7 19 [ 25 31 38

8 52 70 1 89 107

9

10

11

12

129 196

193 293

328 1 395

416 503 I

45

125

229

343

464

589

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3 Y = 0.10571(DTTh)'*033g4

R = e-0,46(dt'*3')(D-4a64)

Yr= R(Y)

4 Y = O.O4846(D2Th)'*o3*6'

R = e-0.46(dt'*52)(D-4*8g)

Yr = R(Y)

where: Y =

dt =

D =

Th =

R =

Yr =

e =

total stem weight in pounds

specified stem top d.o.b.

in inches

d.b.h. in inches

total height in feet

ratio of weight to 7-inch

top to total stem weight

estimated stem weight to

7-inch top d.o.b.

base of natural log

39
Table 30. --Predicted volume of total tree (wood and bark) aboveground for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in open-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

10 12

Total-tree ~-hcilht2 (feet) -__---

14 16 18 20 22"

0.5

1.0

1.5

;*;

3:o

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

:*o"

3:5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

___________--- _ Cubic feet _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-~----

WOOD AND BAl?K3

2.68 2.91

3.12 3.39

WOOD4

2.16 2.35

2.53 2.75

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = C.0092588(D2Th)O*88462

4Y = 0.0063652(D2Th)o*90945

where: Y = volume of total tree or component in cubic feet

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

40
Table 31. --Predicted volume of total tree (wood and bark) aboveground for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

-------I_

D.b.h. ---_I- Total-tree height* (feet)

(in.)

10 20 30 40 50 60 . . 70

~---- -

___--_-__----- Cubic feet _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

WOOD AND BARK3

:

i

ii

7

8

9

10

11

12

:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0.05

.18

.37

.63

.95

0.04

.13

.29

.49

.76

0.09 0.14

.63 .78

1.33 7 1.63

2.26 2.77

3.40 4.17

2.51 L 3.64 4.74 5.82

3.33 -4rL 6.29 7.71

6.17 '8.031 9.85

1Ei ‘%%--I

1.93

3.27

-I__ 4.92

6.87

9.11

11.64

14.44

17.51

17.65 1 20.85 ]

20.69 24.45

WOOD"

0.07 0.10

5.67

7.91

10.50

13.40

16.63

20.17

24.01

28.16

4.86

6.89

9.25

11.93

14.94

18.28

21.93

25.89

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = 0.006084(DTTh)o.9"56

4Y = 0.003882(D=Th)o.955'8

where: Y = volume of total tree or component in cubic feet

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

41
Table 32. --Predicted volume of total stem (wood and bark) for planted Choctawhatchee

sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

-1----1-1 -_--------____-.-----____

D.b.h. Total-tree height 2 (feet)

(in.)

_----- __-I_- - - -.-1 1----_----~--

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

______________ Cubic feet _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_---___

WOOD AND BARK3

0.03 0.05 0.08

--671 8.17

8.27 L- 10.33 -_-- 14.43

10.20 12.73 17.79

15.39 21.50

18.29 25.56

WOOD4

0.02

.08

.13

.33

.52

0.04 0.06

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

21ncludes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3Y = O.O02686(02Th)0*99374

4Y = O.O01757(02Th)'-032'8

where: Y = volume of total tree or component in cubic feet

D = d.b.h. in inches

Th = total height in feet

42
Table 33. --Predicted volume of stem (wood and bark) to 4-inch top d.o.b. for planted

Choctawhatchee sand pine trees growing in closed-canopy stands in northwest Florida'

D.b.h.

(in.)

~------I_ Total-tree height* 1--_1_ kfeet) ----------

10 20 30 40 50 60 * * 70

4

z

7

3

9

10

11

12

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

___________---

~IICubic feet _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

WOOD AND BARK3

0.13 I=-- o.27____o~~~~

____A

.44 .87 1.30

1.57 2.35

2.33 3.48)

4.71 6.27 7.83 9.38 10.94

8.07 10.08 12.08 14.08

10.05 t 12.54 f 15.03 17.52

15.24 18.27

+

21.29

18.18 r 21.79 25.39

0.10

.35

WOOD“

2.59

4.79

7.20

9.87

12.83

16.10

19.72

23.67

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3 Y = 0.002686(D2Th)0*99374

R = e-0.44(dt'*")(D-4*72)

Yr= R(Y)

4 Y = 0.001757(D~h)'~032'8

R = e-O,48(dt'*")(D-'*")

yr = R(Y)

where: Y =

dt =

D =

Th =

R =

Yr =

e=

total stem volume in cubic feet

specified stern top d.o.b. in inches

d.b.h. in inches

total volume in cubic feet

ratio of volume to 4-inch top to total stem volume

estimated stem volume to 4-inch top d.o.b.

base of natural log 43
Table 34 .--Predicted volume of stem

(wood and bark) to 7-inch top d.o.b. for

planted Choctawhatchee sand pine trees

growing in closed-canopy stands in

northwest Florida'

- ---.---~

D.b.h. Total-tree height2 (feet)

(in*) 30---40 50 60 70

- _ _ - _ ---- Cubic feet - - - - -

WOOD AND BARK3

WOOD"

__1_1_I--_ _--I_- ._ _-

'Blocked-in area indicates range of data.

*Includes O.l-foot stump allowance.

3 Y = 0.002686(Dqh)"*9g374

R = e-o.44(dt5J9)(D-4.72)

Yr = R(Y)

4 Y = 0.001757(D2Th)'*032'8

R = e-0.4a(dt5*'7)(D-4*73)

Yr = R(Y)

where: Y=

dt =

D =

Th =

R =

Yr =

e=

total stem volume in cubic

feet

specified stem top d.o.b.

in inches

d.b.h. in inches

total volume in cubic feet

ratio of volume to 7-inch

top to total stem volume

estimated stem volume to

7-inch top d.o.b.

base of natural log

44
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is

dedicated to the principle of

multiple use management of

the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood,

water, forrrgc, wildlife, and

recreation. Through forestry

research, cooperation with the

States and private forest

owners, and manwment of

the National Forests and

National Grasslands, it strives

-as directed by Congress-to

provide increasingly greater

service to a growing Nation.

-;..-

II

USDA policy does not permit discrimination because

of race, color, n8tional orig@ sex or religion. Any

person who bclicves he or she has been discriminated against in any USDA-related activity should

write immediately to the Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C. 20250.
t&Nab, W. Henry; Outcalt, Kenneth W.; Brendemuehl, Raymond H. McNab. W. Henry; Outcalt. Kenneth W.; Brendemuehl, Raymond H.

Weight and volume of plantation-grown Choctawhatchee sand pine. Weight and volume of plantation-grown Choctawhatchee sand pine.

Res. Pap. SE-252. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Res. Pap. SE-252. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1985. 44 PP. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1985. 44 pp.

The aboveground green weight of the total tree and its major components, The aboveground green weight of the total tree and its major components,

the main stem and crown, were determined in eight stands of planted the main stem and crown, were determined in eight stands of planted

Choctawhatchee sand~pine ranging in age from 7 to 27 years. Eighty-three Choctawhatchee sand pine ranging in age from 7 to 27 years. Eighty-three

trees, ranging in d.b.h. from 0.7 to 11.1 inches from 11 to 59 feet in trees, ranging in d.b.h. from 0.7 to 11.1 inches from 11 to 59 feet in

total height, were sampled. After testing for significant differences, total height, were sampled. After testing for significant differences,

data were stratified to provide two sets of composite equations: one for data were stratified to provide two sets of composite equations: one for

the six stands with a closed canopy, i.e., ages 12 to 27 years, and one the six stands with a closed canopy, i.e., ages 12 to 27 years, and one

for the young stands where crown closure had not yet occurred. Equations for the young stands where crown closure had not yet occurred. Equations

for predicting individual tree green and dry weights and cubic volumes of for predicting individual tree green and dry weights and cubic volumes of

wood, and of wood and bark, were developed for the main stem and crown of wood, and of wood and bark, were developed for the main stem and crown of

each canopy class. Ratio equations were developed to allow estimation of each canopy class. Ratio equations were developed to allow estimation of

weights and volumes to specified top stem diameter. Tables for estimating weights and volumes to specified top stem diameter. Tables for estimating

green and dry weight and cubic volume are given for the total tree and

its major components, based on d.b.h. and total height.

green and dry weight and cubic volume are given for the total tree and

its major components, based on d.b.h. and total height. (

KEYWORDS: Pinus clausa var. imnuginata, biomass, prediction equations. - -

KEYWORDS: Pinus clausa var. irmuginata, biomass, prediction equations. - -