Forest Service

Agriculture

Handbook

Number 583
Yellow-Poplar:

Characteristics and Management

by Donald E. Beck, Principal Silviculturist

and Lino Della-Bianca, Silviculturist

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station

Asheville, North Carolina

Agriculture Handbook No. 583

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

September 198i

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Prlntlng Ofece

Washlnxton. D.C. 20402
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600045

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for

their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides

must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or

other wildlife-if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and

convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute endorsement or approval by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture of any product or service to the exclusion of others which may be

suitable.

2
Beck, Donald E., and Lino Della-Bianca.

1981. Yellow-poplar: Characteristics and management. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 583, 92 p.

This reference tool and field guide for foresters and other land managers includes a synthesis of

information on the characteristics of yellow-poplar with guidelines for managing the species. It is

based on research conducted by many individuals in State and Federal forestry organizations and

in universities throughout the Eastern United States. This handbook describes distribution, uses,

biological and environmental features, regeneration methods, stand management opportunities,

and growth and yield estimates.

Key Words: Site, regeneration, stand management, growth, yield, cultural practices, Liriodendron tulipi,fera.
Contents

P

Introduction .......................................

.

Importance of the Species ........................

Distribution of Growing Stock ....................

Current Growth and Removals ....................

Distribution of Growing Stock by Size Class. ........

Products ......................................

.

Characteristics Critical to Management of the Species.

Occurrence by Forest Types. ......................

Natural Variation ...............................

Principal Enemies and Damaging Agents ...........

Insects ......................................

. . .

Diseases ....................................

.

Fire.. ......................................

.

Climate ......................................

.

Animal Damage. ...............................

Vines.....................: .................

.

Site Requirements ...............................

Climate .....................................

.

Soils and Topography. .........................

Natural Regeneration ............................

Seed Production ..............................

Dissemination ................................ . .

Seedling Establishment. ........................

Sprout Reproduction ..........................

Management of the Species ..................

Determining Site Quality .................... . . .

SiteIndex.. ............................

. . .

Species Comparisons ..................... . . . .

Site Classification from Soils and Topography . . .

Establishing Natural Regeneration ............ . . .

Seed ...................................

. . . . .

Mineral Soil ............................. . . . . .

Light ..................................

. . .

Season .................................

. . .

Competition. ............................ . . . .

Establishing Artificial Regeneration. .......... . . .

Site Selection ............................

Site Preparation ......................... . . .

Planting Technology. ..................... . . .

Spacing ................................

. . . .

Establishing Stands by Direct Seeding ......... . . . Managing Established Stands ................ . . .

Seedling-Sapling Stands ................... . . .

Thinning Pole and Sawtimber Stands. ....... . .

Fertilization ............................. . . . . . . .

Summary.. .......................................

.

References ........................................

.

Appendixes ......................................

.

1. Yellow-Poplar Soil-Site Equations by Location ........

2. Tree Volume and Weight Tables for Yellow-Poplar ...

3. Yields of Unthinned Yellow-Poplar Stands ..........

4. Growth and Yield of Thinned Yellow-Poplar Stands . .

5. Common and Scientific Names of Species ...........

‘age5888

11

11

11

13

13

14

14

15

15

15

16

16

17

18

19

20

20

20

22

23

23

23

24

25

26

26

26

26

27

28

29

29

29

30

31

34

36

37

58

58

59

69

86

91

4
Introduction

Yellow-poplar is one of the top commercial hardwood

species in the United States because of its availability, rapid

growth, large size, excellent form, early natural pruning, and

the good working quality of the wood. Botanically an ancient

tree, yellow-poplar dates back to Cretaceous times some 70

million years ago when there were 16 species of the genus

Liriodendron in North America. During the ice age, 15

species disappeared. But since Liriodendron tulipifera L.

inhabited the Deep South, it survived (Southern Hardwood

Producers, Inc. 1941). The only other Liriodendron species in

the world, L. chinensis Sarg. of central China, resembles our

yellow-poplar (Sargent 1933). Artifacts from Cretaceous

deposits in the Southeastern United States show the distinctive

yellow-poplar leaf in a silhouette that resembles a tulip, the

same leaf form that characterizes our present-day species (fig. 1).

The species has been variously named by its users and

admirers at different times and in diverse places. In the

lumber trade it has been known as whitewood, white-poplar,

white-tree, blue poplar, hickory poplar, cucumbertree, basswood, sap poplar, canary yellow-wood, tulipwood, and soft

yellow-poplar. Based on its appearance and use it has been

called saddle-tree, saddle-bag, old wife’s shirt-tree, and

canoewood (Graves 1910, Hough 1910, Sudworth 1927,

USDA Forest Service 1965). The most commonly used names

at present are yellow-poplar, tulip-poplar, and tuliptree.

The mature yellow-poplar has a striking appearance. In

forest stands its trunk is straight, tall, and clear of lateral

branches for a considerable distance up the bole (fig. 2). It is

among the tallest of all broadleaf trees in the Eastern United

States. On the best sites, old-growth trees grow to nearly 200

feet high and 8 to 12 feet in diameter. But usually they reach

between 80 and 120 feet at maturity, with a straight trunk 2

to 5 feet in diameter, and are conspicuously free of branches

for the first 60 to 100 feet above ground level (Little and

others 1%2, Sargent 1933) (fig. 3). Age at natural death is

usually about 200 to 250 years (Little and others 1962),

although some trees may live up to 500 years (Newell 1972).

The value of yellow-poplar was quickly recognized by the

early settlers because its wood proved easy to work and serviceable. From past use as interior finish for houses, containers

and utensils, carriage bodies, shingles, clapboards, and saddle

frames to present-day use as cabinet wood, corestock, and

veneers in furniture manufacturing its value has remained

undiminished. In 1963 it was second only to oak in lumber

production among the hardwoods, was third in hardwood

veneer-log production, and made up 9 percent of the volume

of all hardwoods (Vick 1973). Besides having good commercial value as wood, it has been cultivated as an ornamental

since 1663 (Querengasser 1961), and several distinctive

varieties exist (Sudworth 1927). It also has value as a honey

tree (McCarthy 1933).

Because of its widespread occurrence in the Eastern United

States and its importance to the wood-using industries, forest

scientists have studied yellow-poplar intensively. Information

on the characteristics and management of yellow-poplar is

scattered through hundreds of articles in many publications.

Figure l.-Yellow-poplar has a distinctive leaf

which is tuliplike in silhouette. It also has a tulipshaped flower. F-490885

Figure 2.-In forest stands, yellow-popla; has a

straight, tall, columnarlike bole clear of lateral

branches to a considerable height. The 21-inch

d.b.h. “plus” tree shown here and designated by a

stripe on the trunk is 63 years old, 103 feet tall,

and is clear of limbs for 59 feet. It was found in

Iredell County, North Carolina. FA76187
Importance of the Species

Figure 3.-A virgin stand of old-growth yellowpoplar growing in Union County, Georgia, in

1931. F-256718

Much new knowledge has accumulated since Olson (1%9)

summarized the available information on silvical characteristics of the species and since McCarthy’s (1933) management

recommendations were published more than 40 years ago.

This paper summarizes the accumulated information on the

characteristics of yellow-poplar and presents guidelines for

managing the species. It is intended to serve as a reference

tool and field guide for foresters and other land managers

responsible for prescribing and supervising management of

this valuable resource.

Distribution of Growing Stock

The botanical range of yellow-poplar encompasses practically the entire Eastern United States. The species ranges

from southern New England, west through southern Ontario

and Michigan, south to Louisiana, then east to north-central

Florida (fig. 4). Yellow-poplar is not uniformly distributed

over its botanical range. Boyce and McClure (1975) divided

the range into Timber Production Provinces on the basis of

physiographic features and showed the distribution of yellowpoplar growing stock in 1974 (table 1).

The Mountain province (fig. 4), where the species attains its

best development, contains 44 percent of the total yellowpoplar growing stock in the Eastern United States; this

volume represents about 13 percent of the hardwood growing

stock in the province. The adjacent Piedmont province contains an additional 29 percent of the total yellow-poplar in the

Eastern United States. Again, yellow-poplar makes up about

13 percent of all hardwood growing stock in the Piedmont

(Boyce and McClure 1975). Together, the Mountain and Piedmont provinces contain nearly three-fourths of all yellowpoplar growing stock, but they collectively represent considerably less than one-half the area of commercial forest within

the botanical range of the species.

Table L-The area of commercial forest, the voIume of all

hardwood and yellow-poplar growing stock, and the proportion of hardwoods in yellow-poplar by four Timber Production Provinces, 1974l

Mountain 48,704 31,362 4,137 13.2

Piedmont 36,459 21,110 2,760 13.1

Interior 23,294 13,064 781 6.0

Coastal

Plain 62,562 28,117 1,417 5.0

All

provinces 171,019 93,653 9,095 9.7

Outside of

provinces 199,424 108,748 273 0.2

Total 370.443 202.401 9.368 4.6

‘Adjusted from 1970 data, Forest Resource Report No. 20 (USDA

Forest Service 1973a), to include inventories completed since 1970.

Source: Boyce and McClure (1975).

The Coastal Plain, largest of the provinces, with 62 million

acres of commercial forest land, contains 16 percent of the

total yellow-poplar growing stock. But yellow-poplar accounts

for only 5 percent of its hardwood growing stock.

Of the remaining 11 percent of yellow-poplar, 8 percent is

found in the Interior province and 3 percent in its residual

botanical range.
Figure 4.-Natural range of yellow-poplar (shaded) with Timber Production Province boundaries

following county lines and coinciding with Forest

Survey units. (Boyce and McClure 1975)

Current Growth and Removals

A relatively large surplus of periodic annual growth over

removals and mortality continues to add to the already large

growing stock base (table 2). Periodic annual growth as a percentage of growing stock is nearly constant among the four

provinces. Likewise, mortality as percentage of growing stock

varies but little among provinces. However, removals are not

proportional to growing-stock levels. In the Piedmont,

removal percentages are decidedly higher than in any other

province, amounting to 74 percent of growth; removals plus

mortality take out 78 percent of growth. In the Interior and

Coastal Plain, removals plus mortality account for 45 and 52

percent of growth, respectively. In the Mountain province,

removals plus mortality equal 32 percent of growth.

Distribution of Growing Stock by Size Class

In 1970 about 34 percent of growing-stock volume was

smaller than sawtimber size (table 3). Nearly 58 percent of the

volume was in trees that ranged from 11 to 21 inches in

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), with only 8 percent in trees

over 21 inches d.b.h.

Sawtimber board-foot volume was more concentrated within

small diameter classes since 63 percent occurred in the Il- to

17-inch d.b.h. range. Only about 12 percent of board-foot

volume was in classes over 21 inches d.b.h.

Table 2.-Volume and proportion of the growing stock

volume in periodic annual growth, removals, and mortality

for yellow-poplar in four Timber Production Provinces1

Mountain 225.4 63.3 8.3

Piedmont 133.0 97.9 5.6

Interior 40.5 16.5 1.6

Coastal

Plain 81.9 38.3 4.4

Total 480.8 216.0 19.9

‘Source: Boyce and McClure (1975).

Table 3.--Stocking of yellow-poplar on commercial timberland in the East, by diameter class, 1970’

Diameter class

Inches

Net volume Net volume

of growing stock of sawtimber

Million cubic feet Million board feet*

5.0 to 7.0 699

7.0 to 9.0 992

9.0 to 11.0 1,250

11.0 to 13.0 1,360

13.0 to 15.0 1,324

15.0 to 17.0 1,05a

17.0 to 19.0 739

19.0 to 21 .o 462

21 .O to 29.0 590

29.0+ 94_

Total 8,562

‘Source: USDA Forest Service (1973a).

‘Int. l/4-inch rule.

-

-

0

5,251

5,750

4,933

3,557

2,242

2,947

Aln .__

25,090

Products

Yellow-poplar is an extremely versatile wood with a multitude of uses. It is straight-grained with medium even texture,

moderate in weight and stiffness. Its specific gravity is low

compared to other hardwoods, and in this respect it is comparable to softwoods. The wood seasons easily with low volumetric

shrinkage and little defect development. It rates high in ability

to stay in place, has excellent gluing qualities, and rates excellent for both painting and staining. The wood is moderately

soft and susceptible to indentation or marring. It is relatively

low in strength but compares favorably with several softwoods

as stud material for walls. Machining properties are average;

it can,be easily turned, bored, and planed but is poor in shaping and sanding characteristics. However, it is easily worked

with hand tools, so it was a favorite of early-day settlers.
Characteristics Critical to

Management of the Species

Neither the heartwood nor sapwood are particularly durable

under conditions favorable to decay, but despite this characteristic yellow-poplar was used extensively and with apparent

success as logs in cabins, as structural members, and as siding.

The wood can be treated by chemical, semichemical, or

ground-wood processes to yield short-fibered pulp. Various low

grades of wrapping papers, printing papers, conminer boards,

and insulating boards are made from the pulp (Vick 1973).

The list of uses is lengthy-one compilation totaled more

than 80, not including pulpwood, veneer, and particleboard

(Core 1978). The most important recent uses have been as

lumber for hidden furniture parts and core stock, as rotarycut veneer for crossbands in construction of furniture parts,

as plywood for items such as backs and interior parts, and as

pulpwood (Core 1978, Smith 1978).

Because of availability of the wood, considerable attention

is being given to its use as structural framing material and for

veneers in structural plywood as a substitute for increasingly

scarce softwoods. Yellow-poplar has physical properties quite

comparable to those of many softwoods; therefore, these new

uses are technically feasible and acceptable to the building

trades (Koch 1978, Schick 1978).

Occurrence by Forest Types

Yellow-poplar is a component of 16 forest cover types

(USDA Forest Service 1965), a major species in 4, and a

minor species in the other 12:

Type No. Type (Major Component)

57 Yellow-poplar

58 Yellow-poplar-hemlock

59 Yellow-poplar-white oak-northern red oak

87 Sweetgum-yellow-poplar

21

22

51

52

53

55

60

64

81

82

90

91

Minor component

White pine

White pine-hemlock

White pine-chestnut oak

White oak-red oak-hickory

White oak

Northern red oak

Beech-sugar maple

Sassafras-persimmon

Loblolly pine

Loblolly pine-hardwood

Beech-southern magnolia

Swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak

On bottomlands and better drained soils of the Coastal

Plain, yellow-poplar occurs in mixture with tupelos, baldcypress, oaks, red maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine. In the

Piedmont, associated species include oaks, sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine,

hickories, flowering dogwood, sourwood, and redcedar.

At lower elevations in the Appalachian Mountains, yellowpoplar is found with black locust; eastern white pine; eastern

hemlock; hickories; white oak and other oaks; black walnut;

shortleaf, pitch, and Virginia pines; flowering dogwood; sourwood; sweet birch; blackgum; basswood; and Carolina silverbell. At higher elevations, associated species include northern

red oak, white ash, black cherry, cucumbertree, yellow buckeye, American beech, sugar maple, and yellow birch. Trees

associated with yellow-poplar in nonmountainous areas of the

North and Midwest include white oak, black oak, northern

red oak, white ash, beech, sugar maple, blackgum, flowering

dogwood, and hickories. (See appendix 5.)

Pure stands of yellow-poplar occupy only a small percentage of the total land within the natural range of the species,

but pure stands are usually on the kind of productive sites

that include some of the most valuable timber-producing

forests in eastern North America (Olson 1969). It has been

repeatedly observed in the Southern Appalachians that the

percentage of yellow-poplar increases noticeably with increasing quality of the site. Where yellow-poplar occurs in pure or

nearly pure stands on sites of medium or lower quality, it

likely originated on abandoned old-field sites.

Natural Variation

Many traits of yellow-poplar vary significantly among individual trees, among stands, and between geographic sources.
These variations are of interest to forest managers and users

of wood products, because they can be exploited through silvicultural practices and through selection and breeding programs (Dorman 1966; McKnight and Bonner 1961).

Varying degrees of genetic control have been demonstrated

for wood and tree properties such as specific gravity and fiber

length; straightness; branch angle; natural pruning ability;

leaf, fruit, and seed characteristics; disease resistance; growth

of seedlings; and length of growing season (Kellison 1967,

1968; Sluder 1964; Taylor 1964; Thor 1965, 1975, 1976; Thorbjornsen 1961; Wilcox and Taft 1969). For other important

traits, such as the tendency to produce epicormic sprouts, evidence exists that the trait is strongly inherited, but the evidence

is not conclusive (Della-Bianca 1972, Wahlenberg 1950a).

Vaartaja (1961) has demonstrated the existence of photoperiodic ecotypes of yellow-poplar. Under very long days

(3-hour dark periods) the northernmost source (Michigan)

grew best, and the southernmost source (Georgia) grew least.

With 6- to 12-hour dark periods, the converse resulted. At all

photoperiods, the Indiana source was intermediate. The most

consistent difference among geographic seed sources has

appeared in dormancy relationships (Farmer and others 1967,

Funk 1958, Limstrom 1955, Sluder 1960, Webb 1970). In an

experiment near Asheville, North Carolina, growth initiation

of seedlings from 16 geographic sources ranging from Mississippi to Michigan andcNew York was highly correlated with

conditions at the site of the mother tree; height-growth cessation was correlated with date of first killing frost of the

source (Sluder 1960). In general, the more northern sources

began to grow later and ceased earlier than the more southern

sources. Noting a similar dormancy pattern, Funk (1958)

found that damage from spring frost in a 3-year-old plantation in Ohio was generally related to latitude of seed source

and planting site. Trees from the four southernmost locations

suffered more extensive dieback than those from the three

more northern sources. Funk (1958) emphasized the desirability

of using locally produced yellow-poplar seed in forest planting. In a study of four geographic sources ranging from central Mississippi to Sewanee, Tennessee, trees from more

southerly sources foliated earlier than those from northern

areas (Farmer and others 1967).

Few studies are old enough to permit good comparisons of

volume differences for different seed sources, but significant

differences in early height growth have been reported (Farmer

and others 1967; Kellison 1968; Limstrom and Finn 1956;

Sluder 1960; Thor 1975, 1976).

While most geographic differences are associated with latitude of source, environmental differences associated with altitude are also important. In North Carolina, Kellison (1967)

demonstrated a clinal pattern of variation from coast to

mountain for several seed and leaf characteristics. There was

also a clinal pattern of variation in height growth for seedlings

in an upper Coastal Plain nursery; height growth decreased

from coast to mountains for seedlings from those locations

(Kellison 1968). Thor (1975, 1976) found differences in height

and diameter after 15 years for different altitudinal sources

from Tennessee and adjoining States when outplanted in Tennessee. In general, the high-altitude sources performed most

poorly. However, the test was limited in scope, so generalizations about altitudinal effects must be weighed with caution.

At least one distinct ecotype of yellow-poplar has been confirmed. The first evidence came from a plantation near

Figure S.-A comparison of variation in yellowpoplar leaf morphology among Mountain, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain provinces. The inset leaf

is representative of the southern coastal deep-peat

ecotype with rounded lobes and copperish-red

leaves. (Adapted from Kellison 1967)

9
I

Charleston, South Carolina; trees from a Coastal Plain source

in eastern North Carolina were twice as tall 3 years after outplanting as those from a Mountain source in western North

Carolina (Lotti 1955). Later, Kellison (1%8) found that trees

from the Coastal Plain source of North Carolina performed

poorly in comparison to upland sources when planted at a

Piedmont location, but were far superior to upland sources

when planted on organic soils of the Coastal Plain where a

pH of 4 is seldom exceeded. The Coastal Plain yellow-poplar

ecotype has a distinctive leaf pattern and color-rounded

lobes and copperish-red leaves (fig. 5). It is apparently

adapted to highly acidic, water-saturated organic soils of the

Coastal Plain, and can withstand periodic inundation without

harm. Schultz and Kormanik (1975) showed that Coastal

in yellow-poplar is very sensitive to soil moisture stress in

comparison to upland sources. In an upland clone, overdry

root weights varied less than 6 grams between ramets grown

under drying cycles of 1 and 15 atmospheres of soil moisture

tension. The swamp ecotype, however, showed a 75gram difference in root weight under similar levels of moisture tension. The Coastal Plain ecotype is apparently not restricted to

Table k-Insects that affect yellow-poplar’

North Carolina. Sources with the distinctive leaf characteristics have been found as far south as Florida (Kellison 1968).

No single seed source has been found that is adapted to

geographical extremes, but neither have local sources always

produced best growth. Distant seed sources and individual

trees have performed well in some cases; however, local

sources have proved themselves to be in phase with their environment and have efficiently used the growing season available to them (Webb 1970). Current recommendations for seed

collection would include selecting seed from a source where

climatic and edaphic factors are similar to the proposed outplanting site, with altitude as well as latitude considered.

Kellison (1968) recommended that North Carolina be divided

into four zones for collection of yellow-poplar seed: (1) lower

Coastal Plain (organic soils), (2) upper Coastal Plain (mineral

soils), (3) Piedmont, and (4) Mountains. Limstrom (1965) and

Rudolf (1956) have set up seed collection zones for the Central States based on climatic and geographic conditions supplemented by provenance research.

Parts

affected Common name Scientific name

Importance

Major Minor

Foliage -

Polyphemus moth

Tuliptree silk moth

Promethea moth

Flatheaded appletree borer

Tuliptree beauty

European fruit lecanium

Tuliptree aphid

Yellow-poplar weevil

-

-

Tulip tent maker moth

Tulip gall fly

Abgrallaspis (= Aspidiotus) townsendi (Cockerell)

Antheraea (= Telea) polyphemus (Cramer)

Callosamia angulifera Walker

Callosamia promethea (Drury)

Chrysobothris femorata (Oliver)

Epimecis virginaria (Cramer)

Lecanium corni BouchC

Macrosiphum liriodendri (Monell)

Odontopus (= Prionomerus) calceatus (Say)

Paralobesia liriodendrana (Kearfott)

Phyllocnistis liriodendrella Clemens

Polychrosis liriodendrana Kearfott

Thecodiplosis liriodendri Osten Sacken

Stems Coconut scale

-

Willow scurfy scale

Periodical cicada

Harper scale

Walnut scale

Tuliptree scale

Aspidiotus destructor Signoret

Aspidiotus ulmi Johns

Chionaspis salicisnigrae (Walsh)

Magicicada septendecim (Linnaeus)

Neopinnaspis harperi McKenzie

Quadraspidiotus (=Aspidiotus) juglansregiae (Comstock)

Tourneyella liriodendri (Gmelin)

Trunk - Ambrosiodmus tachygraphus (Zimmerman)

Pear blight beetle Ankandrus pyri (Peck)

- Buprestis rufipes (Oliver)

Flatheaded sycamore-her&wood borer Chalcophorella campestris (Say)

Flatheaded appletree borer Chrysobothris femorata (Oliver)

Columbian timber beetle Corthylus columbianus Hopkins

Oak-bark scaler Encyclops caerulea Say

Sapwood timberworm Hylecoetus lugubris Say

Melandryid bark borer Orchesia castanea Melsheimer

Ambrosia beetle Xyleborus saxeseni Ratzeburg)

X

X

Roots Root-collar borer Euzophera ostricolorella Hulst

‘Source: Adapted from Anderson (1975), Baker (1972), Brimley (193Q Burns (1970), Craighead (1950), and Johnson and Lyon (1976).

10
Principal Enemies and Damaging Agents

Yellow-poplar is unusually free from damage by pests in

comparison to many other commercially important species.

There are, however, a number of agents that can damage or

kill yellow-poplar throughout its life span.

Insects

Yellow-poplar is attacked by a variety of insects (table 4).

However, only four species are considered to have significant

economic impact.

The tuliptree scale, a sucking insect, damages yellow-poplar

by removing much phloem sap. It feeds on twigs less than

one-half inch in diameter and on adventitious twigs and callus

tissue. It can be found on yellow-poplars of any size, but it

damages seedlings and saplings most severely. Scale attack

often kills the leader and results in a crook where a lateral

branch takes over apical dominance. When the leader and

upper laterals are killed, the tree may become bushy and be

overtopped by its competitors. The most subtle expression of

damage is a loss of vigor. Symptoms become visible when the

lower branches of open-grown yellow-poplars blacken and die

and the foliage of the upper crown becomes thin and sparse.

The leaves and trunk develop a black, sooty mold, which

thrives on honeydew (Burns 1970). Parasites and predators

generally are effective control agents of the scale.

The yellow-poplar weevil is a small, blackish beetle that

feeds on buds and foliage. Before budbreak, the weevils

attack the swelling buds and make puncturelike feeding

marks. As the leaves unfold and enlarge, the insects feed

upon them too. After pupation, newly emerged weevils feed

on foliage. Their feeding produces numerous chlorotic spots

that give a burned appearance to severely attacked trees. No

control measure is effective other than using chemical sprays

to control adults. Parasitism in immature stages has occurred

at rates up to 50 percent, but has not prevented large population buildups. From 1960 to 1967, excluding 1963 and 1966,

yellow-poplar was attacked by the weevil over large areas in

Appalachia and the Ohio River Valley (Burns 1970, Burns

and Gibson 1968).

The root-collar borer is a moth larva. It bores in the

phloem tissue at the base of yellow-poplar trees in a zone 2

feet above soil line to 2 inches below it (Hay 1958). Most

attacks are on trees that are pole-size or larger. Borer attacks

are generally not severely damaging to trees; however, they

provide entry points for rots, other pathogens, and carpenter

ants. Trees infested with root-collar borer have shown considerable dieback and mortality (Hay 1958, Schuder and Giese

1962). No control measure is known, although small-scale

insecticide tests have been made (Burns 1970).

Attacks by the Columbian timber beetle do not kill the host

tree, but defects caused by attacks may seriously degrade the

wood. Most attacks are on the lowest 6 feet of the bole (Burns

1970). In yellow-poplar, the defect is known as “calico poplar” and consists of black-stained burrows and discolored wood

extending for a foot or more above and below the attack point.

No satisfactory control measures for this insect are known.

Diseases

Fire scars, logging damage, animal and bird damage, top

breakage, dying limbs, and decaying parent stumps of sproutorigin stems all provide entry for decay-causing fungi (table

5). Probably the most common type of decay associated with

sprouts and with basal wounding of trees by fire or logging is

a soft, spongy, white or gray rot caused by the fungus ArmilIuria mellea (Byler and True 1966, McCarthy 1933, True 1962,

True and Tryon 1966).

In a West Virginia study, 92 percent of trees that had their

tops broken by a snowstorm showed active decay 4 years

later. Most of the decay was a soft, spongy, white heartwood

rot caused by snow-break rot Collybia velutipes (Roth 1941).

In some cases, rot was found to have penetrated the tree boles

by as much as 72 inches. However, the extent of ultimate

spread and damage was unknown. Rot extended down the stem

three times faster than up the stem, and there was about twice

the amount of discoloration as there was rot (Roth 1941).

Yellow-poplar is also subject to heartrot in the main stem

through disease conduction by dead branches. In one study, 20

percent of dead tree branches examined were entry points for

heartrot; the larger the branch the greater was the chance of its

having heartrot (Toole 1961). The extent of rot was as much

as 109 inches in large branch wounds, and the rate of spread

was much faster downward than upward. When branch wounds

are large, associated rots can have major damaging effects.

Several fungal species have been associated with stem

cankers on yellow-poplar; in some cases the trees died.

Species of the genus Nectria have been associated with a

yellow-poplar canker in the Southeast (Nelson 1940). Incidence of the disease and mortality from it were greatest on

low-vigor, overtopped trees. On vigorous trees, cankers healed

quickly and apparently had little effect on tree viability.

Large stem canker Fusarium solani was isolated from

cankered yellow-poplars in Ohio and was shown to cause characteristic cankers through pathogenicity studies (Dochinger

and Seliskar 1962a, 1962b). Some mortality resulted during a

period of drought, but large stem canker is apparently not a

virulent pathogen and causes damage only when the host is

weakened by unfavorable environmental factors.

Dieback and associated stem canker of yellow-poplar saplings were reported by Toole and Huckenpahler (1954) to

have resulted in considerable mortality in some stands. A

fungus of the genus Myxosporium was associated with dead

bark of infected trees and was shown to cause canker formation after experimental inoculations. Dieback symptoms identical to symptoms found on yellow-poplars in Mississippi were

reported by Johnson and others (1957) for scattered areas

throughout the South. Symptoms included chlorosis of leaves,

sparse crown, trunk and branch cankers, and epicormic

sprouting. Several fungal species were consistently isolated

from cankered trees, but there was uncertainty about the

causative agent. The severity and extent of infection is greater

in upland sites than in bottomland sites. All canker-forming

diseases reported for yellow-poplar appear to be confined to,

11
or most severe on, trees of low vigor due to drought, poor

site, or competition.

A nursery root-rot disease caused by Cylindrocladium scoparium causes root and stem lesions (Kelman and Gooding

1965, Kelman and others 1959). It is frequently lethal in nursery beds, and when infected seedlings are outplanted, it

results in low survival and poor growth. Extensive root

damage and mortality in a 27-year-old yellow-poplar plantation was reported by Ross (1967).

Yellow-poplar logs, especially when cut in warm seasons,

are subject to rapid deterioration because of attacks of woodstaining fungi which feed largely on the starch and sugars in

the green sapwood and penetrate deeply while the wood is

moist. The most common and most rapid-staining species is

Ceratocystis pluriannulata. Other wood-staining species common

in yellow-poplar logs and boards are Ceratocystis coerulescens

and Graphium rigidum. The deterioration in grade that results

from staining is frequently great because of the large proportion of sapwood in second-growth yellow-poplar. Prompt use

of the logs reduces stain losses.

I oliage

Stems

Trunk

Roots

Sprouts

Stains

Sooty mold

Tar spot

-

Powdery mildew

-

Anthracnose

-

Leaf spot

Dieback

Sapstreak

Senescent stem canker

Large stem canker

Sooty blotch

Dieback

Canker

Verticillium wilt

Shoestring fungus

Heartwood rot

Butt and heartrot

Shoestring fungus

Root rot

Root rot

Blight

Shoestring fungus

Snow-break rot

Stump-sprout rot

-

-

-

-

-

Capnodium elongatum Berk. & Desm.

Ectostroma (Xyloma) liriodendri Kunze ex Fr.

Erysiphe liriodendri Schw.

Erysiphe polygoni DC.

Fumago vagans Fr.

Gloeosporium liriodendri E. & E.

Phyllactinia guttata (Fr.) Lev.

Phyllosticta liriodendrica Cke.

Botryosphaeria ribis (Dothiorella gregaria)

(Tod. ex Fr.) Gross. & Dug.

Ceratocystis coerulescens (Endoconidiophora virescens) (Mttnch) Bak.

Cytospora leucostoma var. magnoliae D. Sacc.

Fusarium solani (Mart.) App. & Wr. em Snyd. & Hans.

Gloeodes pomigena (Schw.) Colby

Myxosporium spp.

Nectria magnoliae Lohm. & Hept.

Verticillium albo-atrum Reinke & Berth.

Armillaria mellea Vahl. ex Fr.

Fomes applanatus (Pers. ex S. F. Gray) Gill

Fomes connatus (Weinm. ex Fr.) Gill

Fomes everhartii (Eli. & Cell.) Schr. & Spauld.

Fomes robiniophilus (Murr.) Lloyd

Hydnum erinaceus Fr.

Hypholoma spp.

Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq. ex Fr.) Kumm.

Polyporus graveolens (Schw.) Fr.

Polyporus sulphureus Bull. ex Fr.

Polyporus zonalis Berk.

Armillaria mellea Vahl. ex Fr.

Phymatatrichum omnivorum (Shear) Dugg.

Cylindrocladium scoparium Morg.

Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn

Armillaria mellea Vahl. ex Fr.

Collybia velutipes (Curt.) Fr.

Phialophora spp.

Ceratocystis coerulescens (Munch) Bak.

Ceratocystis multiannulata (Hedg. & Davids.) Hunt

Ceratocystis pluriannulata (Hedg.) C. Mor.

Graphium rigidum (Pers.) Sacc.

Lasiosphaeria pezicula (B. & C.) Sacc.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

‘Source: Adapted from Hepting (1971).

12
Fire

Because yellow-poplar seedlings and saplings have thin

bark, they are extremely susceptible to fire damage. Even a

light ground fire is usually enough to kill tops of small stems

up to 1 inch in diameter. These stems may resprout after fire,

but fire can reduce yellow-poplar on a site (McGee 1979,

1980). The bark does not burn readily, and when it becomes

thick enough to insulate the cambium (about one-half inch),

yellow-poplar becomes extremely fire resistant (McCarthy

1933). Damage to larger trees results from old fire-caused

wounds that permit fungi to attack the heartwood. Of 94

decayed yellow-poplar trees examined in western North Carolina, 59 had healed-over fire scars, 34 had open fire scars, and

1 tree had an open lightning scar (McCarthy 1933). Cull

deduction due to fire was 15.9 percent. In the Appalachian

region from 1924 through 1928, the most common wounds on

yellow-poplar standing timber were caused by fire (45.3 percent) and lightning (0.7 percent) (Hepting and Hedgcock 1937).

Climate

Sleet and glaze storms occur occasionally throughout most

of the natural range of yellow-poplar (Olson 1969). Damage

done by glaze storms varies with tree size, nature of the

stand, and attendant climatic factors such as wind or calm.

Where heavy ice formation or accumulation of wet, heavy

snow is accompanied by strong winds, entire stands may be

decimated. Saplings or poles with slender boles are particularly susceptible to breakage. Damage may .be severe from

glaze storms that follow thinnings in formerly dense stands

(Carve11 and others 1957, McCarthy 1933).

More commonly, glaze results in only partial crown loss.

Such top damage may result in a permanent bole crook, in

entry of decay-causing fungi into the trunk, and in loss of

growth (Carve11 and others 1957, McCarthy 1933, Roth 1941).

Many stands, particularly at higher elevations, contain numerous trees with a definite crook at a common height, which

suggests glaze damage. Some stands show evidence of two or

more glaze storms. Through stem analysis, Carve11 and others

(1957) traced breakage in a West Virginia yellow-poplar stand

to a winter for which meteorological records showed frequent

glaze storms. They also found that the percentage of damaged

trees increased with the intensity of thinning. Stands in which

less than 30 percent of the volume was removed had least

damage. Isolated tree crowns resulting from heavy thinnings

are very susceptible to glaze damage.

Yellow-poplar has shown unusual ability to recover from

ice damage if crown loss is not complete. In a 50-year-old

stand thinned at age 43, a winter glaze storm resulted in

severe crown breakage (Della-Bianca and Beck 1977). Crown

loss averaged 39 percent, with some trees losing as much as 90

percent of their crown. Poststorm loss in diameter growth was

about 35 percent, and represents a 1:l ratio for percentage of

crown loss to loss in diameter growth rate. A concurrent

study of litter production in the stand showed that the

amount of foliage produced the following growing season was

90 percent of its prestorm weight, indicating rapid recovery of

live crown (fig. 6).

Figure 6.-After glaze damage, yellow-poplar recovers its leaf-production capacity rapidly by profuse

epicormic sprouting along surviving stub and live

branches. (Della-Bianca and Beck 1977) F-529649

Frost, and particularly frost pockets, can have significant

impact on early growth and development of yellow-poplar

(Olson 1969). Tryon and True (1964) rated yellow-poplar as

among the Appalachian species most susceptible to frost damage. In one instance, newly formed yellow-poplar foliage was

killed by a freeze in late May of 1961 at elevations above

3,400 feet along Rich Mountain in east-central West Virginia.

Yellow-poplar diameter growth for 1961 was 64 percent less

than the prefreeze 5-year average (Tryon and True 1968).

Frost damage in a 3-year-old plantation in Ohio was associated with seed sources (Funk 1958). Funk emphasized the

desirability of using locally produced seed in forest planting

and avoiding sites with poor air drainage and lower-slope

frost pockets. Older trees are also damaged to some extent by

such conditions. After a late spring frost in a 20-year-old

plantation, leaf mortality varied from 5 to 100 percent for

individual trees (White and Finn 1964). Such a leaf loss usually

has only a slight impact on growth because new leaves are

soon regenerated. Frost may also cause bole damage in the

13
form of shake-a separation of growth rings resulting in cull.

A weather-induced defect called blister shake, related to frost

shake, that occurred in 30-year-old yellow-poplar trees in

West Virginia has been described by Tryon and True (1952).

Plooding can kill yellow-poplar. Hall and others (1946) classified yellow-poplar as intolerant to flooding because it will

not survive continuous flooding 1 foot deep for one growing

season. A study done in 1958 near Oxford, Mississippi, showed

that all yellow-poplars flooded continuously for as long as 19

days died, and those flooded for as long as 10 days were

damaged (Williston 1959). A Cyear-old plantation in Georgia

subjected to only 3 or 4 days of continuous flooding suffered

considerable damage and mortality (McAlpine 1959a). Hook

and Brown (1973) found roots of yellow-poplar seedlings

rapidly deteriorated under flooding and no new roots were

regenerated.

Animal Damage

Twigs and foliage of yellow-poplar are succulent and often

heavily browsed by livestock and deer in preference to other

tree species. Seedlings are often grazed to the ground, and

small saplings trimmed back or straddled and severely damaged

(Olson 1969). Where deer are overabundant, as in western Pennsylvania, yellow-poplar regeneration can be totally prevented

by continual deer browsing of seedlings (McCarthy 1933).

Cattle eat the current growth of yellow-poplar, especially

when they are concentrated in small enclosures (McCarthy

1933). In a grazing study in a North Carolina woodlot, Sluder

(1958) found that during the first year cattle browsed all

yellow-poplar in reach. By the end of the third growing

season, coves and lower slopes were particularly bare of

ground vegetation, and a browse line was evident. After nine

growing seasons, yellow-poplar in the 3- to 9-inch diameter

class had 50 percent less radial growth on grazed plots than

on ungrazed plots, presumably because severe soil compaction

and erosion had developed on the grazed plots.

In a study of simulated browsing over a 5-year period in

western North Carolina (Harlow and Halls 1972), yellowpoplar seedlings whose terminal and lateral twigs were clipped

in summer were significantly shorter in height, had smaller

stem diameter, and had shorter twigs than those clipped in

winter. Also, mortality was greater and dry-weight production

was less. Harlow and Halls (1972) concluded that yellowpoplar seedlings are only slightly affected by browsing of lateral branches either in summer or winter. However, terminal

browsing in summer caused seedling mortality of 40 percent

or more. In the Southeast, woody twigs are eaten most during

the growing season (Cushwa and others 1970), so heavy

browsing could result in severe growth reduction and high

mortality. But harvesting on fertile sites produces so much

regeneration that moderate browsing can be tolerated (DellaBianca and Johnson 1965, Harlow and Downing 1970).

Rabbits and other rodents eat bark and buds of small

yellow-poplars and can cause extensive damage. Also, regeneration can be hampered by seed predation because yellowpoplar seed is part of wildlife diets. Quail, purple finch, cardinals, cottontail rabbit, red squirrel, gray squirrel, and whitefooted mice are some of the birds and animals that eat

yellow-poplar seed (Olson 1969). On forested sites of the

Cumberland Plateau, screen protection of seed spots tripled

yellow-poplar seedling establishment (Russell 1973). Similar

results were experienced in North Carolina (Sluder and

Rodenbach 1964). Considerable lumber degrade from “bird

peck” is periodically caused by the common sapsucker.

Vines

Vines can be extremely damaging to yellow-poplar. Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, and climbing bittersweet have been

known to harm yellow-poplar in isolated cases. However, the

most widespread damage results from wild grapevines. Throughout the Appalachians, grapevines are becoming a serious

problem on good sites that have been regenerated naturally by

clearcutting.

Wild grapes reproduce by both seeds and sprouts. In mature

stands, grapevines that are cut or broken during a harvest

operation sprout and grow vigorously in the resulting full sunlight. Such sprouts may grow as much as 15 feet in the first

year (Trimble 1973b). Uncut vines also root-layer prolifically

when they come into contact with the soil. Because of their

rapid growth, vines grow up with the developing stand and

spread from tree to tree. Numerous grapevines of seedling

origin develop from seed that may remain viable in the forest

floor for up to 6 years (Smith and Lamson 1975). There were

as many as 70,000 grape seedlings per acre at the end of the

first growing season after clearcutting on a good site in West

Virginia (Trimble and Tryon 1974). However, seedling-origin

vines are not as serious a threat as sprout-origin vines because

they grow more slowly and suffer considerable mortality.

After 5 years, of the initial 70,000 grape seedlings, 195 per

acre survived. Of these, only 139 per acre were climbing into

tree crowns of selected crop trees.

Grapevines can completely occupy sizable areas of regenerating stands. For example, in a 5-year-old sapling stand,

which regenerated after a clearcutting in the Southern Appalachians, grapevines completely covered areas up to onequarter acre in size (McGee and Hooper 1970). Seventeen percent of the 50-acre area was covered by masses of grapevines

to the exclusion of any trees (fig. 7). Areas completely

smothered by grapevines are very obvious, but perhaps even

greater damage may eventually result from vines that become

an integral part of the developing stand without engulfing it.

Smith ano Lamson (1975) reported that six 12- to 15-yearold stands on good to excellent sites had an average of about

700 vines per acre intertwined with the developing tree

crowns. Nearly 70 percent of the saplings had vines in their

crowns. On poorer quality sites, vines were less of a problem.

On areas with a medium site index for yellow-poplar, there

were only 16 vines per acre, and they were affecting less than

3 percent of the tree crowns.

14
Site Requirements

Figure 7.-A naturally regenerated 5-year-old

cleaicut in which grapevines have completely

excluded trees from patches as large as one-quarter

acre. F-52%53

Figure I.--Grapevines smothering S-year-old

yellow-poplar saplings by breaking limbs and tops,

twisting and bending the main stem, and restricting photosynthesis by intercepting needed sunlight.

Vines become established in saplings soon after

clearcutting. F-529654

Grapevines damage young trees by breaking limbs and tops,

twisting and bending the main steam, and intercepting solar

radiation (fig. 8). The result is reduced growth, malformation

of stem and crown, and sometimes death of the tree. Grapevines

also worsen winter storm damage in some areas by furnishing

increased surface area for accumulation of ice and snow.

Climate

Because of its wide geographic distribution, yellow-poplar

grows under a variety of climatic conditions. Low-temperature

extremes range from severe winters in southern New England

and upper New York with a mean January temperature of

19°F to almost frost-free winters in central Florida with a

mean January temperature of 61 “F. Average July temperature

ranges from 69°F in the northern sector to 81 “F in the southern (USDA 1941). The average number of days without killing

frost ranges from 150 to over 310 days within the range of

yellow-poplar. Rainfall ranges from 30 inches in the Midwest

to more than 80 inches in some areas of the Southern Appalachians (USDA Forest Service 1965).

Effects of temperature and moisture extremes are tempered

somewhat by local topography. At the northern end of its

range, yellow-poplar is usually found in valleys and stream

bottoms at elevations below 1,000 feet. But in the Southern

Appalachians, it may grow on a variety of sites, including

stream bottoms, coves, and moist slopes up to an elevation of

about 4,500 feet. Toward the southern limit of its range,

where high temperatures and soil moisture probably become

limiting, the species is usually confined to moist but welldrained streambottoms.

Optimum development of yellow-poplar occurs where rainfall is well distributed over a long growing season (USDA

Forest Service 1965). But in West Virginia, rainfall affected

diameter growth during the early growing season more than

during the total growing season (Tryon and Meyers 1952).

Soils and Topography

Yellow-poplar thrives on soil types with various physical

properties, chemical compositions, and parent materials. Exceptionally good growth has been observed on alluvial soils bordering streams; on loam soils of mountain coves; on talus

slopes below cliffs and bluffs; and on well-watered, gravelly

soils (McCarthy 1933). In general, where yellow-poplar occurs

naturally and grows well, the soils are moderately moist, well

drained, and loose textured; it rarely does well in very wet or

very dry conditions.

Studies in locations as varied as the Coastal Plain of New

Jersey, the Central States, the Great Appalachian Valley, the

Piedmont of the Carolinas and Virginia, the Cumberland

Plateau, and the mountains of north Georgia have isolated

soil features that are measures of effective rooting depth and

moisture-supplying capacity, and that are the most important

determinants of growth (Auten 1937a, 1937b, 1945; Coile

1948; Czapowskyj 1%2; Della-Bianca and Olson l%l; Gilmore

and others 1968; Hebb 1962; Hacker 1953; Ike and Huppuch

1968; McCarthy 1933; Metz 1947; Minckler 1941a, 1941b;

Munn and Vimmerstedt 1980; Phillips 1966; Schomaker 1958;

Smalley 1964; Tryon and others 1960). These variables are in

quantitative terms such as relative content of sand, silt, and

clay; depth of humus accumulation; organic matter content of

15
Figure 9.-Taking volumetric soil samples from the

A, horizon of a Piedmont forest soil. F-486080

Figure 10.-A freshly opened yellow-poplar

flower. The anthers are unopened, and the lightcolored, succulent stigmas are receptive to pollen.

(Sluder 1966) F-52%72

various horizons of the soil profile; percent moisture retention; available water; and depth to impermeable layers (fig. 9).

The same studies also stressed that topographic features

plus latitude and elevation-which partially determine the

amount of incoming solar radiation, rate of evaporation, or

otherwise influence moisture-supplying capacity of soil-are

important variables in assessing site suitability for yellowpoplar growth. The best growth is usually on north and east

aspects, on lower slopes, in sheltered coves, and on gentle

concave slopes. Yellow-poplar growth is usually poor on narrow ridges and upper slopes, on south to west aspects, and on

steep convex slopes.

Low levels of soil nutrients-most frequently nitrogen, but

also phosphorus and potassium-have occasionally been linked

to slow growth of yellow-poplar (Chapman 1935, Czapowskyj

1962, Gilmore and others 1968, Mitchell and Chandler 1939,

Schomaker and Rudolph 1964). However, soil physical properties far overshadow chemical properties in determining distribution and growth of yellow-poplar.

Natural Regeneration

Seed Production

Yellow-poplar trees usually produce their first flowers

between ages 15 and 20 (Little and others 1962). Flowering

occurs from April to June, depending on location and weather

conditions (USDA Forest Service 1965). The singly occurring,

perfect flower is tuliplike in form and size, 1% to 2 inches

wide, with six petals that are a light yellowish green at the

margin with a deep orange band at the center; the flower lasts

only a week or two (McCarthy 1933, Vick 1973) (fig. 10). The

length of the flowering period for each tree varies from 2 to 6

weeks depending on the size and age of the tree and number

of flowers per tree (Taft 1%2). Pollination must occur soon

after the flowers open and while the stigmas are light colored

and succulent; brown stigmas are no’longer receptive to

pollen (Sluder 1966). Normally the receptive period is only 12

to 24 daylight hours long (Boyce and Kaeiser l%l).

At maturity, stigmas and pollen grains are mucilagenous

(sticky). The sticky pollen masses adhere to insects and are

brushed onto the hairy reflexed stigmas as the insect passes by

(Boyce and Kaeiser l%l). Flies (Muscidae), beetles (Coleoptera),

honeybees (&is sp.), and bumblebees (Bombus sp.)-in decreasing order of abundance-were observed on opened flowers

(Wright 1953). However, uncontrolled insect pollinations do

not result in effective pollination of all stigmas, and a great

deal of selfing occurs (Boyce and Kaeiser l%l). According to

Taft (1%6), bees should be an integral par;t of all yellowpoplar seed orchards.

Higher percentages of filled seed result from cross-pollination (Boyce and Kaeiser 1%1, Carpenter and Guard 1950) and

crosses among widely separated trees (Boyce and Kaeiser

1961). Only about 10 percent of most open-pollinated samaras

contain a viable seed, but since each samara has the potential

for two seeds, actual viability is seldom more than 5 percent

16
Figure Il.-Liriodendron tulipifera, yellow-poplar:

A, Cone; B, single samara, 2X: C, longitudinal

section through a embryo of a samara, 4X. (USDA

Forest Service 1974)

(Thor 1976). Seed viability varies greatly between trees, but

individuals regularly produce seeds of a given viability (LimStrom 1959, Wean and Guard 1940). In Indiana, the percentage

of filled seed for trees 15 inches or less in diameter was onethird more than that for larger trees (Guard and Wean 1941).

Seed from the upper two-thirds of the crown were filled 4

percent more than seed from the lower third. Also, trees in

closed stands had about the same percentage of filled seed as

did trees in open stands, and seed quality was nearly the same

on fertile and poor soil. By controlled cross-pollination of

yellow-poplar, Carpenter and Guard (1950) obtained up to 90

percent filled seed per cone; the highest percentage of filled

seed for an open-pollinated tree was 34.8. Also, cross-pollinated

seedlings tended to be more vigorous than seedlings obtained

from open pollination.

Yellow-poplar fruit is a conelike aggregate of many winged

carpels or samaras borne on a central stalk (fig. 11). About 80

samaras are produced in each fruit, each bearing two seeds,

one usually aborted (Carve11 and Korstian 1955, Kellison

1967, USDA Forest Service 1%5). The cones turn from green

to light brown as they ripen and mature from early August in

the north to late October in the south (USDA Forest Service

1974). In Indiana, samaras are morphologically mature

between mid-August and mid-September, but seed should not

be gathered until the first week in September (Guard 1943). In

the Piedmont of North Carolina, seedfall begins in midOctober and reaches its peak in early November (Carve11 and

Korstian 1955). High seedfall occurs during dry periods with

high temperatures, with periods of heavy rainfall resulting in

low rates of seed dissemination. Viable seed is disseminated

from mid-October to mid-March; the percentage of viability is

about equal throughout the seedfall period.

Dissemination

Yellow-poplar is a prolific seeder, and large crops are produced almost annually. Seed bearing may continue ‘for more

than 200 years. In North Carolina, a IO-inch tree produced 750

cones with 7,500 sound seeds, and a 20-inch tree produced 3,250

cones with 29,000 sound seeds (Carve11 and Korstian 1955).

Seedfall per acre is characteristically heavy. A study in

North Carolina showed that a fall of 300,000 seeds or more

per acre is not uncommon (Carve11 and Korstian 1955). In

West Virginia and in southern Indiana some 500,000 seeds

were produced per acre per year (Engle 1960, Tryon and

Carve11 1960). Whipple (1968) reported a seedfall of more

than 600,000 seeds per acre within one chain of a good seed

tree in the upper Coastal Plain of Alabama. Measurement of

the 1966 seed crop in 19 stands in the Southern Appalachians

showed an average of 1.5 million seeds per acre.’

The individual winged samaras may be scattered by the wind

to distances equal to four or five times the height of a tree

(McCarthy 1933). In southern Indiana, a seedfall pattern was

shown to be oval with the center north of the seed tree (Engle

‘Olson, David F., Jr. 1967. Data filed, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station (SE-I 102), Asheville, N.C.

17
1960). Prevailing south and southwest winds occasionally carried seeds over 600 feet. Distribution of filled seed was satisfactory, 1,000 to 10,000 seeds per acre; seeds were distributed

up to three chains from a good seed tree in the direction of

the prevailing wind and 1.5 chains in all others directions

(Whipple 1968). Dissemination of sound seed was unsatisfactory

for seedling establishment where seed-producing trees were

more than four chains apart in the direction of the prevailing

wind or three chains apart in other directions. Directions and

distances of dispersal vary with prevailing winds and topography, but seed dispersal is generally adequate.

Not only is yellow-poplar a prolific seed producer, but its

seeds retain their viability in the forest floor for 4 to 7 years

(Clark and Boyce 1964, Herr and Carve11 1975, Sander and

Clark 1971)’ Many seeds on the forest floor are capable of

producing seedlings when suitable environmental conditions

exist. In West Virginia, a study in three 40-year-old stands

with 41 to 190 yellow-poplar trees per acre showed from

97,080 to 192,000 sound seeds per acre in the forest floor

(Herr and Carve11 1975). These seeds produced between

56,000 and 77,000 seedlings per acre when transferred to an

open area and kept well watered.

Seedling Establishment

Yellow-poplar seed must overwinter under natural conditions or be stratified under controlled conditions to overcome

internal dormancy. Under controlled conditions, stratification

in moist sand within a temperature range of 32 ’ to 50 “F for

70 to 90 days resulted in satisfactory germination (Carpenter

and Guard 1950, Chadwick 1935). However, seedling yield

increases with increasing stratification time.

In an experiment simulating natural field conditions, Clark

and Boyce (1964) showed that stratification for one winter

does not break dormancy of all seeds, but after two winters

of stratification most viable yellow-poplar seeds germinate.

Limstrom (1958) found that seeds stratified 1 or 3 years produced more seedlings over 6 inches tall than unstratified seeds

when all seeds were sown the same fall. Williams and Mony

(1962) also found that seedling yield increased with increased

stratification time. Filled seeds that produced seedlings ranged

from lo-percent germination for fall-sown fresh seeds to 55

percent for seeds stratified for 3 years.

Germinating yellow-poplar seedlings need a suitable seedbed

and adequate moisture to survive and become established.

Yellow-poplar regeneration will develop better on the surface

of the soil A horizon or on well-decomposed organic matter

(H layer) than on undecomposed organic matter or on the

surface of the soil B horizon (Boyce and Parry 1958). Tryon

and Carve11 (196u) found that in West Virginia a tightly matted

humus layer tended to keep seedlings from germinating. In the

same locality, where there was little humus and only sparse

‘See also Olson, David F., and Tim W. Jarrett. 1970. A study of yellowpoplar seed viability as affected by length of time on the ground. 11 p. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station (SE-I 102). Asheville, N.C. (Closed study files.)

herbaceous cover, newly germinated yellow-poplar seedlings

were abundant. In the North Carolina Piedmont, Carve11 and

Korstian (1955) reported that the number of yellow-poplar

seedlings becoming established was greatest where little or no

litter was present on the soil surface. A southern Illinois study

(Minckler and Jensen 1959) showed that on moist sites, both

in cut openings and under forest canopies, yellow-poplar seedlings became established most easily where litter depth was

less than 1 inch. Clark and Boyce (1964) observed that some

seeds germinate in forest litter without a mineral seedbed, but

the yellow-poplar seedlings rarely live more than one growing

season. In Maryland, McCarthy (1933) found that a spring

surface fire in a moist bottomland destroyed the litter layer

and the yellow-poplar seed from the previous fall. However,

up to eight times more yellow-poplar seedlings became established on the burned bottomland than on unburned bottomland. McCarthy assumed the seedlings in the burn germinated

from an earlier seed crop buried beneath the more inflammable top litter.

Logging operations also bring dormant seeds in forest litter

into contact with mineral soil, thereby triggering germination.

Seeds that fall at the time of cutting can also reach mineral soil

and hasten the germination-establishment process. Sims (1932)

reported that for 4 years, areas that were either clearcut and

burned or uncut but burned had more yellow-poplar seedlings

than unburned areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountains.

After germination, yellow-poplar seedlings develop a strong

taproot rapidly. The taproot can grow to about 27 inches long

in the first growing season. Two weeks or less after germination, the uppermost strong lateral roots are nearly as long as

and, in some cases, longer than the taproot (Tourney 1929).

Despite rapid root development, the first few years after germination are critical ones for seedling establishment. Excessive

drying, flooding, frost heaving, and vegetative competition

may harm seedlings at this early stage. Rapid and deep root

penetration is critical to survival in droughty times, and a

loose, easily penetrated soil enhances the chance for survival.

In a study in Connecticut in which different mulches were

used to induce variation in soil temperature, seedlings grew

faster in warm soil than in cool soil. Soil temperatures up to

97 “F aided seedling growth when moisture was adequate.

And seedlings mulched with black polyethylene grew taller

and survived better than hay-mulched and unmulched seedlings in the Cheshire fine sandy loam (Stephens 1965). In Alabama, bared soil with high evaporation rates and high surface

soil temperatures in conjunction with two prolonged droughts

was associated with high lst-year seedling mortality (Whipple

1968). Abundant soil moisture well distributed throughout the

growing season in well-drained, fertile soils is certainly a key

to successful yellow-poplar establishment.

Clark (1963) found that yellow-poplar seedlings infected

with endotrophic mycorrhizal fungi grew much faster than

seedlings grown without mycorrhizae. Anything that reduced

or eliminated the naturally occurring fungi would slow seedling development.

18
Figure 12.-The 2-year-old regeneration in this

clearcut shows the results of yellow-poplar’s prolific stump-sprouting after second-growth stands

are harvested. F-52%50

Kozlowski (1949) found that yellow-poplar reached maximum or near-maximum photosynthetic efficiency at relatively

low light intensities. In West Virginia, Tryon and Carve11

(1960), investigating why yellow-poplar seedlings did poorly

under an overstory canopy, found that the amount of sunlight

reaching the forest floor in June amounted to 1.33 percent;

where herbaceous cover existed, it was only 0.13 percent.

After the first growing season, vegetative competition (including intraspecies competition), rather than climatic and edaphic

factors, may become the most important factor affecting survival. Scarified areas in northern Alabama that were bare in

spring and early summer were partially covered with sprouts,

forbs, grasses, and vines by late summer and early fall (Whipple

1968). Vines were less of a threat to yellow-poplar seedlings

on scarified areas than on undisturbed areas because they

were prostrate on scarified areas; on undisturbed areas, vines

were more dense and covered all levels of other vegetation.

Little (1967) recommended special measures to eliminate Japanese honeysuckle from regeneration areas in the Coastal

Plain and Piedmont sections of New Jersey and Maryland.

He also noted that herbaceous cover did not severely limit

establishment, survival, and growth of yellow-poplar seedlings. Sims (1932) found that after logging and burning in a

creek bottom in the southern Appalachians, severe competition from ferns was the most obvious cause of death of

yellow-poplar seedlings. McCarthy (1933) regarded sprout

growth of other tree species after pulpwood cutting to be the

most serious threat to yellow-poplar seedling establishment

and development.

Sprout Reproduction

Yellow-poplar of the age and size currently harvested in second-growth stands produces stump sprouts prolifically (fig. 12).

Wendel(1975) found that 97 percent of the yellow-poplar

stumps on two harvested areas in West Virginia produced

sprouts. Trees ranging from 6 to 22 inches in diameter produced an average of 42 sprouts per stump 1 year after

harvest. True (1953) reported an average of 21 sprouts on

l-year-old yellow-poplar stumps ranging from 6 to 26 inches

in diameter. The percentage of stumps sprouting and the

number of sprouts per stump decreased with increasing size of

stump. More than 95 percent of the 6-inch stumps sprouted,

but only 40 percent of the 26- to 30-inch stumps did. Sprouts

per stump decreased from 31 for 6-inch stumps to 8 for

26-inch stumps.

Yellow-poplar sprouts arise chiefly from preexisting dormant

buds situated near the base of dead or dying stems, or near

the soil line on stumps. Sprouts may develop as high up as 12

to 15 inches on high stumps, but more than 80 percent arise

at or below the soil line (True 1953). Their position on the

stump is important to subsequent development. Sprouts arising from roots, or from the stump below groundline, usually

lack a heartwood connection because the roots and belowground portions of the stump do not normally contain heartwood. The sapwood tissues separate heartwood columns of

stump and sprout and may prevent heartrot fungi that enter

the stump from spreading to the heartwood of the sprout

(True and Tryon 1966).

The initial growth rate of yellow-poplar sprouts far exceeds

that of young seedlings (Renshaw and Doolittle 1958) (fig. 13).

In western North Carolina, the dominant sprout on each of

60 stumps on a good site grew an average of 4.7 feet per year

over the first 6 years (Beck 1977). At age 24, these sprouts

averaged 80 feet tall and 9.6 inches d.b.h. In West Virginia,

the dominant stem of each sprout clump grew at 2.9 feet per

year for 11 years on a medium-quality site for yellow-poplar

(Wendel 1975).

McCarthy (1933) suggested that yellow-poplar sprouts are

poor risks for future crop trees because of poor survival.

However, recent studies show very good survival for stump

sprouts. Of stumps with sprouts at age 6, nearly 90 percent

had one or more sprouts intact at age 24 in western North

Carolina (Beck 1977). Wendel (1975) reported that 91 percent

of stumps with sprouts 1 year after cutting still had one or

more viable sprouts 9 years later.

Sprout clumps of yellow-poplar, unlike those of white oak,

have shown outstanding ability to thin themselves naturally.

Sprout clumps dropped from an average of 6.4 stems at age 6

to only 2.1 stems at age 24. It was estimated that 65 percent

of the sprout clumps would be reduced to only one stem, 25

percent would retain two stems of about equal size, and the

remaining 10 percent would have three or four codominant

stems per parent stump-all with the potential to produce

sawtimber trees of good quality (Beck 1977, Wendel 1975).

Butt rot from the parent stump and from dying ancillary

stems occurs in some sprout-origin trees. Incidence of rot is

19
Management of the Species

Figure 13.-An outstanding example of a yellowpoplar sprout. This 5-year-old tree is 5 inches

d.b.h., 35 feet tall, and is growing in a ‘IO-acre

clearcut in the Southern Appalachians. F-529655

greater in sprouts originating higher on the stump and on

sprouts from large stumps (Beck 1977; True and Tryon 1966).

In one study, however, about 50 percent of the sprout clumps

produced at least one stem with minimal risk of butt rot (Beck

1977). Most of the stems with butt rot had attained pulpwood

or even small sawlog size at age 24. Although they are poor

risks as future crop trees, such sprouts can be removed in early

thinnings. Wendel (1975) concluded that 85 percent of the

sprout clumps of his study produced at least one stem that

was well anchored and vigorous, had a well-developed crown,

and had ample clear length. Although some stump sprouts

may not be desirable, the many good sprouts add considerably

to the ability of yellow-poplar to reproduce itself.

Determining Site Quality

Proper classification of site quality is critical for management of yellow-poplar, a site-sensitive species. Quality of the

site will dictate to a large extent species composition; the ease

of obtaining regeneration; cultural practices likely to be needed;

and, ultimately, growth and yield of the stand.

There are several ways of recognizing site capacity for yellowpoplar: tree size at a given age, soil properties, topographic

features, and the presence of vegetative types that are indicators of site quality.

Site Index

The most direct and commonly used technique for classifying site quality is to use the tree itself as an indicator. Site

index, or height of the dominant stand at index age 50, has

proved a good indicator of relative site productivity for

yellow-poplar. The species is particularly suited to this technique because it normally has a single, well-defined central

leader. So, height measurement is easy and precise. Intolerant

of shade, yellow-poplar commonly grows in even-aged stands

and does not tend to move up in crown position. It either

stays in the overstory throughout its life or eventually dies

160

120

110

70

60

50

30

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 loo

Age (Years)

Figure 14.-Site index curves at an index age 50

for yellow-ponlar in the Southern Appalachian

Mountains. (Adapted from Beck 1962)

20
out. Thus, its height at a given age reflects the quality of the

site rather than some effect of competing trees.

Four sets of site-index curves are currently used for yellowpoplar:

Southern Appalachian curves.-The site-index curves in

figure 14 (Beck 1962) are for a stand age of 20 to 100 years

and site range of 50 to 130 feet at 50 years. These curves are

based on a sample of stands in north Georgia and western

North Carolina, and on measurements of about 25 dominant

and codominant trees per acre. Site index can be calculated by

entering height and age in figure 14, or from the equation:

log,, site index = log,, height - 9.158 (l/50 - l/age).

Suggested area of use for these curves is the Mountain province, especially south of West Virginia.

Central Appalachian curves.-Schlaegel and others (1969)

developed site-index curves (fig. 15) from stands in West Virginia.

The site-index curves cover an age range from 20 to 80 years

and sites ranging from 60 to 110 feet at age 50. The estimating equation is:

logLo site index = log,0 height - 7.716 (l/50 - l/age).

These curves approximate the site-index values of the

Southern Appalachian curves (Beck 1962) over most of the

140

120

15 30 45 60

Age (Years)

75 90

Figure 15.--Site-index curves for West Virginia

yellow-poplar. (Adapted from Schlaegel and others

1969)

age range. Except at extreme ages (below 20 years, or over

80), the two sets of curves give estimates within one IO-point

site class.

Piedmont curves.-Site-index curves in figure 16 are based

on sample stands from the Piedmont of the two Carolinas

and Virginia (Beck 1962). The equation is:

log,, site index = log,, height - 6.503 (l/50 -l/age).

Regionwide curves.-McCarthy’s (1933) site-index curves

(fig. 17) were developed from stands distributed over most of

the range of yellow-poplar. They are restricted to an age

range of 10 to 50 years because of a lack of older stands at

the time they were prepared. These curves are essentially

similar to the Piedmont curves by Beck (1962) in figure 16

and can be substituted for them.

It should be noted for all the site curves presented that estimates for stands less than 20 years old are subject to substantial error due to the variability of growth in early years. In

applying the curves, care should be taken to pick trees that

come from the dominant and codominant crown classes that

show no signs of suppression or crown breakage, and that

appear to have maintained their position in the canopy

throughout their life. The sampling intensity for site-index

160

150

0 10 20 3040 50 60 70 80 90 loo

Age (Years)

I 130

Figure 16.-Site-index curves at index age 50 for

yellow-poplar in the Piedmont of Virginia and the

Carolinas. (Adapted from Beck 1962)

21
140 120

110

120 si 100 m

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Age (Years)

Figure 17.-Height in feet of average dominant

and codominant trees, by site index at 50 years, in

Coastal Plain and Piedmont areas, in natural

range outside Mountain areas. (Adapted from

McCarthy 1933)

estimates should approximate 25 sample trees per acre. The

ability to estimate site index to one point or less, by using the

equations, should not create a false sense of accuracy for the

estimates. Categorization into lo-foot site classes is probably

the best that can be expected of any of the site curves except

at ages very close to index age.

Species Comparisons

Several studies have compared the relative height growth

rates of yellow-poplar and other species when grown together

in mixed stands. These studies generally make is possible to

estimate site quality of other tree species when site index of

yellow-poplar is known. Table 6 shows the geographic areas

and the tree species for which species comparisons have been

developed.

I 1

Y-P = Yellow-Poplar

S & NRO = Scarlet & Northern Red Oak

SO = Black Oak

W 8 SRO = White & Southern Red Oak

SLP = Shortleaf Pine

Figure l&-Site-index comparisons for important

timber species in the Virginia-Carolinas Piedmont.

For example, on land that is site index 90 for

yellow-poplar (A), read down to (B) and across to

(C) to find that this same land averages about 72

feet for shortleaf pine. (Adapted from Olson and

Della-Bianca 1959)

A common finding for most of these studies is that yellowpoplar grows faster than its associates on good sites, and

slower than its associates on poorer sites. For example, Olson

and Della-Bianca (1959) showed that in the North Carolina

Piedmont, on sites above 81 for yellow-poplar, yellow-poplar

outgrows all associated species, whereas on sites progressively

poorer than 81, it rapidly falls behind all its associates, and at

site index 57 and below, it has the lowest site index of any

Piedmont tree species (fig. 18). Nelson and Beaufait (1957)

showed similar trends in the Georgia Piedmont except for

sweetgum, which was able to keep up with yellow-poplar

Table L-Tree species comparisons by site index for selected areas within the range of yellow-poplar

Tree species

compared’ Variable Reference

Presentation

method

Graph

Equations

Equation

Equation

Graph

Region

Southern Appalachian

Mountains

North CarolinaLower Piedmont

Durham, North Carolina

Georgia-Piedmont

Virginia and CarolinasPiedmont Uplands

Middle Tennessee and

northern AlabamaCumberland Plateau

and Highland Rim

YP, WP, VP, SLP,

PP, wo, 00

YP-LP

YP, LP

YP-SG, NRO, SO,

BO, SRO, WO, LP

YP, NRO-SO, BO,

WO-SRO, SLP

YP, LP, VP

Site index*

Site index

Site index

Site index

Site index

Height in feet

Diameter in inches

Doolittle (1958)

Hacker (1953)

Metz (1947)

Nelson and Beaufait (1957)

Olson and Della-Bianca (1959)

Smalley and Pierce (1972)

Graph

Equations

Table

‘BO = black oak; LP = loblolly pine; 00 = other oaks; NRO = horthern red oak; PP = pitch pine; SLP = shortleaf pine; SO = scarlet

oak; SRO = southern red oak; VP = Virginia pine; WO = white oak; WP = eastern white pine; YP = yellow-poplar.

‘Site index (height in feet of dominant and codominant trees at age 50).

22
Blackbak- 1

South&n Red OakScar& Oak tic

.E 80

E

.cnQ)

E 70

3

-0

S

0, 60

ZI

50 v

I

Figure 19.-Comparison of site indexes for several

different species on the same land in the Georgia

Piedmont. For example, on land that is site index

80 for yellow-poplar (A), read down to (B) and

across to (C) to find that this same land averages

about 72 for white oak. (Adapted from Nelson

and Beaufait 1957)

across the full range of sites (fig. 19). In the mountains of

western North Carolina, eastern white pine comes closest to

matching growth of yellow-poplar (fig. 20), but even white

pine falls behind on sites better than site 96 for yellow-poplar

(Doolittle 1958).

Site Classification from Soils and Topography

At times, estimates of site quality may be desired where no

suitable stands exist for direct estimation of site index, e.g., a

recently cutover area. Many attempts have been made to develop

schemes for estimating site productivity for yellow-poplar

from characteristics of the soil and topography. Most such

attempts have used correlations of site index with essentially

permanent features of soil and topography. Table 7 summarizes the area or region of application and the major soil and

topographic features found useful in estimating site index

with soil-site equations. Appendix 1 lists these equations.

As noted earlier, most of the features found to be related

to site index measure the amount of root space and those factors that influence or reflect the soil-moisture supply. Soils

must have an effective depth (depth to tight subsoil, or a

poorly drained layer) of 24 inches or more to be classified as

superior sites for yellow-poplar. Topographic positions that

reflect moisture relationships-and to some extent soil depthwere consistently isolated as important variables. In only one

case were standard soil series of any use for estimating site

quality (Ike and Huppuch 1968); more commonly, a given soil

series was likely to encompass a wide range in site index and

to be of no use (Della-Bianca and Wells 1967; Van Lear and

Hosner 1967).

WP = White Pine

Y-P = Yellow-Poolar

40

VP = Virginia Pine

WO = White Oak

SL & PP = Shortleaf and Pitch Pine

00 = Other Oaks (Scarlet, Black,

Northern Red, and Chestnut Oaks)

Figure 20.-A comparison of site indexes for 10

timber species on the same land in the Southern

Appalachians. For example, on land that is site

index 90 for yellow-poplar (A), read down to (B)

and across to (C) to find that this same land

averages about site 82 for Virginia pine. (Adapted

from Doolittle 1958)

These procedures were developed from lands that were in a

forested condition with trees suitable for site-index estimation.

They can be applied most reliably to forested areas or to

areas recently cutover. It is not always clear if the correlations

demonstrated are cause or effect. For example, A, horizon

depth has been isolated as a significant variable in several

cases. However, Coile (1952) observed that an A, horizon can

develop as a result of the presence of yellow-poplar. Auten

(1937a, 1937b) found that yellow-poplar will grow rapidly in

the complete absence of an A, horizon provided the soil has

good physical properties and is well drained.

The above estimation techniques are only considered applicable to geographic areas and types of sites from which they

were developed.

Establishing Natural Regeneration

Seed

The successful regeneration of yellow-poplar by natural

means requires either trees capable of producing stump

sprouts or the combination of adequate seed, a seedbed of

exposed mineral soil, and direct sunlight (Olson 1969).

Adequate seed is seldom a problem on sites capable of

growing yellow-poplar if even a few seed-producing trees are

available. Preparatory cuts to encourage seed production or

to leave trees specifically to produce seed are not needed.

Likewise, there is seldom need to make provisions for obtain23
Table 7.--Significant factors for yellow-poplar soil-site estimations

Location Soil variables

Topographic and

other variables Source

Fred Russ Forest

Cassopolis, Michigan

Fred Russ Forest

Cassopolis, Michigan

Dobbs Memorial Forest

Terre Haute, Indiana

Fine clay in A, and A, horizons

Maximum water-holding capacity

of A, horizon

Soil moisture at 6-inch depth

Growing season precipitation

Air temperature

Relative humidity

Surface soil temperature

Light intensity

Evaporation rate

Foliage nitrogen

Foliage phosphorus

Shipman and Rudolph (1954)

Schomaker and Rudolph (1964)

Thickness of A, horizon

Depth to tight subsoil

Depth to mottling

Depth of incorporated organic

Tryon and others (1960)

Dixon Springs,

Agricultural Center

Dixon Springs, Illinois

Tar Hollow State Forest

Ross County, Ohio

Central States

New Jersey Coastal Plain

New Jersey Coastal Plain

Durham, North Carolina

(Alluvial soils)

Lower North Carolina

Piedmont

Piedmont UplandsVirginia and Carolinas

Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains

Flat Top Experimental Forest

Birmingham, Alabama

Flat Top Experimental Forest

Birmingham, Alabama

Ames Plantation

Grand Junction, Tennessee

matter

Depth of fragipan

Lime test index pH of A horizon

Exchangeable calcium of A horizon

Depth to B, horizon

Thickness of A, horizon

Depth to tight subsoil

Color of surface soil

Color of subsoil

Subsoil drainage

Subsoil mottling

Percent clay in A horizon

Available water in root zone

Hydraulic conductivity of B horizon

Bulk density of C horizon

Percent organic matter in A horizon

Exchangeable potassium in A horizon

Percent clay in subsoil

Depth to tight subsoil

Depth to mottling

Thickness of A horizon

lmbibitional water value

Thickness of A horizon

Percent organic matter in A, horizon

Thickness of Al horizon

Thickness of total A horizon

Percent sand in A, horizon

Soil series

Total soil moisture in percent

Available water in soil profile

Soil depth

Depth to mottling

Aspect

Slope position

Steepness

Aspect

Slope position

Gilmore and others (1968)

Munn and Vimmerstedt (1980)

Auten (1945)

Czapowskyj (1962)

Phillips (1966)

Metz (1947)

Hacker (1953)

Della-Bianca and Olson (1961)

Ike and Huppuch (1968)

Schomaker (1958)

Smalley ( 1969)

Hebb (1962)

Slope position

Latitude

Slope position

Elevation above sea level

Basal area

Sheltered cove or ridge site

Slope position

Slope position

Aspect

Slope position

Aspect

ing seed from surrounding stands or to plan harvests to take

advantage of good seed years, as is the case with some other

species. High production of seed on an annual basis and long

viability in the forest floor provide more than adequate seed

when proper conditions are created for germination and

growth (Herr and Carve11 1975).

Mineral Soil

Scarification and fire, which put seeds into contact with

mineral soil, increase the number of seedlings significantly as

compared to undisturbed forest floor (Engle and Williams

1957, Little 1967, Sims 1932, Whipple 1968, Williams and

Mony 1%2). Under normal conditions, however, the site disturbance caused by logging the mature stand is the only seedbed

preparation needed to provide enough yellow-poplar seedlings

for a new stand. In Indiana, 1 year after cutting, there were

4,000 yellow-poplar seedlings per acre on a plot that was clearcut, and 4,800 per acre on partially cut plots (Sander and Clark

1971). In western North Carolina, more than 50,000 seedlings

per acre followed both clearcuts and partial cuts that removed

24
as little as one-third of the basal area. Occasionally, sites with

deep accumulations of litter may require some seedbed treatment; this is likely to be needed only on the drier sites dominated by oaks or beech. In such cases, both disking and burning

are effective (Little 1967, Shearin and others 1972). Treatment

by disking or burning has also been recommended for sites

with few seeds in the forest floor, especially if the floor is

covered with dense herbaceous growth (Little 1967).

Light

To admit sunlight to the forest floor, any harvest cut to

establish even-aged stands can be used, or patch cuts can be

used in selection forests. On good sites in Ohio, Kentucky,

Indiana, and Illinois, harvest cuts ranging from removal of 35

percent of the basal area to complete clearcuts, where all trees

1 inch and larger were removed, resulted in establishment of

many seedlings (Sander and Clark 1971). The heavier the cut,

the more seedlings, but even the lighter cuts had enough

seedings to establish a new stand; after 2 years, the lightest

partial cut had nearly 1,200 seedlings per acre. On good sites

in the Southern Appalachians, cuts ranging from removal of

30 to 100 percent of basal area resulted in establishment of

2,000 to 12,000 seedlings per acre (McGee 1975). How many

seedlings were established seemed to be more closely related

to the quality of the site than to the intensity of the cut.

Although partial cutting (two- or three-cut shelterwood

method) can be used to establish regeneration, height growth

is severely limited by the remaining overstory. In an Indiana

study, yellow-poplar in clearcuts was nearly twice as tall after

5 years as seedlings in a shelterwood cut (Sander and Clark

1971). In western North Carolina, seedlings in a clearcut were

three times as tall after 12 years as those in partial cuts

(McGee 1975). Rapid height growth does not begin until the

overstory is removed. Where other management considerations mandate the use of the shelterwood system, the understory treatment should be done at the time of the first removal

cut, and the residual overstory should not remain longer than

5 years after initial seedling establishment.

Size of the opening has a significant effect on growth of

reproduction after establishment. Four years after cutting,

Smith (1963) found that yellow-poplar in l/2-acre openings

were taller than those in either l/Caere or l/lo-acre openings. Ten years after cutting in West Virginia, yellow-poplar

height growth increased as opening size increased, averaging

17 feet in lOO-foot openings (0.18 acre) to about 28 feet in

250-foot openings (1.127 acres). Diameter growth showed a

similar trend, averaging 2.5 and 3.3 inches in IOO-foot and

250-foot openings, respectively (Smith 1977b). All openings,

regardless of size, are bordered by a zone where growth of

reproduction is retarded (fig. 21); this zone may extend from

10 to 30 feet from the boles of surrounding trees. Thus, the

percentage of the area in the restrictive zone increases greatly

for openings smaller than about one-half acre (fig. 22). Sander

and Clark (1971) recommend that for best growth of reproduction, the minimum-size circular opening should be not less

than one-half acre; 1 acre is probably better (Little 1967).

Openings of any other shape will have a higher percentage of

the total area in the border zone. So, the minimum size of

rectangular openings should be about 1 acre for best results.

The minimum-size opening that can be used to regenerate

yellow-poplar is fairly small. Abundant yellow-poplar reproduction has been established in openings as small as one-eighth

Figure 21.-Five years after cutting, rep]-oduction

seedlings next to 1 :he olcd stand (right edge of photo)

are much shorter than those in the centerr of this

l/8-acre opening.(San der and Clark 197‘1) F-XC661

25
a

$20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6

Area of Opening (Acres)

Figure 22.-Relationship between the total area of

circular openings and the percentage of area of the

opening contained in border zones 10 to 30 feet

wide. (Sander and Clark 1971)

of an acre (83-foot-diameter openings). In an Ohio study,

there was little difference in number of seedlings in openings

ranging from l/8* to 5 acres (Sander and Clark 1971). Similar

results were reported in Illinois and Kentucky for openings

ranging from l/20 to 4 acres.

Season

Season of logging, while not critical, does have some effect

on establishment and growth of yellow-poplar seedlings. It

has been reported from studies in West Virginia, Ohio, and

Indiana that summer logging produced fewer seedlings than

logging at other times of the year (Sander and Clark 1971;

Trimble and Tryon 1969). Apparently, in summer-logged stands

most of the seeds did not germinate until the following year,

and these small seedlings were not as able to compete with the

rank vegetation that started the previous year. Nevertheless,

cuttings in summer months have usually produced enough

seedlings where a good seed source was previously present. If

seed supply in the litter layer is expected to be scarce, logging

in fall, winter, or early spring might be advantageous.

Competition

Treatment of stems left after commercial logging is usually

essential for the best development of well-distributed yellowpoplar reproduction. Some stands that have carried high

stocking up to the time of the final harvest cut may have relatively few unmerchantable stems where a good pulpwood

market is available. But, in the typical case, numerous stems

of the more tolerant understory species such as flowering dogwood, red maple, and American hornbeam will be left after

commercial logging. Studies in the Southern Appalachians

have shown that 300 or more stems per acre from 1 to 4 inches

in diameter are left after logging. This residual material can

have a significant impact on growth of yellow-poplar, especially seedlings. In Indiana, on a medium-quality site, 18-yearold yellow-poplar that had been completely released by cutting

all woody vegetation over 5 feet tall averaged 25 feet tall and

2.7 inches in d.b.h. Trees of the same age in an area where

only trees 6 inches d.b.h. and over were cut or killed (residual

basal area in smaller trees was 17 square feet per acre) were

only 15 feet tall and 1.1. inches d.b.h. In another area with

40 square feet of residual nonmerchantable material per acre,

the 18-year-old yellow-poplar were only 6 feet tall and 0.5

inches d.b.h. (Williams 1976).

Cull and unmerchantable stems may be controlled before,

during, or after the commercial logging operation. A range of

techniques is available, from cutting down unmerchantable

stems with saws, to chemical control by injection or basal

spray, to mechanically knocking down leftover material with

bulldozer blades. Burning is also a viable option. Complete

elimination of competing vegetation is not necessary. Cutting

it back, or effecting topkill is usually sufficient to provide

time for yellow-poplar seedlings to become dominant, if they

are not near yellow-poplar sprouts. Where yellow-poplar

sprouts are abundant and desirable, less control of competing

vegetation is needed because of the fast growth of sprouts.

Establishing Artificial Regeneration

Although yellow-poplar has never been planted on a largescale basis, it is biologically and technically feasible to do so

with procedures widely used for other species (fig. 23).

Russell’s (1977) key planting requirements are: (1) selection of

suitable sites, (2) adequate control of competing vegetation,

especially the first few years after planting, and (3) use of the

best planting technology, which includes high-quality seedlings, careful stock handling, and choice of appropriate seasons

and methods of planting. Boyette (1970) attributed widespread failure of planted yellow-poplar in North Carolina to

neglect of these requirements.

Site Selection

Improper site selection has probably caused more yellowpoplar failures than all other planting errors combined (Russell

1977). Abandoned fields and pastures-although enticing

planting opportunities-have proved to be particularly poor

sites for planting yellow-poplar. Adverse conditions commonly

found on these sites include severe erosion, soil compaction

and loss of soil structure, depleted nutrient capital, lack of

appropriate soil micro-organisms, and heavy sod or weed

growth (Boyette 1970, Clark 1964, Clark and Losche 1969,

Gilmore and others 1968, McCarthy 1933, Russell 1977).

It is relatively easy to determine those sites that are definitely

unsuitable and those that are obviously excellent. Protected

coves and lower slopes with northerly aspects and deep, friable

soils that are moist but well drained, are obviously suitable.

Ridgetops and southerly aspects with shallow, droughty soils

26
Figure 23.-A fast-growing 21-year-old yellowpoplar plantation in the Georgia Piedmont near

Athens. The plantation was established in a slight

mesic depression near a ridgetop. (McAlpine

1959b) F-529673

are obviously not suitable. Between these extremes, site evaluation is more difficult and involves more risk. However, judicious use of available guides should enable the planter to take

acceptable risks. On forested areas with suitable stands, siteindex curves and species-comparison formulas offer a good

means of site assessment. On cutover areas, the soil-site-index

information for selected areas is helpful. While not foolproof,

indicator species offer good insight into site capability-particularly the presence of adverse conditions. For example,

Boyette (1970) found that where yellow-poplar plantings in

North Carolina failed because of poor drainage, tag alder was

frequently present. Plants commonly found on depleted fields

and pastures were Virginia pine, broom-sedge (Andropogon

virginicus), plantain (Plantago rugelii), and reindeer moss

(Cladonia rangiferina) .

Site Preparation

Because yellow-poplar seedlings grow fast, they can outstrip

most competing vegetation on cutover sites. However, seedlings

will not persist for long in the understory, or if overtopped by

faster growing sprouts. Opinions on optimum intensity of

competition control are frequently in conflict, and the conflicts may arise from the great variation in competition from

site to site. The nature of competing vegetation may be influenced by past treatment but is largely controlled by the inherent

quality of the site. Competition is more severe on fertile soils

of high moisture-supplying capacity than on less fertile, drier

soils. The need for site preparation will vary accordingly.

On sites of intermediate quality in central Tennessee and

northern Alabama, yellow-poplar has performed reasonably

well without complete elimination of competing vegetation

(Russell 1977). Where the understory was sparse, killing the

overstory hardwoods by girdling, frill girdling, or injecting

with a herbicide was all that was needed to insure survival and

growth of planted yellow-poplar. A study on the Cumberland

Plateau illustrates the results that are possible on average sites

with minimum site preparation (McGee 1977). Where only trees

over 6 d.b.h. were killed (as in competition control for commercial logging of pulpwood and saw logs), planted yellowpoplar averaged 12 feet in height and 0.8 inches in diameter

after 10 years. When all hardwoods over 2 inches d.b.h. were

injected, planted yellow-poplar averaged 25 feet in height and

2.3 inches in diameter. Injecting all hardwoods before planting, with followup treatment the next year wherever necessary,

boosted yellow-poplar IO-year heights to 31 feet, and diameters

to 3.2 inches. Survival was unaffected by treatment, averaging

about 75 percent. Even though complete control of competing

hardwoods improved growth somewhat, the much less intensive and less costly treatment, injecting all hardwoods over 2

inches d.b.h., provided 122 trees per acre, 4 inches d.b.h. and

larger, at 10 years of age-an adequate number of crop trees

for management.

On more productive sites where competing vegetation is

dense and resurgent sprout growth is likely to be rapid, a

more nearly complete control by mechanical or chemical

means is likely to be needed. Basal spraying, injection, cutting

and treating stumps with herbicides, and mist blowing have all

been used effectively. Mechanical site-preparation techniques

suitable for establishing pine on good sites should prove effective for yellow-poplar.

On good sites, weed control may also be beneficial, if not

essential. On well-drained alluvial sites in Georgia that were

clearcut, sheared, and disked, chemical control’of invading

herbaceous weeds markedly increased early growth of planted

yellow-poplar (Fitzgerald and Selden 1975). After three growing seasons, sapling height averaged 8.1 feet on the chemically

treated plots but only 5.5 feet on the untreated plots. Survival

was no different on treated and untreated plots. On the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee, postplanting weed control

improved growth of yellow-poplar on sites of average quality

(Russell 1977). Fifth-year heights averaged 11.1 feet on sites

where weeds were mowed for 2 years and 7.9 feet where no

mowing was done. While most studies of herbaceous weed

control in yellow-poplar plantings show that it will boost early

growth, they have not shown that herbaceous weed control is

essential to insure successful plantation establishment.

27
Planting Technology

Even if the chosen site is capable of growing yellow-poplar

and has been properly prepared, close attention to planting

technology (seedling quality, stock handling, and the planting

operation) is still essential for success.

Quality of planting stock includes both its genetic makeup

and morphological characteristics. Given the wide geographic

and altitudinal range of yellow-poplar, indiscriminate movement of seed from place to place could prove disastrous.

While local seed sources have not always shown the best

growth, they are well enough adapted to local environment to

minimize risk of a complete failure from bad weather. No

widely adapted sources have been shown to exist. Nor is our

knowledge complete enough to recommend movement from

one specific place to another. Unless the superiority of a specific nonlocal source is based on research or experience, it is

advisable to obtain seed from reasonably near the planting

site in areas where environmental factors are similar.

Seedling size indicates physiological vigor, and it has long

been accepted that large hardwood seedlings perform better

initially than small seedlings (Limstrom and others 1955,

McElwee 1970, Rodenbach and Olson 1960). Moreover, the

detrimental effects of planting substandard seedlings may persist for many years (Funk and others 1974). Most yellowpoplar planting is done with 1-O bare-root stock (fig. 24).

According to published guides for the Central States (Limstrom

1963), seedlings with l/8- to 31%inch diameter stems at the

ground line are acceptable; those with a 5/16-inch diameter

are preferred (fig. 25). Seedlings within this ra!rge have also

performed satisfactorily in many trials on a wide variety of

sites in central Tennessee and northern Alabama (Russell and

others 1970). The current trend in the South is to plant even

larger hardwood seedlings; a 3Binch root-collar diameter is

often considered the minimum acceptable size (McElwee

1970). In West Virginia, 4-year-old yellow-poplar seedlings

have been recommended for planting sites dominated by tallgrowing herbaceous weeds (Carve11 1966a).

Figure 24.-Yellow-poplar planting is generally

done with 1-O bare-root planting stock of the size

shown here. Survival is poor with smaller seedlings.

F486193

Figure 25.-Yellow-poplar seedlings with stems of

about l/Cinch diameter and larger at ground line

(6 and 7) are acceptable for planting. Smaller seedlings (3 and 4) generally die after outplanting.

F-486154

Seedlings within this range have also performed satisfactorily

in many trials on a wide variety of sites in central Tennessee

and northern Alabama (Russell and others 1970). The current

trend in the South is to plant even larger hardwood seedlings;

a 3/8-inch root-collar diameter is often considered the minimum

acceptable size (McElwee 1970). In West Virginia, 4-year-old

yeliow-poplar seedlings have been recommended for planting

sites dominated by tall-growing herbaceous weeds (Carvell 1966a).

Roots and shoots are often pruned in the nursery to reduce

costs of packing and shipping. Root pruning also tends to

increase branching of root mass (Sluder 1964; Thor 1965) and

may improve both initial survival and growth (Limstrom and

others 1955, Sterling and Lane 1975). Roots should not be

pruned without also clipping tops; to fail to clip tops too may

reduce first-year growth. Preferably, seedlings should be rootpruned before they become dormant and top-clipped when

they are dormant. Seedlings that have not been pruned at the

nursery can be pruned in the field for ease in handling and

planting. Overlong roots should be cut back to about 10 inches;

tops can be clipped to 12 to 18 inches.

Yellow-poplar seedlings require considerably more care in

handling and planting than hardier species, such as the pines.

Allowing seedlings to dry out, heat, or freeze during shipment, storage, or planting may be an especially serious cause

28
of poor initial survival (Russell and others 1970). Seedlings

can be kept in bales for a few weeks in a cool, shaded place.

They can be heeled in for a longer time but should be planted

before new leaves unfold. Refrigeration at about 36°F is best

for long-term storage (Limstrom 1963). At Sewanee, Tennessee,

seedlings were kept dormant and in good condition in cold

storage for almost 6 months (Russell 1977). During cold storage, bales must be turned occasionally and watered as needed.

The choice of hand or machine methods for planting

depends on what is available and what can be done most economically. Either method can be successfully used. For hand

planting in stony soils, the KBC planting bar proved better

than the standard wedge-shaped bar, and it makes a slightly

wider and deeper slit that more readily accepts the yellowpoplar root system. As with any bare-root planting stock,

care should be taken to straighten out roots and to press soil

firmly around them.

Optimum planting dates vary, depending on local climate.

Seedlings planted in fall or early winter may be injured by

frost heaving in some regions, particularly on heavy soils or

where intensive mechanical site preparation has removed all

cover. In general, spring planting is preferable.

Spacing

Data on long-term plantation yield are too scanty to make

good spacing recommendations. McCarthy (1933) recommended

spacing between 7 by 7 and 10 by 10 feet, but the criteria for

his recommendation are not known.

Rudolph and others (1965) tried spacings of 8 by 8, 10 by 10,

12 by 12, and 14 by 14 feet. After evaluating the plantation

spacings at age 22, they recommended the two close spacings

on the basis of better potential merchantable height and quality

of yellow-poplar. Their results were somewhat- confounded

because of the formation of multiple stems after topkill and

sunscald. Among the 100 largest trees per acre (which were

considered the most important for the future development of

the plantation), neither height nor diameter differed much.

Only the 14- by 1Cfoot spacing had significantly less potential

merchantable stemwood because the widely spaced trees tended

to fork and become “wolf” trees. If market and other management constraints will allow thinning at a young age, higher

quality might be achieved by plantings with approximate

spacings of 8 by 8 to 10 by 10 feet. If early thinnings are not

possible, planting at 12 by 12 feet should result in trees of

acceptable quality and enable the stand to reach a larger mean

diameter before thinning is necessary.

Establishing Stands by Direct Seeding

Direct seeding of yellow-poplar has been attempted only on

a very limited, experimental basis, and with mostly negative

results. In a test of spot seeding, Korstian and MacKinney

(1931) covered 75 seeds per spot with one-eighth inch of soil

on a wide variety of sites. After 4 years, only 40 percent of

the spots contained one or more seedlings. Those seedlings

were very small-averaging about 0.1 foot in height. Seedlings

had sprouted on nearly 90 percent of the spots, but many died.

Sluder and Rodenbach (1964) found that spring-planted,

stratified seed, covered with one-eighth inch of soil, and protected by screens gave best results. Even this treatment resulted

in only about nine seedlings per 100 seeds planted, and 84

percent stocking after 1 year. Fall planting on the surface of

prepared spots, with no screening, resulted in less than one

seedling per 10,000 seed, and less than 1 percent stocking of

seed spots. Seed predators were mostly responsible for the low

rate of establishment. At present no effective repellent is

known. Protection must come from expensive screening techniques, or from sowing very large numbers of seeds per acre

(Russell 1973).

In a test of broadcast seeding, Clark (1958) spread stratified

seed in February at the rate of 120,000 seeds per acre. He

estimated that on the average, direct seeding produced about

800 seedlings per acre after the first year, or less than 1 seedling per 100 seed. There was no difference in the stocking of

yellow-poplar seedlings on disked and undisked areas. However,

one-third of the undisked area was scarified during logging

with negligible effects on the final results.

Best results with direct seeding can apparently be obtained

where stratified seed are sown in the spring with a light soil

covering and protected from seed predators. Even then, very

large numbers of seed must be sown. Under the best conditions, one can expect only about 10 percent of the seed to

produce seedlings, and subsequent losses are generally high

because of frost heaving, vegetative competition, and other

adverse factors.

At present, direct seeding does not present an attractive

alternative to planting when artificial means are chosen to

establish yellow-poplar.

Managing Established Stands

Once established on a suitable site, yellow-poplars originating as seedlings or as sprouts grow rapidly in height. It is

not uncommon for seedlings to grow 10 to 18 feet in 5 year%

(McCarthy 1933). Sprouts may be 25 or more feet tall in 5

years. Rapid height growth may continue for 25 to 30 years

before slowing down appreciably. Doolittle (1958) has shown

that in the Southern Appalachians on land of site index 95

and above, yellow-poplar has faster height growth than any

associated species up to 50 years of age. On lands from site

index 75 to 95, yellow-poplar outgrows all its associates except

white pine. Below site index 75, other species have better height

growth than yellow-poplar. If not interfered with by overtopping trees from a previous stand, yellow-poplar will take

and hold its place in the dominant crown canopy of the developing stand. Recent observations indicate that yellow-poplar

is increasing in acreage after a variety of cutting methods.

When growing in mostly pure stands, yellow-poplar expresses

dominance well, and seldom, if ever, stagnates because of

excessive stand density. Because of yellow-poplar growth

characteristics, yellow-poplar stands can develop and produce

considerable quantities of large, high-quality products with no

intermediate stand management (Appendix 3, tables 25-42).

29
However, even at advanced ages, unmanaged stands typically

contain many trees of less than merchantable size for saw and

veneer logs-the most valuable yellow-poplar raw products

(fig. 26). In some stands, the volume in small trees can be

considerable. For example, on a site 100 at age 70, the

average unmanaged stand has 40 to 50 percent of its trees in

sizes less than minimum sawtimber size of 11 inches d.b.h.

These trees account for 12 to 15 percent of stand volume. The

remaining volume is in trees 11 to 18 inches d.b.h. Only

about 20 to 25 percent of stand volume is in trees large

enough to classify as grade A with a No. 1 butt log under

current grading standards (Beck and Della-Bianca 1970).

Also, during the course of stand development, some volume is

lost to mortality, much of which is in trees too small to be

merchantable. However, on the better sites, much usable

wood will be lost to mortality as a result of overcrowding

(Della-Bianca 1975a).

Figure %.-Unmanaged mature yellow-poplar

stands contain a large volume of pulpwood-size

trees which early thinning eliminates. Thinning

concentrates growth on the much more valuable

saw log and veneer trees. Thinnings also minimize

mortality. F-529651

With a premium on large, high-quality trees, it is desirable

to use cultural practices to redirect the wood growth, which

otherwise would accumulate on small trees or would be lost to

mortality, into fewer but larger trees. Commercial thinning

that adjusts the growing stock is the best management technique now available.

Seedling-Sapling Stands

The seedling-sapling stage of stand development is dynamic,

with rapid changes in size and number of trees. Rates of

height and diameter growth are greater during this early stage

than at any other time. Differentiation in size and crown

classes becomes apparent as the trees struggle for survival. A

seedling stand of 50,000 stems per acre may be reduced by

natural mortality to less than 300 trees per acre in the main

canopy by age 20 to 30 (fig. 27). In this early stage, on sites

favorable to yellow-poplar, there is usually a variety of

associated plant species that originated from seed, seedlingsprouts, or stump sprouts.

Figure 27.-Dense seedling stands of yellow-poplar

with 50,000 stems or more per acre are generally

reduced by natural mortality to under 300 stems

per acre when the stands are between 20 and 30

years old. F-529656

A casual observer of young stands may feel that some cultural

work must be done if an acceptable stand is to finally emerge.

At this stage, however, no commercial uses for thinnings are

likely and any cultural work will be costly. The best guide for

prescribing cultural treatments at this early stage of stand

development is to be reasonably certain that treatment is

needed and then to minimize the amount of cultural work

done. Other management objectives such as making wildlife

browse available, changing species composition, and increasing water yield may dictate the early use of cultural practices,

but costs should be prorated among all benefits.

30
Precommercial treatment is profitable only if it increases

the stand value by increasing the possible number of saw logs

or veneer bolts to be expected. If a timber owner’s objective

is to grow trees to 20 inches d.b.h., 50 or fewer trees per acre

will be in the stand at final harvest. Because we cannot pick

the final crop trees with certainty in this early stage, more

than 50 will be needed to allow for possible mortality of some

stems and to assure that enough high-quality trees will be

available for the future selection. But exactly how many more

is debatable. Roach and Gingrich (1968) suggested 200 wellspaced saplings per acre. Others suggest that 109 trees per

acre-spaced 20 by 20 feet-will be sufficient (Lamson and

Smith 1978, McGee 1977, Trimble 1973b).

Undisturbed stands of yellow-poplar show that it is unlikely

that more than 200 trees per acre, suitable in vigor and crown

position to consider as future crop trees, can be carried to the

pole stage. Therefore, the release of more than about 200 trees

in the seedling-sapling stage, will cause early competition among

released trees. It makes little sense to spend money releasing

trees that will die or be cut for small, low-value products at

the first commercial thinning.

In seedling-sapling stands where yellow-poplar is competing

with other trees of the same age and size, there appears to be

little to be gained from crop-tree release by precommercial

thinning. The dominants and codominants do not need it, and

the lesser crown classes will require more than one release. If

a decision is made to thin in very young seedling-sapling

stands, the thinning should be one of a planned series. The

effects of a single thinning in such stands last only a few yearsprobably not more than 6 to &-and will be obscured over the

course of a rotation if not repeated (Della-Bianca 1969, 1971).

Studies of weeding or thinning in seedling-sapling stands have

also shown that response to thinning of yellow-poplar depends

on crown class and vigor of the individuals. Releasing dominant and codominant saplings has resulted in slight improvement in diameter growth but often causes a reduction in

height growth in comparison to unreleased trees (Allen and

Marquis 1970; Downs 1942, 1946; Lamson and Smith 1978;

Trimble 1973b). Release has also proved to have little effect

on survival or in helping dominant and codominant trees to

maintain their crown positions (Lamson and Smith 1978,

Trimble 1973b). Intermediates of good vigor have sometimes

shown positive response to release in both height and diameter growth. But it appears that more than one release will be

necessary for intermediates to become a permanent part of

the stand (Downs 1942). When released to a dominant position, intermediates regress rapidly in crown status. In one

study, none of the released intermediates was considered a

potential crop tree 5 years later without further release

(Lamson and Smith 1978). Poor-vigor intermediates and suppressed trees should not be considered for release because of

their general lack of response (Downs 1942, 1946).

When yellow-poplars of seedling origin are overtopped by

residual trees or faster growing sprout regeneration, cultural

work in seedling-sapling stands may be needed. This condition

exists where residual trees are left from the harvest cut and

yellow-poplar seedlings are developing underneath them, or

where rapidly growing sprouts of competing species are overtopping new yellow-poplar seedlings. As defined here, overtopping refers to the physical position and not low vigor. In

one case, overtopped yellow-poplar seedlings responded well

to release from residuals and height and diameter growth

greatly improved (Williams 1976). In another case, 3-year-old

seedlings responded to release from overtopping sprouts of

locust (Beck and McGee 1974). This kind of release should be

done before seedlings lose vigor. Selectively killing overtopping trees with herbicides is the best way to prevent sprouting. Otherwise, sprouts from cut trees may overtop the seedlings again in a few years. If herbicides are used in young

stands, careful selection of chemicals and application methods

should be made to prevent damage to crop trees.

If grapevines are present before logging on good Appalachian sites and are not controlled, their density will increase

considerably after cutting. The problem is most noticeable in

large clearcuts, but serious grapevine problems may occur in

canopy openings as small as 50 feet in diameter (Smith and

Lamson 1975).

A grapevine problem in sapling stands can be largely avoided

by cutting vines in mature stands from 3 to 5 years before the

harvest cut (Smith and Lamson 1975; Trimble and Tryon 1974,

1976a, 1976b). Trimble and Tryon (174) found that severed

vines sprout prolifically, but in closed stands sprouts begin to

die. After 4 years, they found that all vines that resprouted

had died along with the cut stumps. Apparently grapevine

sprouts are too intolerant of shade to survive under the

canopy of a well-stocked stand. Smith and Lamson (1975)

reported that cutting grapevines in mature hardwood stands in

West Virginia required about 2/3 man-hour per acre on steep

slopes. Such costs would seem worthwhile to prevent future

tree damage and even higher control costs.

Because grape seeds have long-term viability in the forest

floor, preharvest cutting of grapevines will not completely

eliminate vines from the new stand. However, seedling grapevines are potentially much less damaging than sprouts from

mature vines. Grapevines that become established in young

stands can be controlled by cutting at ground level when

canopies close or when stands are 15 to 20 feet tall at about 8

to 10 years of age.

Stumps of cut vines will sprout heavily, but in a closed sapling stand sprouts will not be vigorous enough to climb back

into trees. Sprouts will usually die within a few years. Trimble

and Tryon (1976a, 1976b) recommend cutting all grapevines in

the stand, not just vines in crop trees. If left uncut, vines in

noncrop trees can and often do cross over into crowns of

crop trees. Costs of cutting vines averaged about 3-l/4 manhours per acre in sapling stands with densities ranging from 40

to 1,100 (average 500) vines per acre (Smith and McCay 1979).

Thinning Pole and Sawtimber Stands

By the time yellow-poplar stands are 20 to 25 years old, the

peak rates of growth and mortality are past, and the crown

canopy has closed. Some trees will continue to grow larger at

31
the expense of others, and some mortality will continue to

occur. But the major result of continued crowding as the

stand matures will be a reduction in crown size and consequent slowing of diameter growth for all trees.

Thinnings that salvage suppressed trees, improve growth of

residual trees, increase the yield of high-value timber products,

and shorten rotations are the essence of intermediate stand

management (fig. 28). The four important aspects of thinning

in pole and immature sawtimber stands are: (1) growth of

individual trees, (2) cubic-foot and board-foot growth, (3)

effect on bole and wood quality, and (4) thinning regime.

Individual tree response.-A number of studies have

reported response of yellow-poplar to thinning. Holsoe (1951)

found that yellow-poplar responded immediately to crown

release afforded by removing adjacent trees. Trees released

during the growing season increased diameter growth during

that same season; the heavier the release, the greater the

thinning response. Wahlenberg (1952) also found that yellowpoplar stands respond quickly to thinning with the degree of

response proportional to thinning intensity. Moderately thinned

stands exceeded average diameter growth of unthinned stands

by 0.2 inch in 10 years. Heavily thinned stands exceeded

growth of unthinned stands by 0.5 inch in the same period. In

West Virginia, Carve11 (1964) found combined improvement

cuts and thinnings resulted in 2.9 inches diameter growth in

11 years compared to only 2.1 inches in unthinned stands.

Shearin and others (1970) found that trees released very heavily

in a seed-tree cut grew nearly three times as fast as unreleased

trees. They concluded that yellow-poplar will respond to release

over a wide range of diameter and age classes. In New Jersey,

in an 18-year-old stand of mixed yellow-poplar, oak, ash;and

red maple heavily thinned to a residual basal area of 35 square

feet per acre, the mean stand diameter increased 2.5 inches in

15 years compared to only 1.8 inches in an unthinned stand.

Yellow-poplar showed a markedly stronger growth response to

thinning than did its associates (Tepper and Bamford 1959).

In a large, long-term study of the effect of stand density on

growth, Beck and Della-Bianca (1975) found that yellowpoplar responded to thinning over a wide range of site quality,

stand age, and tree sizes. As shown in figure 29A, rate of

diameter growth after thinning varied directly with residual

basal area (appendix 4, table 43).

In a given even-aged stand, trees of all sizes and crown

classes respond to thinning, but not to t&e same degree. Trees

of intermediate crown class had a greater percentage increase

in diameter growth than codominants. In turn, codominants

had greater percentage increase than dominants (Beck and

Della-Bianca 1975; Holsoe 1951; Wahlenberg 1952). However,

even though percentage increase was less for large trees

because of a lesser need for release, the large trees maintained

a faster absolute rate of diameter growth than did smaller trees.

The net result of numerous thinning experiments is that

individual yellow-poplar trees have an aptitude to utilize space

quickly and to accelerate diameter increment. The heavier the

thinning and the lower the residual density, the greater will be

the individual tree response with increased diameter growth.

Response will occur across a wide range of sites and stand

ages, even in stands as old as 80 years that have never been

previously thinned. Thinnings should be made from below in

order to leave the biggest and best trees. However, smaller

trees in the stand such as those intermediate in crown class

Figure 28.-A 3%year-old natural yellow-poplar

stand on site 104 land in the Pisgah National Forest in northwestern North Carolina. The residual

stand shown contains 64 trees per acre and 42

square feet of basal area per acre. Basal area

growth for the first 5 years after thinning was 2.7

square feet per acre per year. F-57.5%52

32
2.5 - A

Stand = 40

Site (VP) = 100

2.0 -

1.6 -

1.2 -

.0 -

.4 -

O<

-

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Residual Basal Area (ftVacre)

Figure 29.-Yellow-poplar responds to thinning

over a wide range of site quality, stand age, and

residual tree size and densities. The IO-year change

in mean diameter (A) shows a strong inverse relationship with increasing residual basal area. Cubicfoot growth (B) varies directly with increasing

residual basal area and culminates only at or near

maximum residual density. Maximum board-foot

growth (C) culminates when residual basal areas are

equivalent to site index of the yellow-poplar stand.

will respond well if they are left to meet some quality or

spacing need.

Cubic-foot growth.-Although individual tree growth is

increased markedly by thinning to very low densities, total

cubic-foot volume growth per acre will be reduced because the

stand does not fully occupy the site after heavy thinning. In

fact, even light commercial thinnings can reduce total cubic-foot

growth and yield. In one study, the greatest cubic-foot growth

rate was attained at the highest residual densities (Beck and

Della-Bianca 1972) (fig. 29B); the only exception was in older

stands on the poorest sites. In that case, there were maximum

densities beyond which growth actually decreased. It should

be noted that for all age-site combinations, cubic-foot growth

was near a maximum over a relatively wide range of densities.

Board-foot growth.-Board-foot volume growth reaches a

maximum rate at densities well below those which maximize

cubic-foot growth (fig. 29C). Optimum density for board-foot

growth varies with site quality and stand age, with maximum

rates occurring at higher residual densities on the better sites.

It is noteworthy that for a given site and age, board-foot

growth varies little over a wide range of basal area diversities.

For example, on land with site index 100 and trees at age 40,

98 percent of the maximum board-foot growth rate can be

obtained at basal areas between 80 and 130 square feet per

acre. At lower densities, volume is accumulated on fewer but

larger trees. Thus, there is considerable leeway in manipulating stocking levels to achieve diameter growth and quality

goals without sacrificing volume growth.

Bole and wood quality.-Successful efforts to produce

desired quantities of wood are wasted if the quality of the

bole and wood becomes undesirable through subsequent

growth patterns or logging damage. Obvious aspects of bole

and wood quality affected by thinning are degree of limbiness

of the lower bole and changes in wood properties associated

with varying rates of diameter growth.

When trees grown in dense stands are exposed to increased

sunlight, epicormic branches may arise on main stems below

the crown subsequent to normal crown development. If.epicormic branches occur, they can be a source of degrade in

lumber and veneer. Thus, sprouting as a result of thinning

can lower monetary returns from increased tree size. However, sprouts are a relatively minor problem in yellow-poplar

compared to other hardwood species.

In one of the earliest studies of epicormic sproutmg,

Jemison and Schumacher (1948) found that cutting in

150-year-old stands increased epicormics, with the most

sprouts developing in the most heavily cut stands. However,

most of the epicormic sprouts were confined to upper logs

and there was little reduction in lumber value. Wahlenberg

(1950a) found that thinning young, second-growth stands

stimulated sprouting; severity was related to degree of release.

Again, sprouts were mostly confined to upper logs and to

trees in the subordinate crown classes. Wahlenberg suggested

that epicormic sprouts arise to restore loss of the lower crown

which is suffered by crowded trees, and they are more likely

to arise in the thin-barked sections of the bale.

Smith (1965), in a study of sprouting on yellow-poplar trees

left adjacent to clearcut openings, reported that most sprouting occurred on upper logs and on low vigor trees in the suppressed and intermediate crown classes. He concluded that

there was only a trace of degrade in the butt log of the

yellow-poplars even from this drastic exposure. Della-Bianca

(1972) confirmed that this is a minor problem. He found no

33
relation between number of new sprouts and degree of thinning

or residual basal area after examining trees in 34 thinned

stands. He found that long sprouts present at time of thinning

will increase in size and could result in increased degrade of

the trees. This study, along with others, suggested that sprouting is under strong genetic control. Some trees sprout profusely before thinning and afterwards, and others without

epicormic sprouts before thinning maintain a clear bole even

after heavy release.

All the studies that have been done on sprouting suggest

that within the normal range of thinning in pole and sawtimber stands, epicormic sprouting should not be a serious or

even minor cause of timber degrade. Vigorous dominant and

codominant trees, which are most likely to be the crop trees

left after thinning, show little tendency to sprout. Most of the

sprouts that do develop will be on upper logs which are

already of low grade because of small size and presence of

prethinning epicormic sprouts. Individual trees that are inherently likely to sprout often do so before thinning and can be

removed during cultural operations. Kormanik’ suggests that

sprouting, even on the lower bole, may be more prolific in

young sapling stands. At this stage, bark is thin and succulent, and buds are not buried nearly as deeply as on older

trees. In lightly thinned stands, crown spread soon re-forms a

closed canopy in young sapling to pole-size stands. Consequently, sprouts on the lower bole are not likely to persist,

and blemishes in the wood will be confined to a small core.

Regulation Of growing space by thinning not only changes

rate of diameter growth but may also affect various wood

properties. Several studies have attempted to relate rate of

diameter growth, expressed as ring width or number of rings

per inch, to specific gravity, fiber length, and other wood

properties of yellow-poplar. Specific gravity has been the

most studied feature because of its relationship to fiber yield

per unit volume, strength properties, amount of shrinkage,

surface hardness, and other properties which determine suitability of wood for various uses.

As for other diffuse-pore species, rate of diameter growth

has shown little or no practical effect on specific gravity and

fiber length (Erickson 1949, Paul and Norton 1936, Sluder

1972, Taylor 1977, Thor and Core 1977, van Eck and Woessner

1964, Wooten and others 1973). In general, slow growth produces lower specific gravity than does fast growth. However,

the range in specific gravity is rather small over a very wide

range in growth rates. Increased rates of radial growth due to

thinning will result in wood of slightly higher specific gravity,

harder surface qualities, and more strength. However, there is

little the forest manager can do through thinning to either

markedly improve or degrade wood quality.

Thinning regime.-Many management objectives can be

met in yellow-poplar stands by manipulating the timing of

thinnings and the density of residual stands. Maximum sus-

‘Personal correspondence from Paul P. Kormanik. USDA Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Athens, Georgia, April 29, 1976.

tained growth of individual trees, greatest yield of highquality material, and shortest rotation can be achieved by

thinnings that are begun early and repeated at 5- to 15year

intervals. The first commercial thinnings may be feasible when

yellow-poplar stands are 15 to 20 years old, especially on high

site-quality land. Such thinnings will typically remove 8 to IO

cords per acre in trees over 4.5 inches d.b.h. (table 8).

Because of rapid basal-area growth rates in young stands,

sites will again be fully occupied in 10 to 15 years, even after

heavy thinning. Again, individual growth rates will diminish,

and some mortality will occur. If first thinnings are light,

second thinnings will be needed even sooner to avoid slowing

of individual tree growth rates.

Second and subsequent thinnings should leave higher residual

basal areas than the first thinning, and thinning intervals

should be lengthened because basal-area growth rates slow

appreciably as stand age increases. Table 8 shows recommended

ranges of residual basal area by age and site for use when the

thinning objective is to grow large, high-quality trees. As a

rule of thumb, board-foot volume growth is maximized by

that residual basal area which approximates stand site index in

value in yellow-poplar stands 40 years and older. Lower levels

of basal area shown in table 8 will produce 95 percent or more

of maximum possible board-foot growth. If short rotations or

very fast diameter growth of individuals are desired, one

should thin to levels approximating the low end of the range.

Table L-Recommended residual basal areas to maximize

board-foot growth and accelerate diameter growth of

yellow-poplar’

4s

25

Site Index

80 1 90 1 100 110 [ 120

__________________________~_~~_~~~ ft’/acre ___________________________---____

- 45-65’ 1 50-75 55-80 60-85 1

30

35

40

45

50

55 i

60 L 70-90 75-100 1 80-110 85-120 90-125

‘Includes all trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger.

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1975).

‘Residual basal area at upper end of range will maximize boardfoot growth after thinning. Basal area at the lower end of range will

produce approximately 95 percent or more of potential board-foot

growth while concurrently accelerating rate of diameter growth.

Tables and figures in appendix 4, and accompanying equations, can be used to project stand growth and yield for a

variety of residual densities and to establish thinning regimes

that will meet desired management objectives.

Fertilization

Yellow-poplar seedlings respond to fertilization under field

conditions and in the greenhouse. The most consistent and

greatest response has been to nitrogen, with additional response

34
to phosphorous in the presence of added nitrogen. The best

response has been on the poorest sites where need is apparently

greatest. Fertilization has most often improved height growth

with a lesser effect on diameter growth. All fertilization effects

have been relatively short lived; generally, the major growth effect

occurs within the first 3 to 5 years after application.

Greenhouse studies have shown that growth in height and

gain in weight of seedlings was positively related to both

nutrient and foliar concentrations of N, P, and Ca (Chapman

1933, Finn 1966, Ike 1968, Madgwick 1971). The nutrient

studies also showed that there are optimum solution concentrations of N, and consequently, foliar nutrient concentrations

that give maximum growth. For example, Chapman (1933)

applied N in the form of ammonium nitrate at rates of 0 to

400 pounds per acre. Maximum gain in weight of seedlings

occurred at 100 pounds per acre; weight gain decreased above

and below that level. Madgwick (1971) too showed that there

was an optimum concentration of nitrogen, with slower

growth rates above and below the optimum.

In field studies, seedlings have responded strikingly to additions of N and to some extent to P and K. In one case, diammonium phosphate (20-52-o) was applied at the rates of 0,

250, 500, and 1,000 pounds per acre on a well-drained bottomland site known to be low in N, P, and K by agricultural

standards (Broadfoot and Ike 1968; Ike 1962; McAlpine

1959b, 1959~). After 4 years the seedlings given 250 pounds

per acre were only slightly taller than unfertilized seedlings.

But the seedlings fertilized at the rate of 500 and 1,000

pounds per acre were 2 and 2.5 times as tall as controls,

respectively. The most heavily fertilized seedings were 10.2

feet tall compared to 4.1 feet tall for unfertilized controls.

Broadfoot and Ike (1968) determined that N was the key element for increased growth in this study. Trees fertilized with

N plus P grew only slightly faster than those given N alone.

In the Tennessee Valley, seedlings given N at the rate of 300

pounds per acre were 40 percent taller than controls after 5

years and only 16 percent taller after 9 years; seedlings given

600 pounds per acre were 70 percent taller than controls after

5 years and only 43 percent taller after 9 years (Buckley and

Farmer 1974; Farmer and others 1970). On an old-field site in

West Virginia, seedlings given 500 pounds N per acre were 43

percent taller (2.1 vs. 1.5 feet) than controls after 2 years.

Seedlings fertilized less heavily grew less well.

Probably the best demonstration of growth response to

heavy applications of N was reported by van de Werken and

Warmbrod (1969). They applied N at the rates of 0, 60, and

120 pounds per acre every year for 8 years to small yellowpoplars (initially 8 to 10 feet tall). Trees receiving heaviest

application of N (a total of 960 pounds per acre) were 24.4

feet tall and 5.4 inches in diameter after 8 years compared to

14.3 feet and 2.2 inches for controls. Trees that received a

total of 480 pounds N per acre over the I-year period were

intermediate in size within the limits of the above figures.

Growth response of seedlings has varied with site; the best

response occurred on the poorest sites. In one study, application of 13-13-13 at 1,OQO pounds per acre gave a 25-percent

increase in 5-year height growth on a moderately eroded

upland soil. On a severely eroded site, the same treatment

gave a 40-percent increase in height growth (Baker and Blackmon 1977; Blackman and Broadfoot 1970). Buckner and

Maki (1977) reported that height of fertilized seedlings after 7

years was 90 percent greater than that of controls on a good

old-field site. But on a somewhat better cutover site, height of

fertilized seedlings was only 42 percent greater than controls.

Francis (1977) reported even more striking differences in

response to the application of 150 pounds N and 100 pounds

P per acre on the Cumberland Plateau. Fertilized seedlings

grew 28 times more in height than did controls on an undisturbed Hartsells soil. But on an adjacent plot with the topsoil

removed to the B horizon, fertilized seedlings grew 6.1 times

more than controls in the first year.

Despite all the evidence on response to fertilization, there

are no good guidelines as to when, where, and how to fertilize

yellow-poplar seedlings. Ike (1968) proposed some guides based

on foliar analysis as to when a response to nitrogen might be

expected. But, just how much response to nitrogen might be

expected in a given case, or what other elements might be

needed, is unknown. Methods of application have received little

attention. But in most of the experimental trials, broadcast

application was used with apparent success.

It has been suggested that fertilization of seedlings might

aid in getting yellow-poplar established and into a better

competitive position. However, the long-term effect of fertilization on yield of yellow-poplar and its attendant economic

impact is at best nebulous.

Pole- and sawtimber-size stands of yellow-poplar have

shown positive growth response to fertilization across a variety

of sites. However, the economic returns are questionable. As

was the case with seedlings, older stands have responded most

vigorously and consistently to nitrogen applied at high rates.

Application of a balanced fertilizer (336 pounds per acre N,

73 pounds per acre P, and 139 pounds per acre K) to a 20-yearold plantation on a nutrient-deficient site in Michigan resulted

in 100 percent more height growth, 85 percent more diameter

growth, and 200 percent more volume growth per acre over a

5-year period than on adjacent unfertilized areas (Finn and

White 1966). Nitrogen and potassium without phosphorous

gave results almost as good. But nitrogen alone was nearly as

effective in promoting growth. Fertilization of pole-size stands

in New York (Mitchell 1971; Mitchell and Chandler 1939) on

glacial tills known to be low in nitrogen resulted in positive

response to N but no response to P and K. Radial growth of

yellow-poplar was increased by more than 100 percent by

adding N at the rate of 300 to 800 pounds per acre; the effect

lasted from 6 to 8 years.

Applying 300 pounds per acre N to a series of 20- to

75-year-old stands in the Tennessee Valley resulted in a doubling of basal-area increment over a 5-year period (Farmer and

others 1970). When 66 pounds per acre P, were added to the

300 pounds per acre N, the basal-area growth rate increased

by 2.5 times over that of unfertilized trees. Most of the

growth response occurred the first 3 years after the applica35
Summary

tion. Buckner (1972) found that both diameter and height

growth in mature stands could be increased significantly by a

heavy application of fertilizer. First-year diameter growth was

almost doubled, and height growth was increased by 60 percent after applying fertilizer. After the third growing season,

however, there was no detectable effect of fertilizer on

growth. In West Virginia, on a good yellow-poplar site, 600

pounds per acre N-applied as urea 2 successive years at 300

pounds per year-increased average annual and 7-year cumulative basal-area growth of yellow-poplar by 36 percent over

unfertilized controls (Auchmoody and Smith 1977; Lamson

1978). Seven-year volume growth after the urea application

was estimated as increased by almost 30 percent-from 175

cubic feet per acre to 228. In the Tennessee Valley, sawtimber

Ids receiving 300 pounds per acre N had a board-foot

volume increase of 5.2 percent per year over controls for a

5-year period (Farmer and others 1978). Comparable unfertilized stands increased in board-foot volume by 4.2 percent

per year.

In one study where combinations of several elements. were

tested at varying rates of application, the results failed to

define optimum combinations or rates of application (Vimmerstedt and Osmund 1970). However, heavy application of nitrogen gave the greatest and most consistent response.

Although the effects of nitrogen on growth of sawtimber

stands are substantial, profitability is questionable. In one

case in which an economic analysis was attempted, negative

returns resulted from fertilizing mature sawtimber stands

toward the end of their rotation (Farmer and others 1978).

Based on a cost of $86 per acre to apply 300 pounds of

nitrogen per acre, $60 per thousand board feet stumpage, and

an alternative investment rate of 7% per 5 years, Farmer and

others (1978) found that value increment would have to be

increased two to three times more than the actual value increase

in order for fertilization to become profitable. They concluded

that the amount of increase in volume and value growth rates

required to economically justify fertilization was probably

unobtainable by current techniques.

Yellow-poplar has long been and remains one of the most

important eastern hardwoods. It is widespread geographically

and constitutes a large and increasing growing stock on many

of our more productive sites. The wood is extremely versatile.

It continues to be in demand in the furniture and millwork

industries. Also, the dwindling supply of softwoods for construction-grade lumber and plywood is opening an even

greater potential market for the species.

Unlike some commercially important timber species, yellowpoplar is relatively free from insect and disease pests.

Because of its seed-production characteristics and its sprouting ability, yellow-poplar is readily regenerated by natural

means. On suitable sites where yellow-popbr is present, harvest of the mature stand by clearcutting, shelterwood, or

small patch clearcuts will usually be sufficient to insure establishment of yellow-poplar regeneration. Sometimes, however,

it may be necessary to use manual, chemical, or mechanical

means to control competing vegetation left after the commercial cut. Clearcutting areas of 1 acre or more is probably the

most efficient and economical means to establish yellowpoplar regeneration. Once established, its rapid early height

growth allows yellow-poplar to compete successfully with

associated species on good sites. In fact, because of yellowpoplar’s aggressive regenerative ability, many sites occupied

by other species-particularly the oaks-are currently being

preempted by yellow-poplar.

With proper site selection and meticulous care in stock

handling, yellow-poplar can be successfully planted with standard machine and hand-planting techniques widely used for

many softwood species.

Usually little cultural care is required when yellow-poplar is

in the seedling-sapling stage. An exception is the need to control grapevines on fertile mountain sites where grapevines

often severely suppress yellow-poplar growth in young stands.

Yellow-poplar stands can grow to maturity and produce acceptable yields and quality logs with minimal management effort. At

the same time, they are extremely responsive to managementparticularly density control by thinning. Board-foot volume

production of yellow-poplar stands is maximized by basal-area

stocking that approximates site index. But total growth and

yield remain relatively constant over a wide range of densities.

Thus, yellow-poplar growth can be redistributed by light, frequent thinnings, or by heavier thinnings at longer intervals.

36
References

Abell, Charles A.

1935. Results of 1924 cleanings of cove hardwoods, Pisgah

National Forest. J. For. 33:626-627.

Adams, Robert E.

1968. Are alternating temperatures more beneficial than

constant temperatures during stratification of yellowpoplar seeds? Tree Planters’ Notes 19(3): 16-17.

Affeltranger, Charles E.

1969. An evaluation of soil fumigation treatment for controlling Cylindrocladium root rot in a forest nursery.

USDA For. Serv., Southeast. Area, State and Pri. For.,

Div. For. Pest. Control, Rep. 70-l-1, 7 p. Atlanta, Ga.

Allen, John C.

1953. A half century of reforestation in the Tennessee

Valley. J. For. 51:106-113.

Allen, Rufus H., Jr., and David A. Marquis.

1970. Effect of thinning on height and diameter growth of

oak and yellow-poplar saplings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-173 11 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Anderson, D. M., chairman.

1975. Common names of insects. Entomol. Sot. Am. Spec.

Publ. 75-l rev., 37 p.

Araman, Philip A.

1978. A comparison of four techniques for producing highgrade furniture core material from low-grade yellowpoplar. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-429, 7 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Arnett, James D., Jr., and Wesley Witcher.

1974. Infection sites of Fusarium solani on yellow-poplar.

U.S. Dep. Agric., Plant Dis. Rep. 58(8):754-757.

Auchmoody, L.

1972. Epicormic branching: seasonal change, influence of

fertilization, and frequency of occurrence in uncut

stands. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-228, 8 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Auchmoody, L. R.

1973. Response of yellow-poplar, red oak, and basswood to

fertilization in West Virginia. [1973 Annu. Meet. Amer.

Sot. Agron., Las Vegas, Nev.] Agron. Abstr., p. 137.

Auchmoody, L. R.

1974. Nutrient composition of blades, petioles, and whole

leaves from fertilized and unfertilized yellow-poplar.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-198, 5 p. Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Auchmoody, L. R., and H. Clay Smith.

1977. Response of yellow-poplar and red oak to fertilization

in West Virginia. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. J. 41:803-807.

Auchmoody, L. R., and G. W. Wendel.

1973. Effect of calcium cyanamide on growth and nutrition

of planted yellow-poplar seedlings. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-265, 11 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Aughanbaugh, John E., Harry R. Muckley, and Oliver D. Dil!er.

1958. Performance records of woody plants in the Secrest

Arboretum. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn., Dep. Ser. 41, 91) p.

Auten, John T.

1935. Successful forest planting requires better site appraisals. J. For. 33:861-864.

Amen, John T.

1937a. A method of site evaluation for yellow-poplar based

on depth of the undisturbed A, soil horizon. USDA For.

Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Note 33, 5 p.

Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from North Cent.

For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Auten, John T.

1937b. Site requirements of yellow-poplar. USDA For.

Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Note 32, 13 p.

Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from North Cent.

For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Auten, John T.

1945. Prediction of site index for yellow-poplar from soil

and topography. J. For. 43:662-668.

Bailey, Lowell F.

1948. Figured wood: a study of methods of production.

J. For. 46:119-125.

Baker, J. B., and B. G. Blackman.

1977. Growth of planted yellow-poplar after vertical mulching and fertilization on eroded soils. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Note SO-215, 5 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New

Orleans, La.

Baker, Whiteford L.

1972. Eastern forest insects. U.S. Dep. Agric., Misc. Publ.

1175, 642 p.

Barefoot, Aldos Cortez, Jr.

1958. Critical properties of second growth wood and abnormal wood in yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.)

D.F. diss. Duke Univ., Durham, N.C. 160 p.

Barrett, L. I.

1936. Recent volume tables for some Southern Appalachian

species. USDA For. Serv., Appalachian For. Exp. Stn.,

Tech. Note 19, 50 p. [unnumbered]. Asheville, N.C.

Barrett, R. L., and L. J. Mullin.

1976. Trials of secondary exotic hardwoods in Rhodesia.

For. Res. Pap. 4, 50 p. Rhodesia For. Comm., For. Res.

Cent., Salisbury, Rhodesia.

Beauchamp, John J., and Jerry S. Olson.

1973. Corrections for bias in regression estimates after logarithmic transformation. Ecology 54:1403-1407.

Beck, Donald E.

1962. Yellow-poplar site index curves. USDA For. Serv.,

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 180, 2 p.

Asheville, N.C.

Beck, Donald E.

1963. Cubic-foot volume tables for yellow-poplar in the

Southern Appalachians. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

SE-16, 4 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Beck, Donald E.

1964. International l/4-inch board-foot volumes and boardfoot/cubic-foot ratios for Southern Appalachian yellowpoplar. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-27, 4 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

37
Beck, Donald E.

1974. Predicting growth of individual trees in thinned stands

of yellow-poplar. In Growth models for tree and stand

simulation. Joran Fries, ed. Int. Union For. Res. Organ.

Work. Party S-4.01-4, Meet. Proc. 1973. p. 47-55. Inst.

For. Skogsproduktion Res. Notes 30, Stockholm, Sweden.

Beck, Donald E.

1975. Growth and yield of yellow-poplar, potential for

management. In Impact of inflation on the management

and utilization of hardwoods. Third Annu. Hardwood

Symp. Hardwood Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C.

p. 51-59.

Beck, Donald E.

1977. Growth and development of thinned versus unthinned

yellow-poplar sprout clumps. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

SE-173, 11 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Beck, Donald E., and Lino Della-Bianca.

1970. Yield of unthinned yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. SE-58, 20 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Beck, Donald E., and Lino Della-Bianca.

1972. Growth and yield of thinned yellow-poplar. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-101, 20 p. Southeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Beck, Donald E., and Lino Della-Bianca.

1975. Board-foot and diameter growth of yellow-poplar

after thinning. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-123, 20 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Beck, Donald E., and Charles E. McGee.

1974. Locust sprouts reduce growth of yellow-poplar seedlings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-201, 6 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Belanger, Roger P.

1976. Grafting produces rootable cuttings from mature

yellow-poplar trees. Plant Propag. 22(3): 12-14.

Berry, Frederick H.

1977. Decay in yellow-poplar, maple, black gum, and ash in

the Central Hardwood Region. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

NE-242, 4 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Betts, H.S.

1954. Yellow-poplar. U.S. Dep. Agric., Am. Woods (rev.),

8 P.

Bjorkbom, John C.

1979. Seed production and advance regeneration in Allegheny hardwood forests. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-435, 10 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Blackman, B. C., and W. M. Broadfoot.

1970. Fertilizer improves poplar growth. Miss. Farm Res.

33(11):7.

Bonner, Franklin T.

1965. Seeding and planting southern hardwoods. In Auburn

Univ. Hardwood Short Course Proc., p. 28-40. [Auburn,

Ala., 19641

Bonner, Frank T.

1972. Technology of eastern tree seed: a 5-year report on

research. Proc. Southeast. Area For. Tree Nurseryman’s

Conf., p. 13-21. Miss. For. Comm.; N.C. For. Serv.;

USDA For. Serv., Southeast. Area, State and Priv. For.

[Greenville, Miss., July 24-26, 1972; Wilmington, N.C.,

August 7-10, 19721

Bonner, F. T.

1976. Maturation and collection of yellow-poplar seeds in

the midsouth. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-121, 8 p.

South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Bonner, F. T. and G. L. Switzer.

1971. Upgrading yellow-poplar seeds. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Note SO-129, 4 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New

Orleans, La.

Bourdo, Eric A., and Gary Willis.

1975. Borrow pit reforestation. Mich. Tech. Univ., Ford

For. Cent. Res. Notes, Res. Note 17, 8 p.

Bowersox, T. W., and W. W. Ward.

1972. Long-term response of yellow-poplar to improvement

cuttings. J. For. 70:479-481.

Boyce, John S.

1961. Forest pathology. 3d ed. 572 p. McGraw-Hill Book

Co. Inc., New York.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Roswell D. Carpenter.

1968. Provisional grade specifications for hardwood

growing-stock trees. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-97,

12 p. Northeast. For. Erp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Noel D. Cost.

1974. Timber potentials in the wetland hardwoods. In

Water resources utilization and conservation in the environment. p. 130-151. M. C. Blount, ed. Taylor Print.

Co., Reynolds, Ga.

Boyce, Stephen G., and John F. Hosner.

1963. Alternating storage temperatures increase the germination of yellow-poplar seed. J. For. 61:731-733.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Margaret Kaeiser.

1961. Why yellow-poplar seeds have low viability. USDA

For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Tech. Pap. 186,

16 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Boyce, Stephen G., and Joe P. McClure.

1975. Capture of the biological potential for yellow-poplar

timber. In Impact of inflation on the management and

utilization of hardwoods. Third Annu. Hardwood Symp.

Hardwood Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C. p. 134-144.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Joe P. McClure.

1978. The harvest of yellow-poplar timber can be doubled.

In Marketing and utilization of yellow-poplar: proceedings of a symposium. p. 18-31. Inst. Agric., Univ.

Tenn., Knoxville.

Boyce, Stephen G., and Robert W. Merz.

1959. Tree species recommended for strip-mine plantations

in western Kentucky. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For.

Exp. Stn., Tech. Pap. 160, 12 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be

obtained from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

38
Boyce, Stephen G., and Robert E. Parry.

19.58. Effects of seedbed conditions on yellow-poplar regen-

.eration. J. For. 56:751-753.

Boyette, Warren Giles.

1970. Evaluation of yellow-poplar plantings in North Carolina, 1947-1966. M.S. Thesis. Va. Polytech. Inst.,

Blacksburg. 84 p.

Brender, E. V., and Lawrence S. Davis.

1959. Influence of topography on the future composition of

lower Piedmont forests. J. For. 57:33-34.

Brender, E. V., and T. C. Nelson.

1954. Behavior and control of understory hardwoods after

clear cutting a Piedmont pine stand. USDA For. Serv.

Stn. Pap. SE-44, 17 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Brimley, C. S.

1938. The insects of North Carolina. 560 p. N.C. Dep.

Agric., Div. Entomol. Raleigh, N.C.

Broadfoot, Walter M.

1964. Soil suitability for hardwoods in the midsouth.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SO-lo, 10 p. South. For.

Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Broadfoot, W. M., and A. F. Ike.

1968. Research progress in fertilizing southern hardwoods. In

Forest fertilization: theory and practice. p. 180-184. Tenn.

Val. Auth., Natl. Fert. Dev. Cent., Muscle Shoals, Ala.

Broadfoot, W. M., and H. L. Williston.

1973. Flooding effects on southern forests. J. For.

71:584-587.

Brown, Clair A., and Harold E. Grelen.

1977. Identifying hardwoods growing on pine sites. USDA

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-15, 69 p. South. For.

Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Brown, Gregory N.

1964. Cesium in Liriodendron and other wood species:

organic bonding sites. Science 143:368-369.

Brown, H. P., A. J. Panshin, and C. C. Forsaith.

1949. Textbook of wood technology. vol. 1. 652 p.

McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York.

Buckley, W. B., and R. E. Farmer, Jr.

1974. Fertilization of Tennessee Valley pines and hardwoods: response during the second 5 years after application. Tree Planters’ Notes 25(4):14-15.

Buckner, Edward, and Weaver McCracken.

1978. Yellow-poplar: a component of climax forests? J.

For. 76:421-423.

Buckner, Edward, and T. E. Maki.

1977. Seven-year growth of fertilized and irrigated yellowpoplar, sweetgum, northern red oak, and loblolly pine

planted on two sites. For. Sci. 23:402-410.

Buckner, Edward Reap.

1972. The influence of fertilization and irrigation treatments

on trees in a natural yellow-poplar stand and on planted

seedlings of selected species. Ph.D. thesis. N.C. State

Univ., Raleigh. 133 p.

Buell, Jesse H.

1942. Outside-bark form class volume tables for some Southern Appalachian species. USDA For. Serv., Appalachian

For. Exp. Stn., Tech. Note 53, 76 p. Asheville, N.C.

Burkle, Joseph L., and Sam Guttenberg.

1952. Marking guides for oaks and yellow-poplar in the

southern uplands. USDA For. Serv., South. For. Exp.

Stn., Occas. Pap. 125, 27 p. New Orleans, La.

Burns, Denver P.

1967. The impact of tuliptree scale feeding on its host,

yellow-poplar. Diss. Abstr. 28B:5062.

Burns, Denver P.

1970. Insect enemies of yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-159, 15 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Burns, Denver P.

1971. Yellow-poplar weevil. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Pest

Leafl. 125, 5 p.

Burns, Denver P., and Lester P. Gibson.

1968. The leaf-mining weevil of yellow-poplar. Can.

Entomol. lOO(4): 421-429.

Byler, J. W., and R. P. True.

1966. Root and butt rot in young yellow-poplar stump

sprouts. Phytopathology 56:1091-1097.

Campbell, R. A., H. R. Price, and R. A. Morin.

1950. Timber estimating by tree grade. South. Lumberman

181(2273):243-245.

Campbell, Robert A.

1955a. Hold that poplar! South. Lumberman 191(2393):

150-151.

Campbell, Robert A.

1955b. Tree grades and economic maturity for some Appalachian hardwoods. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Res. Pap. 53, 22 p. Asheville, N.C.

Campbell, Robert A.

1959a. Overrun in second-growth yellow-poplar. USDA

For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 139,

2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Campbell, Robert A.

1959b. Tree grades give accurate estimate of second-growth

yellow-poplar values. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap. 108, 14 p. Asheville, N.C.

Campbell, Robert A.

1960. Does site affect grade yield? In Sot. Am. For. Proc.

1959. p. 50-53.

Carmean, Willard H.

1970. Site quality for eastern hardwoods. In The silviculture

of oaks and associated species. USDA For. Serv. Res.

Pap. NE-144, p. 36-56. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomali, Pa.

Carmean, Willard H.

1975. Forest site quality evaluation in the United States.

Adv. Agron. 27:209-269.

39
Carmean, Willard H., F. Bryan Clark, Robert D. Williams,

and Peter B. Hannah.

1976. Hardwoods planted in old fields favored by prior tree

cover. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-134, 16 p. North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Carpenter, I. W., and A. T. Guard.

1950. Some effects of cross-pollination on seed production

and hybrid vigor of tuliptree. J. For. 48:852-855.

Carter, Fairie Lyn, Terry L. Amburgey, and

Floyd G. Manwiller.

1976. Resistance of 22 southern hardwoods to wood-decay

fungi and subterranean termites. Wood Sci. 8(4):223-226.

Carvell, K. L., E. H. Tryon, and R. P. True.

1957. Effects of glaze on the development of Appalachian

hardwoods. J. For. 55:130-132.

Carvell, Kenneth L.

1964. Improvement cuttings in immature hardwood stands

yield income while increasing future saw timber values.

W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 492, 17 p.

Carvell, Kenneth L.

1966a. Combat herbaceous competition with the use of

large yellow-poplar planting stock. W. Va. Univ. Agric.

Exp. Stn. Bull. 520, p. 3-4, 16.

Carvell, Kenneth L.

1966b. Underplanting: a method of replacing unproductive

hardwood stands with yellow-poplar. W. Va. Univ.

Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 523, p. 3-4, 19.

Carvell, Kenneth L.

1968. Decline of yellow-poplar seed trees following isolation.

W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 565, 12 p.

Carvell, Kenneth L., and James H. Brown.

1967. Spot plant to assure better timber stands. W. Va.

Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 544, p. 13-15.

Carvell, Kenneth L., and C. F. Korstian.

1955. Production and dissemination of yellow-poplar seed.

J. For. 53:169-170.

Cech, Franklin, James Brown, and David Weingartner.

1976. Wind damage to a yellow-popular [yellow-poplar]

seed orchard. Tree Planters’ Notes 27(1):3-4, 20.

Chadwick, L. C.

1935. Practices in propagation by seed. Am. Nurseryman

62(12):3-g.

Chandler, Robert F., Jr.

1939. The calcium content of the foliage of forest trees.

Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Mem. 228, 15 p.

Chapman, A. 0.

1933. Some effects of varying amounts of nitrogen on the

growth of tulip poplar seedlings. Ohio J. Sci. 33:164-181.

Chapman, A. G.

1935. The effects of black locust on associated species with

special reference to forest trees. Ecol. Monogr. 5:37-60.

Chapman, A. G., and R. D. Lane.

1951. Effects of some cover types on interplanted forest tree

species. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn.,

Tech. Pap. 125, 15 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North. Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Churchwell, Newton R.

1965. The vegetative stage of stock and scion are important

factors when field grafting yellow-poplar. Tree Planters’

Notes 70/March:27-29.

Clark, Alexander, III.

1976. Sawmill residue yields from yellow-poplar saw logs.

For. Prod. J. 26(1):23-27.

Clark, Alexander, III, and James G. Schroeder.

1977. Biomass of yellow-poplar in natural stands in western

North Carolina. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-165,

41 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Clark, Alexander, III, Michael A. Taras, and

James G. Schroeder.

1974. Predicted green lumber and residue yields from the

merchantable stem of yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. SE-119, 15 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Asheville, N.C.

Clark, F. Bryan.

1958. Direct seeding yellow-poplar. J. For. 56:351.

Clark, F. Bryan.

1963. White ash, hackberry, and yellow-poplar seed remain

viable when stored in the forest litter. Indiana Acad. Sci.

Proc., 1962. 72:112-114.

Clark, F. Bryan.

1963. Endotrophic mycorrhizae influence yellow poplar

seedling growth. Science 140:1220-1221.

Clark, F. Bryan.

1964. Micro-organisms and soil structure affect yellowpoplar growth. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. CS-9, 12 p.

Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Columbus, Ohio. [Can be

obtained from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.)

Clark, F. Bryan.

1969. Endotrophic mycorrhizal infection of tree seedlings

with Endogone spores. For. Sci. 15:134-137.

Clark, F. Bryan.

1970. Measures necessary for natural regeneration of oaks,

yellow-poplar, sweetgum, and black walnut. In The silviculture of oaks and associated species. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-144, p. l-16. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Clark, F. Bryan, and Stephen G. Boyce.

1964. Yellow-poplar seed remains viable in the forest litter.

J. For. 62:564-567.

Clark, F. Bryan, and Craig K. Losche.

1969. Importance of the A horizon in hardwood seedling

establishment. J. For. 67:504-505.

Clarke, W. W., Jr.

1956. Managing bees for the tulip poplar flow. Gleaning’s

Bee Cult. 84:144-146, 190.

Coile, Theodore S.

1940. Soil changes associated with loblolly pine succession

on abandoned agricultural land of the Piedmont Plateau.

Duke Univ. Sch. For. Bull. 5, 85 p.

40
Coile, Theodore S.

1948. Relation of soil characteristics to site index of loblolly

and shortleaf pines in the lower Piedmont region of

North Carolina. Duke Univ. Sch. For. Bull. 13, 78 p.

Coile, T. S.

1952. Soil and the growth of forests. Adv. Agron. 4:329-398.

Coile, T. S.

1960. Summary of soil-site evaluation. In Southern forest

soils. Eighth Annu. For. Symp., 1959. p. 77-85, La.

State Univ. Sch. For., Baton Rouge.

Colaninno, A., C. E. Sheetz, _I. C. DeMoss, and

H. V. Wiant, Jr.

1977. Which STX bark option is best for certain Appalachian hardwoods? South. _I. Appl. For. 1:25.

Commonwealth Bureau of Soils

1971. Bibliography of soil relationships, nutrition and fertilizing of Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree, yellowpoplar, etc.) and Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust,

etc.) (1970-1956). Annot. Bibliogr. 1457, 12 p. Commonw.

Bur. Soils, England.

Cordell, C. E., A. S. Juttner, and W. J. Stambaugh.

197 1. Cyiindrocludium floridunum causes severe mortality

of seedling yellow-poplar in a North Carolina nursery.

U.S. Dept. Agric., Plant Dis. Rep. 55(8): 700-702.

Core, H. A.

1978. Characteristics of yellow-poplar wood and implications toward marketing opportunities. In Marketing and

utilization of yellow poplar: proceedings of a symposium.

p. 49-55. Univ. Term., Inst. Agric., Knoxville.

Cost, Noel D.

1975. Forest Statistics for the mountain region of North

Carolina, 1974. USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull. SE-31,

33 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Cotrufo, Cosimo.

1977. Nutrient content in litterfall of an Appalachian hardwood stand. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Sot. 93:27-33.

Cox, Russell A.

1973. Application of radiography to seed viabihty problems

in yellow-poplar seed orchards. Twelfth South. For. Tree

Improv. Conf. Proc. p. 104-110. Baton Rouge, La.,

June 12-13, 1973.

Cox, T. L.

1975. Seasonal respiration rates of yellow-poplar roots by

diameter classes. For. Sci. 21: 185-188.

Cox, T. L., and L. D. Hulett.

1975. Applications of scanning electron microscopy to rootsoil relationships in yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tufipiferu L.). Soil Sci. 120(3):195-199.

Craighead, F. C.

1950. Insect enemies of Eastern forests. U.S. Dept. Agric.,

Misc. Publ. 657, 679 p.

Crawford, Hewlette S.

1976. Relationships between forest cutting and understory

vegetation: an overview of eastern hardwood stands.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-349, 9 p. Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Crawford, Hewlette S., R. G. Hooper, and R. F. Harlow.

1976. Woody plants selected by beavers in the Appalachian

Ridge and Valley Province. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-346, 6 p. Northeast, For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Creasy, William D.

1954. Secondary succession and growth of yellow poplar on

the “Green Mountain”, Nicholas County, West Virginia.

Castanea 19:81-87.

Cushwa, C. T., R. L. Downing, R. F. Harlow, and

D. F. Urbston.

1970. The importance of woody twig ends to deer in the

Southeast. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-67, 12 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Czapowskyj, Miroslaw Miro.

1962. Site quality of yellow-poplar in relation to soil factors

in the coastal plain of New Jersey. Diss. Abstr.

23:1849-1850.

DeBell, Dean S., and 0. Gordon Langdon.

1967. A look at an 11-year-old hardwood plantation.

South. Lumberman 215(2680):156-158.

Deitschman, Glenn H.

1950. Comparative survival and growth of trees planted

under three types of overhead cover on strip mined land

in southern Illinois. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For.

Exp. Stn., Stn. Note 63, 2 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be

obtained from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1962. Some hydrologic properties of the Cecil and Lloyd

soil series in Piedmont forests. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 179, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1969. Intensive cleaning increases sapling growth and

browse production in the Southern Appalachians. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note SE-110, 6 p. Southeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1971. Frothingham’s hardwood cleaning at Looking-Glass

Rock: 43 years later. J. For. 69:100-102.

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1972. Screening some standard variables for post-thinning

effect on epicormic sprouting in even-aged yellow-poplar.

For. Sci. 18:155-158.

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1975a. A case for thinning yellow-poplar. South. Lumberman 231(2872):101-103.

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1975b. Precommercial thinning in sapling hardwood stands.

In Impact of inflation on the management and utilization

of hardwoods. Third Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood

Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C. p. 129-133.

Della-Bianca, Lino.

1978. Characteristics, habitat, and fruiting of wild grapevines in the southern Appalachians. J. Elisha Mitchell

Sci. Sot. 94:21-26.

41
Della-Bianca, Lino.

1979. Fruit production by summer grape in the southern

Appalachians. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:579-583.

Della-Bianca, Lino, and Donald E. Beck.

1977. Yellow-poplar recovers quickly from glaze damage.

South. Lumberman 235(2920):55-56.

Della-Bianca, Lino, and Frank M. Johnson.

1965. Effect of an intensive cleaning on deer-browse production in the Southern Appalachians. J. Wildl. Manage.

291729-733.

Della-Bianca, Lino, and David F. Olson, Jr.

1961. Soil-site studies in Piedmont hardwood and pinehardwood upland forests. For. Sci. 7:320-329.

Della-Bianca, Lino, and Carol G. Wells.

1967. Some chemical properties of forest soils in the VirginiaCarolina Piedmont. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-28,

16 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Sm., Asheville, N.C.

Den Uyl, Daniel.

1958. A twenty year record of the growth and development

of Indiana woodlands. Purdue Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn.

Res. Bull. 661, 52 p. Lafayette, Ind.

Dochinger, L. S., and C. E. Seliskar.

1962a. Fusarium bark canker of yellow-poplar. (Abstr.)

Phytopathology 52~8.

Dochinger, Leon S., and Carl E. Seliskar.

1962b. Fusarium canker found on yellow-poplar. J. For.

60:331-333.

Donley, David E., and Denver P. Burns.

1965. The tuliptree scale. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Pest

Leafl. 92, 5 p.

Doolittle, Warren T.

1958. Site indexlcomparisons for several forest species in

the Southern Appalachians. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. Proc.

22~455-458.

Dorman, Keith W.

1966. Forest tree improvement research in the South and

Southeast. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-22, 90 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Downs, Albert A.

1942. Early responses to weedings in some eastern mountain

hardwoods. J. For. 40:865-872.

Downs, Albert A.

1946. Response to release of sugar maple, white oak, and

yellow-poplar. J. For. 44:22-27.

Downs, Robert J.

1958. Photoperiodic control of growth and dormancy in

woody plants. In The physiology of forest trees.

p. 529-537. Kenneth V. Thimann, ed. Proc. of Symp. at

Harvard Forest [April 19571. Roland Press Co., New York.

Downs, R. J., and H. A. Borthwick.

1956. Effects of photoperiod on growth of trees. Bot. Gaz.

117:310-326.

Duerr, William A., John Fedkiw, and Sam Guttenberg.

1956. Financial maturity: a guide to profitable timber growing. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 1146, 74 p.

Engle, LaMont G.

1960. Yellow-poplar seedfall pattern. USDA For. Serv.,

Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Note 143, 2 p. Columbus Ohio. [Can be obtained from North Cent. For. Exp.

Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Engle, LaMont G., and Robert D. Williams.

1957. Scarifying seedbed boosts yellow-poplar germination.

USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Note

110, 2 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Enright, L. J.

1957. Vegetative propagation of Liriodendron tulipifera.

J. For. 55:892-893.

Erdmann, Gayne G.

1967. Chemical weed control increases survival and growth

in hardwood plantings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

NC-34, 4 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Erickson, Harvey D.

1949. Relation of specific gravity to shrinkage and of these

factors to growth in yellow-poplar. J. Agric. Res.

78:103-127.

Evans, Richard M., and Eyvind Thor.

1971. Successful grafting of yellow-poplar . . . a matter of

timing. Tree Planters’ Notes 22(4):29-30.

Farmer, R. E., Jr., C. W. Bengtson, and J. W. Curlin.

1970. Response of pine and mixed hardwood stands in the

Tennessee Valley to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization. For. Sci. 16:130-136.

Farmer, R. E., W. B. Buckley, and S. M. Potts.

1978. Nitrogen fertilization of saw-log yellow-poplar. Final

Report TP5.6, 7 p. Tenn. Val. Auth., Knoxville.

Farmer, R. E., Jr., T. E. Russell, and R. M. Krinard.

1967. Sixth-year results from a yellow-poplar provenance

test. In Ninth South. Conf. For. Tree Improv. Proc.,

p. 65-68. [Knoxville, Tenn.]

Farmer, R. E., Jr., E. A. Snow, and J. W. Curlin.

1970. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilization on

juvenile growth of planted yellow-poplar on an eroded

old field. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. Proc. 34:312-313.

Fechner, Gilbert H.

1951. Yellowpoplar lumber grade yield recovery-a guide to

improved cutting practices. J. For. 49:888-894.

Fenton, Richard H., and Karl E. Pfeiffer.

1965. Successful Maryland white pine-yellow-poplar plantation: its response to thinning. J. For. 63:765-768.

Filer, T. H., Jr.

1970. Virulence of three Cylindrocladium species to yellowpoplar seedlings. U.S. Dep. Agric., Plant Dis. Rep.

54(4):320-322.

Finn, Raymond F.

1953. Foliar nitrogen and growth of certain mixed and pure

forest plantings. J. For. 51:31-33.

Finn, Raymond Francis.

1966. Mineral nutrition of yellow-poplar. Diss. Abstr.

27(9): 2998-2999B.

42
Finn, Raymond F., and Donald P. White.

1966. Commercial fertilizers increase growth in a yellowpoplar plantation. J. For. 64809810.

Fitzgerald, Charles H., and Charles W. Selden III.

1975. Herbaceous weed control accelerates growth in a

young yellow poplar plantation. J. For. 73:21-22.

Forbes, Reginald D., and Arthur B. Meyer.

1956. Forestry handbook. Sot. Am. For. Ronald Press,

New York.

Foulger, A. N., J. P. Vimmerstedt, and Cynthia Eichar.

1975. Stem anatomy of 30-year-old yellow-poplar. For. Sci.

21:23-33.

Francis, John K.

1977. Fertilizer and mulch improves yellow-poplar growth

on exposed Hartsells subsoils. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

SO-231, 3 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Frothingham, E. H.

1931. Timber growing and logging practice in the Southern

Appalachian region. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 250,

93 p.

Fujimoto, Hideto, and Takayoshi Higuchi.

1977. Biosynthesis of liriodendrin by Liriodendron tulipifera.

Wood Res. 62:1-10.

Funk, David T.

1958. Frost damage to yellow-poplar varies by seed source

and site. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn.,

Stn. Note 115, 2 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Funk, David T.

1963. Bud-grafting yellow-poplar. Proc. Third Cent. States

For. Tree Improv. Conf., p. 19-21. [Lafayette, Indiana,

1962.1

Funk, David T.

1964. Premium yellow-poplar seedlings: 8 years after planting. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note CS-20, 4 p. Cent. States

For. Exp. Stn., Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from

North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Funk, David T., G. A. Limstrom, and Paul R. Laidly.

1974. Tall yellow-poplar seedlings still three years ahead of

others. Tree Planters’ Notes 25(1):8-9.

Garner, W. W., and H. A. Allard.

1923. Further studies in photoperiodism, the response of

the plant to relative length of day and night. J. Agric.

Res. 23:871-920.

Gemborys, S. R., and Earl J. Hodgkins.

1971. Forests of small stream bottoms in the Coastal Plain

of southwestern Alabama. Ecology 52:70-84.

Gibbs, Carter B.

1963. Tree diameter a poor indicator of age in West Virginia

hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-11, 4 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Gilmore, A. R.

1971. Specific gravity of plantation-grown yellow-poplar is

not related to site. Wood and Fiber 3(3):182-183.

Gilmore, A. R., W. A. Geyer, and W. R. Boggess.

1968. Microsite and height growth of yellow-poplar. For.

Sci. 14:420-426.

Ginns, J. H.

1962. Yellow-poplar butt rot infection from dead ancillary

stems (Abstr.) Phytopathology 52:1218.

Ginns, J. H., and R. P. True.

1967. Butt rot in yellow-poplar seedling-sprout stands. For.

Sci. 13440447.

Ginrich [Gingrich], Samuel F.

1967. Measuring and evaluating stocking and stand density

in upland hardwood forests in the Central States. For.

Sci. 13:38-53.

Gouin, Francis R., and John M. Walker.

1977. Deciduous tree seedling response to nursery soil

amended with composted sewage sludge. HortScience

12(1):45-47.

Graves, Henry S.

1910. Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipijera). U.S. Dep.

Agric., Plant Leafl. Circ. 93 (rev.), 4 p. Washington, D.C.

Gray, L. E., and J. W. Gerdemann.

1967. Influence of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae on the

uptake of phosphorus 32 by liriodendron tulipifera and

Liquidambar styraciflua. Nature 213: 106-107.

Green, Alan W., and LeeRoy Green.

1959. Fast-starting species best in some Iowa plantations.

USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Note

133, 2 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Green, Alan W., and Daniel J. Neebe.

1957. Early development of yellow-poplar on two planting

sites. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., Stn.

Note 106, 2 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from

North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Guard, A. T.

1943. The development of the seed of Liriodendron tulipifera L. Indiana Acad. Sci. Proc. 53:75-77.

Guard, Arthur T., and Robert E. Wean.

1941. Seed production in the tulip poplar. J. For.

39: 1032-1033.

Hall, T. F., W. T. Penfound, and A. D. Hess.

1946. Water level relationships of plants in the Tennessee

Valley with particular reference to malaria control. J.

Tenn. Acad. Sci. 21(1):18-59.

Hampf, Frederick E.

1955. Relationship of stump diameter to d.b.h. for yellowpoplar in the Northeast. USDA For. Serv., Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 55, 3 p. Broomall, Pa.

Hampf, Frederick E.

1965. Site index curves for some forest species in the eastern

United States (rev.), 43 p. USDA For. Serv., State and

Priv. For., East. Reg., Broomall, Pa.

Hanks, Leland F.

1971. Interim hardwood tree grades for factory lumber.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-199, 29 p. Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

43
Hanks, Leland F.

1973. Green lumber grade yields for subfactory class hardwood logs. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-256, 8 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Hanks, Leland F.

1976. Hardwood tree grades for factory lumber. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-333, 81 p. Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Hanks, Leland F.

1977. Predicted cubic-foot yields of lumber, sawdust, and

sawmill residue from the sawtimber portions of hardwood trees. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-380, 23 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Harlow, Richard F., and Robert L. Downing.

1970. Deer browsing and hardwood regeneration in the

southern Appalachians. J. For. 68:298-300.

Harlow, R. F., and L. K. Halls.

1972. Response of yellowpoplar and dogwood seedlings to

clipping. H. Wildl. Manage. 36:1076-1080.

Harlow, Richard F., and Robert G. Hooper.

1972. Forages eaten by deer in the Southeast. Twenty-Fifth

Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game & Fish Comm. Proc.

1971, p. 18-46. [Charleston, S.C., October 17-20, 19711

Harlow, Richard F., Paul A. Shrauder, and Monte E. Seehorn.

1975a. Deer browse resources of the Chattahoochee National

Forest. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-136, 16 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Harlow, Richard F., Paul A. Shrauder, and Monte E. Seehorn.

1975b. Deer browse resources of the Oconee ‘National Forest.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-137, 16 p. Southeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Harris, W. F.

1972. Morphological responses of Liriodendron tulipifera L.

seedlings to acute fast neutron radiation and reduced

light. Radiat. Bot. 12(3):205-219.

Hartley, Carl, Ross W. Davidson, and Bowen S. Crandall.

1961. Wet wood, bacteria, and increased pH in trees.

USDA For. Serv., For. Prod. Lab. Rep. 2215, 34 p.

Madison, Wise.

Hatmaker, John F., and Kingsley A. Taft, Jr.

1966. Successful hardwood grafting. Tree Planters’ Notes

79:14-18.

Hawley, Ralph C., and David M. Smith.

1958. The practice of silviculture. 6th ed. 525 p. John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., New York.

Hay, C. J.

1958. Life history and control of a root collar borer (Euzophora ostricolorella Hulst.) in yellow-poplar. J. Econ.

Entomol. 5 1:25 l-252.

Hebb, Edwin A.

1962. Relation of tree growth to site factors. Tenn. Agric.

Exp. Stn. Bull. 349, 18 p.

Heit, C. E.

1942. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera): propagation

and seed data. N.Y. Conserv. Dep. Notes on For. Invest.

4491 P.

Henderson, G. S., W. F. Harris, D. E. Todd, Jr., and

T. Grizzard.

1977. Quantity and chemistry of throughfall as influenced

by forest-type and season. J. Ecol. 65:365-374.

Hepting, George H.

1971. Diseases of forest and shade trees of the United

States. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 386, 658 p.

Hepting, George H., and Marvin E. Fowler.

1962. Tree diseases of eastern forests and farm woodlands.

U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Inf. Bull. 254, 48 p.

Hepting, George H., and George G. Hedgcock.

1937. Decay in merchantable oak, yellow-poplar, and basswood in the Appalachian region. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech.

Bull. 570, 30 p.

Hepting, George H., Elmer R. Roth, and R. F. Luxford.

1942. The significance of the discolorations in aircraft

veneers: yellow poplar. USDA For. Serv., For. Prod.

Lab. Rep. 1375, 8 p. Madison, Wise.

Hepting, George H., Elmer R. Roth, and Bailey Sleeth.

1949. Discolorations and decay from increment borings.

J. For. 47:366-370.

Herr, David S., and Kenneth L. Carvell.

1975. Studies on the quantity of yellow-poplar seed stored

in the litter. W. Va. Univ., W. Va. For. Notes 4. p. 3-6.

Hacker, Harold W., Jr.

1953. Relative growth and development of loblolly pine

(Pinus taeda L.) and yellowpoplar (Lirodendron tulipifera

L.) on a series of soil sites in the lower Piedmont of

North Carolina. M.F. thesis. N.C. State Univ., Sch.

For., Raleigh. 40 p.

Holcomb, Carl J., and C. Allen Bickford.

1952. Growth of yellow-poplar and associated species in

West Virginia . . . as a guide to selective cutting. USDA

For. Serv., Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap. 52,

28 p. Broomall, Pa.

Holsoe, Torkel.

1950. Profitable tree forms of yellowpoplar. W. Va. Agric.

Exp. Stn. Bull. 341, 23 p.

Holsoe, Torkel.

1951. Yellowpoplar: reaction to crown release and other

factors influencing growth. W. Va. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull.

344-T, 83 p.

Holt, Harvey A., Stephen H. Wickham, and

James R. Wichman.

1976. Forest nursery weed control results. Proc. North

Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. 30:175-177. [Milwaukee, Wise..

December 9-l 1, 1975.1

Hook, Donal D., and Claud L. Brown.

1973. Root adaptations and relative flood tolerance of five

hardwood species. For. Sci. 19:225-229.

Hough, Romeyn Beck.

1910. The American Woods. Part 1. Representing 25 species

by 27 sections. 3d ed., 79 p. [Yellow-poplar Plate II,

p. 40-42.1 Published and sections prepared by author,

Lowville, N.Y.

44
Huckenpahler, B. J.

1955. Auxins fail to stimulate rooting of yellow-poplar

cuttings. Bot. Gaz. 117:73-75.

Hutchinson, Boyd A., and R. Matt Detlef.

1977. The distribution of solar radiation within a deciduous

forest. Ecol. Monogr. 47:185-207.

Ike, Albert F., Jr.

1962. Fertilized yellow-poplar seedlings maintain growth

advantage after four years. USDA For. Serv., Southeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 175, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Ike, Albert F.

1967. Type-site relationships in the Piedmont. Proc. 1966

Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.

p. 12-15. Ga. For. Res. Count., Macon.

Ike, Albert F.

1968. Symptoms of nutrient deficiency in yellow-poplar

seedlings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-94, 4 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Ike, Albert F.

197 1. Species-site relationships for Southern Appalachian

hardwoods. Symp. South. Appalachian Hardwoods Proc.

1970, p. 23-37. USDA For. Serv. Southeast. Area, State

and Priv. For., Atlanta, Ga.

Ike, Albert F., Jr.

1972. Fertilization review: yellow-poplar. In Forest fertilization research in the South: a review and analysis.

p. 53-59. South. Coop. Ser. Bull. 158. Agric. Exp. Stns.

of Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Tenn. Val.

Auth., and USDA cooperating.

Ike, Albert F., Jr., and C. D. Huppuch.

1968. Predicting tree height growth from soil and topographic site factors in the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains.

Ga. For. Res. Count. Res. Pap. 54, 11 p.

Illick, J. S.

1919. When trees grow. Am. For. 25:1386-1390.

International Seed Testing Association.

1966. International rules for seed testing 1966. Proc. Int.

Seed Test. Assoc. 31(1):1-152.

Jemison, George M., and George H. Hepting.

1949. Timber stand improvement in the Southern Appalachian region. U.S. Dep. Agric., Misc. Publ. 693, 80 p.

Jemison, George M., and F. X. Schumacher.

1948. Epicormic branching in old-growth Appalachian

hardwoods. J. For. 46:252-255.

Jensen, Keith F., and Roberta G. Masters.

1973. Effect of defoliation on carbohydrate content of

yellow-poplar seedlings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

NE-179, 2 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Jensen, Keith F., and Bruce R. Roberts.

1973. Effects of Fusarium canker on translocation in yellowpoplar seedlings. Physiol. Plant Pathol. 3:359-361.

Jett, Jackson B., Jr. and Eyvind Thor.

1969. Formation of graft unions in yellow-poplar. In Tenn.

Farm and Home Sci., Prog. Rep. 70, p. 7-l 1.

Johnson, J. W.

1967. Planting and seeding hardwoods. In Proc. 1966

Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.

p. 37-40. Ga. For. Res. Count., Macon.

Johnson, T. W., Jr., M. H. Goforth, R. W. Powell, Jr., and

N. D. Haar.

1957. Observations on yellow-poplar dieback. For. Sci.

3:84-89.

Johnson, Warren T., and Howard H. Lyon.

1976. Insects that feed on trees and shrubs. 464 p. Cornell

Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y.

Jones, Earle P., Jr.

1959. Wet site survival and growth. USDA For. Serv. Res.

Notes 130, 2 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Jones, Herbert C., III, and James W. Curlin.

1968. The role of fertilizers in improving the hardwoods of

the Tennessee Valley. In Forest fertilization theory and

practice symposium, 1967. p. 72-76. Tenn. Val. Auth.,

Gainesville, Fla.

Jones, Leroy.

1967. Collection, extraction, and storage of hardwood seed.

Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and

Coastal Plain. p. 33-36. Ga. For. Res. Count., Macon.

Jorgensen, J. R., and C. G. Wells.

1973. The relationship of respiration in organic and mineral

soil layers to soil chemical properties. Plant and Soil

39~373-387.

Judson, George M.

1965. Tree diameter growth in Alabama. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Note SO-17, 3 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New

Orleans, La.

Kaeiser, Margaret, and Stephen G. Boyce.

1962a. Embryology of Liriodendron tulipifera L. Phytomorphology 12:103-109.

Kaeiser, Margaret, and Stephen G. Boyce.

1962b. X-ray negatives for sorting yellow-poplar samaras

with filled and empty seeds. J. For. 60:410-411.

Kellison, R. C.

1968. Natural variation of yellow-poplar in North Carolina.

Fifteenth Northeast. For. Tree Improv. Conf. Proc.

p. 7-14. [Morgantown, W. Va., 1967.1

Kellison, Robert Clay.

1967. A geographic variation study of yellow-poplar

(Liriodendron tulipifera L.) within North Carolina. N.C.

State Univ., Sch. For. Tech. Rep. 33, 41 p.

Kelman, Arthur, and Guy V. Gooding, Jr.

1965. A root and stem rot of yellow-poplar caused by

Cylindrocladium scoparium. U.S. Dep. Agric., Plant Dis.

Rep. 49(9):797-801.

Kelman, Arthur, Guy V. Gooding, Jr., and G. K. Slocum.

1959. Cylindrocladium root rot of yellow poplar. J. Elisha

Mitchell Sci. Sot. 75:66-67.

Kessler, K. J., and R. P. True.

1960. Symptoms of Verticillium wilt in yellowpoplar.

(Abstr.) Phytopathology 50:572.

45
Kienholz, Raymond.

1941. Seasonal course of height growth in some hardwoods

in Connecticut. Ecology 22:249-258.

Koch, C. B.

1970. Variation in bark specific gravity of selected Appalachian hardwoods. Wood Sci. 3~43-47.

Koch, C. B.

1971. Bark volume of yellow-poplar, red, black, and scarlet

oak, and red maple in northern West Virginia. W. Va.

Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 602-T, 20 p.

Koch, C. B.

1978. Properties of yellow-poplar related to structural use.

In Marketing and utilization of yellow-poplar: proceedings of a symposium, p. 89-103. Univ. of Tenn., Inst.

Agric., Knoxville.

Koch, C. B., Arthur Brauner, and Donald Kulow.

1968. Specific gravity variation within young yellow-poplar

trees. W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 564-T, 9 p.

Koch, C. B., and W. T. Rousis.

1977. Yield of yellow-poplar structural dimension from lowgrade saw logs. For. Prod. J. 27(4)&l-48.

Kochenderfer, J., and R. Lee.

1973. Indexes to transpiration by forest trees. OEcolog.

Plant. 8(2):175-184.

Kormanik, Paul P., and Claud L. Brown.

1967a. Adventitious buds on mature trees. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Note SE-82, 7 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Asheville, N.C.

,Kormanik, Paul P., and Claud L. Brown.

1967b. Epicormic branching and sprouting in hardwoods: a

new look at an old problem. Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. p. 21-24. Ga.

For. Res. Count., Macon.

Kormanik, Paul P., and Claud L. Brown.

1973. Modified growth chamber enhances vegetative propagation of selected sweetgum and yellow-poplar. Twelfth

South. For. Tree Improv. Conf. Proc. p. 259-266.

[Baton Rouge, La., June 12-13, 1973.1

Kormanik, Paul P., and Edward J. Porterfield.

1966. Rooting yellow-poplar cuttings. For. Farmer 26(2):24,

41-42.

Kormanik, Paul P., and Richard G. Schultz.

1975. Potential use of vegetatively propagated yellow-poplar

for assessing site adaptability of clones. In Impact of

inflation on the management and utilization of hardwoods. Third Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood Res.

Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C. p. 151-157.

Korstian, C. F., and A. L. MacKinney.

1931. Planting versus direct seeding of yellow-poplar in the

Southern Appalachian region. J. For. 29: 1178-l 181.

Korstian, C. F., and Paul W. Stickel.

1927a. The natural replacement of blight-killed chestnut.

U.S. Dep. Agric., Misc. Circ. 100, 15 p.

Korstian, C. F., and Paul W. Stickel.

1927b. The natural replacement of blight-killed chestnut in

the hardwood forests of the Northeast. J. Agric. Res.

34:631-648.

Kozlowski, Theodore T.

1943. Transpiration rates of some forest tree species during

the dormant season. Plant Physiol. 18(2):252-260.

Kozlowski, Theodore T.

1949. Light and water in relation to growth and competition of Piedmont forest tree species. Ecol. Monogr.

19:207-231.

Kramer, Paul J.

1934. Methods of breaking dormancy in certain forest trees.

J. For. 32~734-741.

Kramer, Paul J.

1936. Effect of variation in length of day on growth and

dormancy of trees. Plant Physiol. 11:127-137.

Kramer, Paul J.

1943. Amount and duration of growth of various species of

tree seedlings. Plant Physiol. 18:239-251.

Kulow, D. L., and E. H. Tryon.

1968. Yellow-poplar twins reliable for determining site

index. J. For. 66:198.

Lamson, Neil I.

1976. Appalachian hardwood stump sprouts are potential

sawlog crop trees. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-229,

4 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Lamson, N. I.

1978. Fertilization increases growth of sawlog-size yellowpoplar and red oak in West Virginia. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-403, 6 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Lamson, Neil I., and H. Clay Smith.

1978. Response to crop tree release: sugar maple, red oak,

black cherry, and yellow-poplar saplings in a 9-year-old

stand. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-394, 8 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Leffelman, Louis J., and Ralph C. Hawley.

1925. Studies of Connecticut hardwoods. The treatment of

advance growth arising as a result of thinnings and shelterwood cuttings. Yale Univ. Sch. For. Bull. 15, 68 p.

Li, Hui-Lin, and Jonathan W. Wright.

1954. The Chinese tuliptree (Liriodendron chinese (chinensisfi

in northeastern United States. Univ. Pa. Morris Arboretum Bull. 5, p. 34-35.

Lima, W. P., J. H. Patric, and N. Holowaychuk.

1978. Natural reforestation reclaims a watershed: a case

history from West Virginia. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-392, 7 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Limstrom, G. A.

1955. Current forest tree improvement research in the Central States. In Proc. Lake States For. Tree Improv. Conf.

Lake States For. Exp. Stn. Misc. Rep. 40, p. 37-41.

Limstrom, G. A.

1958. Stratify yellow-poplar seed or sow directly? Tree

Planters’ Notes 32/April:3-4.

46
Limstron, G. A.

1959. Yellow-poplar seed quality varies by seed trees,

stands, and years. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp.

Stn., Stn. Note 134, 2 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Limstrom, G. A.

1963. Forest planting practice in the Central States. U.S.

Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 247, 69 p.

Limstrom, G. A.

1965. Interim forest tree improvement guides for the Central States. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. CS-12, 64 p. Cent.

States For. Exp. Stn., Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Limstrom, Gustaf A., R. F. Finn, and G. H. Deitschman.

1955. Planting stock grades for yellow-poplar. J. For.

53:28-32.

Limstrom, Gustaf A., and Raymond F. Finn.

1956. Seed source and nursery effects on yellow-poplar

plantations. J. For. 54:828-831.

Limstrom, G. A., Raymond F. Finn, and

Glenn H. Deitschman.

1953. How to grade yellow-poplar planting stock. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note 81, 2 p. Cent. States For. Exp.

Stn., Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained from North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Little, Elbert L., Jr.

1953. Check list of native and naturalized trees of the United

States (including Alaska). U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric.

Handb. 41, 472 p.

Little, Elbert L., Jr., E. S: Harrar, Horace R. Josephson,

and others.

1962. Flowering, size, growth rate, and life span: forest

trees, North American. Table 103. In Biological handbook on growth. p. 380. P. L. Altman and Dittmer, eds.

Fed. Am. Sot. Exp. Biol., Washington, D.C.

Little S.

1967. Treatments needed to regenerate yellow-poplar in

New Jersey and Maryland. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

NE-58, 8 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Little, S., and H. A. Somes.

1954. Effect of ammate on unwanted growth in oak-yellowpoplar stands in New Jersey. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

29, 2 p. Northeast. For Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Loftis, David L.

1978. Preharvest herbicide control of undesirable vegetation

in southern Appalachian hardwoods. South. J. Appl.

For. 2:51-54.

Loftus, Nelson S.

1971. Yellow-poplar root development on Hartsells subsoils.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SO-131, 5 p. South. For.

Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Loftus, Nelson S., Jr.

1974. Performance of pine and yellow-poplar planted on

low-quality sites in central Tennessee. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Note SO-176, 5 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New

Orleans, La.

Loftus, Nelson S., Jr.

1975. Response of yellow-poplar seedlings to simulated .

drought. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SO-194, 3 p.

South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Lotti, Thomas.

1955. Yellow-poplar height growth affected by seed source.

Tree Planters’ Notes 22/Dec.:3.

Lucas, Edwin L.

1969. An approach to yellow-poplar tree valuation. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-137, 13 p. Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Lunt, Herbert A.

1948. The forest soils of Connecticut. Conn. Agric. Exp.

Stn. Bull. 523, 93 p.

Luxford, R. F., and L. W. Wood.

1953. Survey of strength and related properties of yellowpoplar. USDA For. Serv., For. Prod. Lab. Rep. 1516

rev., 44 p. Madison, Wise.

Lynch, Keith D., and J. F. Goggans.

1976. Budding trials with sweetgum, sycamore, and yellowpopular [yellow-poplar]. Tree Planters’ Notes 27( 1):7, 21.

Mabee, H. F., and J. H. B. Garner.

1974. Seasonal variations of soil fungi isolated from the

rhizosphere of Liriodendron tulipifera L. Ecol. Stud.

Anal. Synth. 8:185-190.

McAlpine, Robert G.

1959a. Flooding kills yellow-poplar. For. Farmer 19(3):9,

13-14.

McAlpine, Robert G.

1959b. Response of planted yellow-poplar to diammonium

phosphate fertilizer. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 132, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

McAlpine, Robert G.

1959~. Yellow-poplar responds to fertilization. South.

Lumberman 199(2489):95-96.

McAlpine, Robert G.

1961. Yellow-poplar seedlings intolerant to flooding. J. For.

59:566-568.

McAlpine, Robert G.

1964. A method for producing clones of yellow-poplar.

J. For. 62:115-116.

McAlpine, Robert G.

1967. Managing young hardwood stands in the Piedmont.

In Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and

Coastal Plain. p. 43-44. Ga. For. Res. Count., Macon.

McAlpine, Robert G., and Paul P. Kormanik.

1971. Rooting cuttings from select yellow-poplar trees.

Eleventh Conf. South. For. Tree Improv. Proc.

p. 241-243. Atlanta, Ga., June 15-16, 1971.

McAlpine, Robert G., and Paul P. Kormanik.

1972. Rooting yellow-poplar cuttings from girdled trees.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-180, 4 p. Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

McCarthy, E. F.

1933. Yellowpoplar characteristics, growth, and management. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 356, 58 p.

47
McCauley, Orris D., and George R. Trimble, Jr.

1975. Site quality in Appalachian hardwoods: the biological

and economic response under selection silviculture.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-312, 22 p. Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

McCay, Roger E.

1969. Distributing value gain from three growth factors for

yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-104, 8 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

McDermott, J. Joseph.

1941. Changes in chemical composition of twigs and buds

of yellow-poplar during the dormant period. Plant

Physiol. 16(2):415-418.

McElwee, R. L.

1970. Artificial regeneration of hardwoods. In The silviculture of oaks and associated species. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-144, p. 17-25. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

McGahan, M. W., J. H. Brown, Jr., W. P. Gould, and others.

1961. Site conditions and tree growth analyses in Rhode

Island forests. R.I. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 357, 32 p.

McGee, Charles E.

1972. From a defective hardwood stand multiple use opportunity. J. For. 70:700-704.

McGee, Charles E.

1975. Regeneration alternatives in mixed oak stands. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-125, 8 p. Southeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Asheville, N.C.

McGee, Charles E.

1977. Planted yellow-poplar grows well after essential site

preparation. Tree Planters’ Notes 28(1):5-7, 38.

McGee, Charles E.

1979. Fire and other factors related to oak regeneration. In

Regenerating oaks in upland hardwood forests. p. 75-81.

John S. Wright For. Conf. Proc. [Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Ind., Feb. 22-23, 19791

McGee, Charles E.

1980. The effect of fire on species dominance in young

upland hardwood stands. In Mid-South Upland Hardwood Symp., April 30, May l-2, 1980. [Harrison,

Arkansas. In press.]

McGee, Charles E., and F. Bryan Clark.

1975. Harvesting and reproducing yellow-poplar. In Impact

of inflation on the management and utilization of hardwoods. p. 26-31. Third Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C.

McGee, Charles E., and Lino Della-Bianca.

1967. Diameter distributions in natural yellow-poplar

stands. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-25, 7 p. Southeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

McGee, Charles E., and Ralph M. Hooper.

1970. Regeneration after clearcutting in the Southern

Appalachians. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-70, 12 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

McGee, Charles E., and Ralph M. Hooper.

1975. Regeneration trends IO years after clearcutting of an

Appalachian hardwood stand. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

SE-227, 3 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

McKnight, J. S.

1966. Hints for direct seeding southern hardwoods. Proc.

Direct Seeding Workshops, [Alexandria, La., Oct. 5-6,

1965, and Tallahassee, Fla., October 20-21, 1965.1

p. 26-35. USDA For. Serv., Atlanta, Ga.

McKnight, J. S., and F. T. Bonner.

1961. Potentials and problems of hardwood tree improvement. Sixth South. Conf. For. Tree Improv. Proc.

p. 164-178. Gainesville, Fla., June 196Y.

McLintock, Thomas F.

1977. Some challenges for 1978. South. Lumberman

235(2920):95-96.

Madgwick, H. A. I.

197 1. Growth of Liriodendron tulipifera seedlings with different levels of nitrogen supply. For. Sci. 17:287-292.

Madgwick, H. A. I.

1975. Effects of partial defoliation on the growth of Liriodendron tuiipifera L. seedlings. Ann. Bot.

39(164):1111-1115.

Madgwick, H. A. I., and David F. Olson.

1974. Leaf area index and volume growth in thinned stands

of Liriodendron tuhpifera L. J. Appl. Ecol. 11:575-579.

Maneval, Willis Edgar.

1914. The development of Magnolia and Liriodendron,

including a discussion of the primitiveness of the Magnoliaceae. Bot. Gaz. 57:1-31.

Marquis, David A.

1974. The impact of deer browsing on Allegheny hardwood

regeneration. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-308, 8 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Martin, A. Jeff.

1977. Increased yields from near-complete multiproduct

harvesting of a cove-hardwood stand. North. Logger and

Timber Process. 26%7, 37.

Mendel, Joseph J., Paul S. DeBald, and Martin E. Dale.

1976. SETS: stand evaluation tools II. Tree value conversion standards for hardwood sawtimber. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Pap. NE-337, 74 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Mendel, Joseph J., and Margaret K. Peirsol.

1977. Quality index tables for some eastern hardwood

species. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-370, 10 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Mendel, Joseph J., and George R. Trimble, Jr.

1969. The rate of value increase for yellow-poplar and

beech. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-140, 27 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Merz, Robert W., and Stephen G. Boyce.

1958. Reproduction of upland hardwoods in southeastern

Ohio. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn.,

Tech. Pap. 155, 24 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

48
Merz, Robert W., and Raymond F. Finn.

1955. Yellow-poplar responds to preplanting ground treatment. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn.,

Tech. Pap. 150, 18 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Metz, Louis J.

1947. Site indices of yellow-poplar and red gum on alluvial

soils in the vicinity of Durham, North Carolina. M.F.

thesis. Duke Univ. Sch. For. Durham, N.C. 31 p.

Metz, Louis J.

1952. Calcium content of hardwood litter four times that

from pine; nitrogen double. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 14, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Metz, Louis J.

1954. Forest floor in the Piedmont region of South Carolina. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. Proc. 18:335-338.

Mignery, Arnold L.

1966. Small woodland management demonstration in southeastern Tennessee. KTG [Keep Tennessee Green] J.

6(3):6-7, 10.

Millar, Richard H., and Q. G. Raymund.

1967. Hardwood management under the even-aged system of

silviculture. Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont

and Coastal Plain. p. 65-69. Ga. For. Res. Count., Macon.

Minckler, Leon S.

194la. Forest plantation success and soil-site characteristics

on old fields in the Great Appalachian Valley. Soil Sci.

Sot. Am. Proc. 6:396-398.

Minckler, Leon S.

194lb. The right tree in the right place. J. For. 39:685-688.

Minckler, Leon S.

1946. Old field reforestation in the Great Appalachian Valley as related to some ecological factors. Ecol. Monogr.

16:87-108.

Minckler, Leon S., and Arthur 0. Chapman.

1948. Tree planting in the Central, Piedmont, and Southern

Appalachian region. U.S. Dep. Agric., Farmers’ Bull.

1994, 39 p.

Minckler, Leon S., and Chester E. Jensen.

1959. Reproduction of upland central hardwoods as affected

by cutting, topography, and litter depth. J. For.

57:424-428.

Minckler, Leon S., and John D. Woerheide.

1965. Reproduction of hardwoods 10 years after cutting as

affected by site and opening size. J. For. 63:103-107.

Minckler, Leon S., John D. Woerheide, and

Richard C. Schlesinger.

1973. Light, soil moisture, and tree reproduction in hardwood forest openings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NC-89, 6 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Mitchell, Harold L.

1971. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on the growth rate and

certain wood quality characteristics of sawlog size red

oak, yellow-poplar, and white ash. In Proc. symp. effect

of growth acceleration on property of wood. p. J-l-14.

Univ. Wis., Madison.

Mitchell, Harold L., and Robert F. Chandler.

1939. The nitrogen nutrition and growth of certain deciduous trees of Northeastern United States. Black Rock

For. Bull. 11, 94 p. Cornwall-on-the-i-!!Idson, N.Y.

Morriss, Donald J.

1958. Basal area thinning guides fc: l!ii:;ning in the South.

J. For. 56:903-905.

Morsink, W. A. G.

1974. Propagation of hardy strains of tulip trees (Lirioden-

&on tulipiferu L.) for Southern Ontario. Plant Propag.

20(3):14-18.

Morton Arboretum Quarterly.

1970. Tulip tree, Liriodendron tulipifera. Magnolia family

(Mugnoliuceue). Morton Arbor. Q. 6(1):15.

Munn, Larry C.

1974. Soil-site quality relationships for yellow-poplar at Tar

Hollow State Forest. Res. Summ. 74:26-27. Ohio Agric.

Res. Dev. Cent., Wooster.

Munn, Larry C., and John P. Vimmerstedt.

1980. Predicting height growth of yellow-poplar from soils

and topography in southeastern Ohio. Soil Sci. Sot. Am.

J. 44:384-387.

Munns, E. N., and R. M. Brown.

1925. Volume tables for the important timbei trees of the

United States. Part 3. Eastern hardwoods. 104 p. U.S.

Dep. Agric., For. Serv., Washington, D.C.

Nelson, Ralph M.

1940. Vigorous young yellow-poplar trees can recover from

injury by Nectriu cankers. J. For. 38:587-588.

Nelson, Thomas C.

1955. Chestnut replacement in the southern highlands.

Ecology 36:352-353.

Nelson, Thomas C.

1956. A project analysis for the management of P dmont

hardwoods. 40 p. Athens-Macon Res. Cent., Southeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Nelson, Thomas C.

1957. A method for vegetatively propagating yellow-poplar.

J. For. 55:589.

Nelson, Thomas C., and William R. Beaufait.

1957. Studies in site evaluation for southern hardwoods.

Sot. Am. For. Proc. 1956:67-70. Memphis, Tenn., Oct.

15-17, 1956.

Nelson, Thomas C., and L. W. R. Jackson.

1956. Yellow poplar plantations. For. Farmer 15(10):11.

Nelson, Thomas C., Roy D. Ross, and George D. Walker.

1957. The extent of moist sites in the Georgia Piedmont

and their forest associations. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 102, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Newell, Avis.

1972. Tuliptree: queen of eastern hardwoods. Ohio Woodlands 10(3):13-14.

Newhouse, M. E., and H. A. 1. Madgwick.

1968. Comparative seedling growth of four hardwood

species. For. Sci. 14:27-30.

49
Nielsen, D. G., H. Gilbertson, K. Waite, and C. P. Balderston.

1971. Control of the yellow-poplar weevil, Odontopus calceatus (Say). Pestic. Inst. News 24(3):64, 66.

Olson, David F., Jr.

1967. The production and dispersal of hardwood seed.

Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and

Coastal Plain. p. 26-28. Ga. -?r. Res. Count., Macon.

Olson, David F., Jr.

1969. Silvical characteristics of yellow-poplar (Liriodendron

tulipifera L.). USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SE-48, 16 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Olson, David F., Jr.

1970. Leaf biomass in thinned yellow-poplar (Liriodendron

tulipifera L.) stands in relation to stemwood growth and

other stand characteristics. Ph.D. diss. Va. Polytech.

Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg. 83 p.

Olson, David F., Jr.

1971. Sampling leaf biomass in even-aged stands of yellowpoplar (liriodendron tulipifera L.). In Forest biomass

studies. Univ. Maine, Life Sci. & Agric. Exp. Stn., Misc.

Publ. 132 p. 115-122. Orono.

Olson, David F., Jr., and Lino Della-Bianca.

1959. Site index comparisons for several tree species in the

Virginia-Carolina Piedmont. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap. 104, 9 p. Asheville, N.C.

Olson, Jerry S.

1965. Equations for cesium transfer in Liriodendron forest.

Health Phys. 11:1385-1392.

Paton, Robert R.

1945. Storage of tulip tree seed. J. For. 43:764-765.

Paton, Robert R.

1946. Restoring forest conditions in an open woods. Ohio

Agric. Exp. Stn. Bimon. Bull. 31:170-176.

Paul, Benson H.

1930. The application of silviculture in controlling the specific gravity of wood. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 168,

20 p.

Paul, Benson H.

1963. The application of silviculture in controlling the specific gravity of wood. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull.

1288, 97 p.

Paul, Benson H., and Newell A. Norton.

1936. Variations in the wood of yellow poplar from the

southern Appalachian region. J. For. 34:936-942.

Perry, George S., and C. A. Coover.

1933. Seed source and quality. J. For. 31:19-25.

Phillips, Douglas R., and James G. Schroeder.

1973. Some physical properties of yellow-poplar wood and

bark. Part 1. Seasonal moisture content. Wood Sci.

5:265-269.

Phillips, E. F., and George S. Demuth.

1922. Beekeeping in the tulip-tree region. U.S. Dep. Agric.,

Farmers’ Bull. 1222, 25 p.

Phillips, J. J.

1966. Site index of yellow-poplar related to soil and topography in southern New Jersey. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-52, 10 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Phillips, John J.

1962. Some effects of competition on the survival of

yellow-poplar seedlings. USDA For. Serv., Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Res. Note 134, 4 p. Broomall, Pa.

Pierce, Leland T.

1934. Temperature variations along a forested slope in the

Bent Creek Experimental Forest, N.C. Mon. Weather

Rev. 62:8-12.

Plass, William T.

1977. Growth and survival of hardwoods and pine interplanted with European alder. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-376, 10 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Pope, P. E., and H. A. I. Madgwick.

1974. The influence of moisture stress on Liriodendron

tulipifera L. seedlings. Ann. Bot. 38:431-439.

Powell, Robert W.

1959. Yellow-poplar dieback. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Sot.

75:67.

Putnam, John A., George M. Furnival, and J. S. McKnight.

1960. Management and inventory of southern hardwoods.

U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 181, 102 p.

Querengasser, F. A.

1961. Liriodendron tulipifera (Linne) der Tulpenbaum.

Merkblatt 4, Sprakeler Forstbaumschulen, Hanses-Koering,

Sprakel, Munster i.W., W. Germany. 26 p.

Ralston, Charles W.

1964. Evaluation of forest site productivity. Int. Rev. For.

Res. 1:171-201. Academic Press. New York and London.

Reed, K. L., E. R. Hamerly, B. E. Dinger, and P. G. Jarvis.

1976. An analytical model for field measurement of photosynthesis. J. Appl. Ecol. 13(4):925-954.

Renshaw, James F., and Warren T. Doolittle.

1958. Silvical characteristics of yellow-poplar. USDA For.

Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap. 89, 18 p.

Asheville, N.C.

Reynolds, Margo W.

1976. Liriodendron tulipifera: its early uses. Arnoldia

36(3): 119-124.

Ripley, T. H., and R. A. Campbell.

1959. The white-tailed deer: a blessing and a problem.

Wildl. N.C. 23:14-15.

Roach, Benjamin A.

1963. Something new in hardwood management. Unit

98:42-46.

Roach, Benjamin A.

1977. A stocking guide for Allegheny hardwoods and its

use in controlling intermediate cuttings. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. NE-373, 30 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

50
Roach, B. A., and S. F. Gingrich.

1962. Timber management guide for upland central hardwoods. USDA For. Serv., Cent. States For. Exp. Stn., and

North Cent. Reg., 33 p. Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Roach, B. A., and S. F. Gingrich.

1967. Upland hardwoods can be grown efficiently. Pulpwood Annu. 1967:85-87.

Roach, Benjamin A., and Samuel F. Gingrich.

1968. Even-aged silviculture for upland central hardwoods.

U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 355, 39 p.

Rodenbach, Richard C.

1960. Sources of lumber for furniture plants in North Carolina. 5 p. Furniture, Plywood and Veneer Count. N.C.

For. Assoc., Inc., Asheville, N.C.

Rodenbach, Richard C., and David F. Olson, Jr.

1960. Grading yellow-poplar planting stock is important.

USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes

147, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Ross, Eldon, W.

1967. Association of Cylindrocladium scoparium with mortality in a 27-year-old yellow-poplar plantation. U.S.

Dep. Agric., Plant. Dis. rep. 51(1):38-39.

Roth, Elmer R.

1941. Top rot in snow-damaged yellow-poplar and basswood. J. For. 3960-62.

Roth, Elmer R.

1950. Discolorations in living yellow-poplar trees. J. For.

48:184-185.

Roth, Elmer R., George H. Hepting, and E. Richard Toole.

1959. Sapstreak disease of sugar maple and yellow-poplar

in North Carolina. USDA For. Serv. Res. Notes 134,

2 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Rudolf, Paul 0.

1956. A basis for forest tree seed collection zones in the

L.ake States. Minn. Acad. Sci. Proc. 24:20-28.

Rudolph, V. J., J. N. Bright, and T. D. Stevens.

1965. A spacing study of planted yellow-poplar in Michigan.

Q. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. 47(4):615-622.

Russell, T. E.

1966. Planted yellow-poplar thrives on Tennessee’s Cumberland Plateau. KTG [Keep Tennessee Green] J. 6(4):10-11.

Russell, T. E.

1971. Planting and direct seeding hardwoods in the Southern

Appalachians. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. Area., State

and Priv. For. Symp. South. Appalachian Hardwoods Proc.

1970, p. 60-65. Asheville, N.C., Sept. 22-23, 1970.

Russell, T. E.

1973. Animal depredations on spot-seeded yellow-poplar in

central Tennessee. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SO-148,

4 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Russell, T. E.

1977. Planting yellow-poplar: where we stand today. USDA

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-17, 8 p. South. For. Exp.

Stn., New Orleans, La.

Russell, T. E., N. S. Loftus, A. L. Mignery, and

G. W. Smalley.

1970. Planting yellow-poplar in central Tennessee and

northern Alabama. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-63,

17 p. South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Russell, T. E., and Steve Poore.

1977. Yellow-poplar can be planted successfully in the

southern highlands. South. Lumberman 235(2920):80-81.

Sander, Ivan L.

1967. Composition and distribution of hardwood reproduction after harvest cutting. In Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. p. 30-33. Ga.

For. Res. Count., Macon.

Sander, Ivan L., and F. Bryan Clark.

1971. Reproduction of upland hardwood forests in the Central States. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 405, 25 p.

Sargent, Charles Sprague.

1933. Manual of the trees of North America (exclusive

of Mexico). 910 p. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and

New York.

Sargent, Charles Sprague.

1947. The silva of North America. Vol. I. MagnoliaceaeIlicineae. 119 p. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and

New York.

Schick, Bruce A.

1978. Yellow-poplar studs: would they be adopted? In

Marketing and utilization of yellow-poplar: proceedings

of a symposium. p. 114-126. Univ. Tenn., Inst. Agric.,

Knoxville, March 21-22, 1978.

Schlaegel, B. E., and D. L. Kulow.

1969. Compatible growth and yield equations for West Virginia yellow-poplar. W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull.

573-T, 20 p.

Schlaegel, B. E., D. L. Kulow, and R. N. Baughman.

1969. Empirical yield tables for West Virginia yellowpoplar. W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 574-T, 24 p.

Schnur, G. Luther.

1937. Yield, stand, and volume tables for even-aged upland

oak forests. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tech. Bull. 560, 87 p.

Schomaker, Charles E.

1957. Topography and yellow-poplar growth. In Southern

Forestry Notes 107, p. 1, USDA For. Serv., South. For.

Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Schomaker, Charles E.

1958. Two-year results of planting yellow-poplar in north

Alabama. J. For. 56:37-38.

Schomaker, C. E., and V. J. Rudolph.

1964. Nutritional relationships affecting height growth of

planted yellow-poplar in southwestern Michigan. For.

Sci. 10:66-76.

Schroeder, James G.

1964. A tree grading and valuation system for yellow-poplar.

For. Prod. J. 14(11):521-524.

51
Schroeder, James G., and Douglas R. Phillips.

1973. Some physical properties of yellow-poplar wood and

bark. Part 2. Variations with height in the tree. Wood

Sci. 6:123-126.

Schuder, D. L., and R. L. Giese.

1962. Euzophera ostricolorella Hulst (Lepidoptera,

Phycitidae), a root collar borer of tuliptree. Ind. Acad.

Sci. Proc. 71:122-123.

Schultz, Richard C., and Paul P. Kormanik.

1975. Response of a yellow-poplar swamp ecotype to soil

moisture. Thirteenth South. For. Tree Improv. Conf.

Proc. p. 219-225. Raleigh, N.C., June 10-11, 1975.

Shearin, A. T., Marlin H. Bruner, and N. B. Goebel.

1972. Prescribed burning stimulates natural regeneration of

yellow-poplar. J. For. 70:482-484.

Shearin, A. T., M. H. Bruner, and C. B. Loadholt.

1970. Response of upland yellow-poplar to release. Dep.

For., For. Res. Ser. 20, 4 p. Clemson Univ., S.C.

Shipman, Robert D.

1977. Herbicide improves tree growth and nutrient uptake.

(Abstr.) Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast Weed Sci. Sot. 31.

p. 313. Baltimore, Md., Jan. 4-6, 1977.

Shipman, Robert D., and Victor J. Rudolph.

1954. Factors influencing height growth of planted yellowpoplar in southwestern Michigan. Mich. State Coll.

Agric. Exp. Stn., Tech. Bull. 242, 44 p. East Lansing.

Shugart, H. H., D. E. Reichle, N. T. Edwards,

and J. R. Kercher.

1976. A model of calcium-cycling in an east Tennessee

Liriodendron forest: model structure, parameters and frequency response analysis. Ecology 57:99-109.

Sims, 1. H.

1932. Establishment and survival of yellow poplar following

a clear cutting in the Southern Appalachians. J. For.

30:409-414.

Sluder, Earl R.

1958. Mountain farm woodland grazing doesn’t pay. USDA

For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 119,

2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Sluder, Earl R.

1960. Early results from a geographic seed source study of

yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Res. Notes 150, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Sluder, Earl R.

1964. Quality of yellow-poplar planting stock varies by

mother tree and seedbed density. Tree Planters’ Notes

65/April:16-19.

Sluder, Earl R.

1966. Hand-pollinate yellow-poplar without climbing.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-54, 7 p. Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Sluder, Earl R.

1972. Variation in specific gravity of yellow-poplar in the

Southern Appalachians. Wood Sci. 5:132-138.

Sluder, Earl R., and Richard C. Rodenbach.

1964. Yellow-poplar direct seeding in the North Carolina

Piedmont. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-25, 2 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Smalley, Glendon W.

1961. In north Alabama, topographic position is key to

yellow-poplar sites. For. Farmer 29( 12): 14, 16.

Smalley, Glendon W.

1964. Topography, soil, and the height of planted yellowpoplar. J. Ala. Acad. Sci. 35:39-44.

Smalley, Glendon W.

1969. Ten-year growth of yellow-poplar planted in north

Alabama. J. For. 67:567-568.

Smalley, Glendon W.

1976. Seasonal variation in the nutrient composition of

yellow-poplar leaves. Cent. Hardwood For. Conf. Proc.

of First Meet. p. 377-384. [South. Ill. Univ. Carbondale.

Oct. 17-19, 1976.1

Smalley, Glendon W., and Kenneth Pierce.

1972. Yellow-poplar, loblolly pine, and Virginia pine compared in Cumberland Plateau plantations. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Note SO-141, 6 p. South. For. Exp. Stn.,

New Orleans, La.

Smith, Glenn E.

1953. Observations on managing hardwoods in the Delaware Valley of southern New Jersey. J. For. 51:189-191.

Smith, H. Clay.

1965. Effect of clearcut openings on quality of hardwood

border trees. J. For. 63:933-937.

Smith, H. Clay.

1966. Epicormic branching on eight species of Appalachian

hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-53, 4 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Smith, H. Clay.

1977a. Changes in tree density do nqt influence epicormic

branching of yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

NE-239. 3 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Smith, H. Clay.

1977b. Height of tallest saplings in lo-year-old Appalachian

hardwood clearcuts. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-381,

6 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Smith, H. Clay.

1977~. Killing grapevines with herbicides. North. Logger

and Timber Process. 25(7):9, 33.

Smith, H. Clay.

1977d. Results of precommercial thinning in very young

Appalachian hardwood stands. North. Logger and

Timber Process. 26(6):24-25.

Smith, H. Clay, and N. 1. Lamson.

1975. Grapevines in 12- to 15-year-old even-aged central

Appalachian hardwood stands. In Impact of inflation on

the management and utilization of hardwoods. Third.

Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood Res. Count. Proc.,

Cashiers, N.C. p. 145-150.

52
Smith, H. Clay, and N. I. Lamson.

1977. Stand development 25 years after a 9.0-inch diameterlimit first cutting in Appalachian hardwoods. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Pap. NE-379, 4 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Smith, H. Clay, and Roger E. McCay.

1979. Estimating time required to cut grapevines in young,

even-aged hardwood stands. South. J. Appl. For.

3:125-127.

Smith, H. Clay, Robert L. Rosier, and K. P. Hammack.

1976. Reproduction 12 years after seed-tree harvest cutting

in Appalachian hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-350, 11 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Smith, H. Clay, and Paul M. Smithson.

1975. Cost of cutting grapevines before logging. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Note NE-207, 4 p. Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Smith, H. Donnell.

1973. Economics of hardwood plantations. Twelfth South.

For. Tree Improv. Conf. Proc. p, 158-168. Baton Rouge,

La., June 12-13, 1973.

Smith, Henry W.

1963. Establishment of yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipiferu L.) in canopy openings. Ph.D. diss. Yale Univ. Sch.

For., New Haven, Conn., 176 p.

Smith, Walton R.

1978. Markets for yellow-poplar: past and present. In

Marketing and utilization of yellow-poplar: proceedings

of a symposium. p. 39-48. Univ. Tenn., Inst. Agric.,

Knoxville.

Society of American Foresters.

1954. Forest cover types of North America (exclusive of

Mexico). 67 p. Sot. Am. For., Washington, D.C.

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

1955. Annual Report, 1954. USDA For. Serv., Southeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap. 50, 96 p. Asheville, N.C.

Southern Hardwood Producers, Inc.

1941. The southern hardwoods. 46 p. South. Hardwood

Producers, Inc., Memphis, Tenn. [Collection of 18 articles originally published in Southern Lumberman in 1940

and 1941.1

Spaeth, J. Nelson.

1928. Twenty years growth of a sprout hardwood forest in

New York: a study of the effects of intermediate and

reproduction cuttings. Cornell Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 465,

49 p. Ithaca, N.Y.

Spradlin, Shelby L., Jr., and David W. Smith.

1975. A method for evaluating species alternatives on pinehardwood sites. In Impact of inflation on the management and utilization of hardwoods. Third Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers,

N.C. p. 72-79.

Stairs, G. R.

1968. Cold hardiness in intra-specific hybrids of tulip

poplar. Fifteenth Northeast. For. Tree Improv. Conf.

Proc. p. 15-17. [Morgantown, W. Va., 1967.)

Stairs, G. R., and J. Wilcox.

1966. Intra-specific hybridization in tulip poplar. Sixth

World For. Cong. Proc., 2:1446-1448.

Steinbeck, K., G. D. Kessler, and P. P. Kormanik.

1974. Root and shoot development of two clones of Liriodendron tulipifera L. four years after planting. In International symposium ecology and physiology of root

growth 2:127-132.

Steinbeck, Klaus, and Paul P. Kormanik.

1968. First-year root system development of two clones of

yellow-poplar. Ga. For. Res. Count. Res. Pap. 55, 4 p.

Steinbeck, Klaus, and Edward J. Porterfield.

1967. Short-term storage of yellow-poplar softwood cuttings.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-71, 4 p. Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Steinhtibel, Gejza.

1959. Increasing yellow-poplar seed production by artificial

cross pollination. Biology 14(12):888-895. [In Czech.

German summary.]

Stephens, George R., Jr.

1965. Yellow-poplar seedlings respond to soil temperature.

J. For. 63:701-703.

Sterling, Kenneth A., and Carl L. Lane.

1975. Growth and development of shoot and root pruned

yellow-poplar seedings on two sites. Tree Planters’ Notes

26(3): 1-2, 25.

Sternitzke, Herbert S.

1974. Eastern hardwood resources: trends and prospects.

For. Prod. J. 24(3):13-16.

Stone, L. L., and J. M. Skelly.

1974. The growth of two forest tree species adjacent to a

periodic source of air pollution. ‘Phytopathology

64~773-778.

Stubbs, Jack.

1967. Hardwood type-site relationships on the Coastal Plain.

In Proc. 1966 Symp. Hardwoods of the Piedmont and

Coastal Plain. p. 10-12. Ga. For. Res. Count., Macon.

Sudworth, George B.

1927. Check list of the forest trees of the United States,

their names and ranges. U.S. Dep. Agric., Misc. Circ.

92, 295 p.

Taft, Kingsley A., Jr.

1962. The effect of controlled pollination and honeybees on

seed quality of yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipiferu L.)

as assessed by X-ray photography. N.C. State Univ. Sch.

For. Tech. Rep. 13, 21 p. Raleigh.

Taft, Kingsley A., Jr.

1966. Cross- and self-incompatibility and natural selfing in

yellow poplar, Liriodendron tulipifera L. Sixth World

For. Cong. Proc., 2:1425-1428.

Taylor, F. W.

1968. Specific gravity differences within and among yellowpoplar trees. For. Prod. J. 18(3):75-81.

53
Taylor, Fred W.

1963. Fiber length variation within growth rings of yellowpoplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). J. Tech. Assoc. Pulp

and Paper Ind. 46( 10):578-581.

Taylor, Fred W.

1964. Differences in the wood of yellow-poplar. For. Farmer

24(2):8-9, 19.

Taylor, Fred W.

1977. Variation in specific gravity and fiber length of

selected hardwoods throughout the mid-South. For. Sci.

23: 190-194.

Taylor, Fred William.

1954. The effect of selected variables on the glue line

strength of yellow-poplar in radio-frequency application.

M. Wood Technology thesis. N.C. State Coil., Raleigh.

52 p.

Tennessee Valley Authority.

1940. Yellow poplar, seed collection, storage, and seedling

practices. Tenn. Val. Auth. Div. For. Relat. Tech. Note

1, 6~.

Tepper, H. B., and G. T. Bamford.

1959. Natural regeneration in bottomland hardwoods of

southern New Jersey. USDA For. Serv., Northeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Res. Note 93, 4 p. Broomall, Pa.

Thor, E.

1965. Effects of eight nursery treatments on yellow-poplar

seedling characteristics and field performance. Tree

Planters’ Noted 72/Aug: 16-18.

Thor, E.

1966. Improvement of yellow-poplar. Eighth South. Conf.

For. Tree Improv. Proc. p. 38-45. [Savannah, Ga., June

16-17, 19651

Thor, E., and H. A. Core.

1977. Fertilization, irrigation, and site factor relationships

with growth and wood properties of yellow-poplar.

Wood Sci. 9:130-135.

Thor, Eyvind.

1975. Improvement of yellow-poplar planting stock. In

Impact of inflation on the management and utilization of

hardwoods. Third. Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood

Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C. p. 158-164.

Thor, Eyvind.

1976. Tree breeding at the University of Tennessee

1959-1975. Univ. Tenn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 554, 48 p.

Thorbjornsen, Eyvind.

1961. Variation in density and fiber length in wood of

yellow poplar. J. Tech. Assoc. Pulp and Paper Ind.

44(3):192-195.

Tillotson, C. R.

1927. Timber growing and logging practice in the central

hardwood region. U.S. Dep. Agric., Dep. Bull. 1491,

39 p.

Timson, Floyd G.

1972. Sawlog weights for Appalachian hardwoods. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-222, 29 p. Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Timson, Floyd G.

1978. Logging residue available for mine-timber production.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-415, 6 p. Northeast.

For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Toole, E. Richard.

1961. Rot entrance through dead branches of southern

hardwoods. For. Sci. 7:218-226.

Toole, E. Richard, and B. H. Huckenpahler.

1954. Yellow-poplar dieback. U.S. Dep. Agric., Plant Dis.

Rep. 38:786-788.

Tourney, J. W.

1929. Initial root habits in American trees and its bearing

on regeneration. In Int. Congr. Plant Sci. Proc. 1,

p. 713-728. The Collegiate Press, George Banta Publishing Co., Menasha, Wis.

Trimble, George R., Jr.

1961. Managing mountain hardwoods: a ten-year appraisal.

USDA For. Serv., Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap.

143, 25 p. Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr.

1965. Improvement in butt-log grade with increase in tree

size, for six hardwood species. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-31, 15 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr.

1967. Diameter increase in second-growth Appalachian

hardwood stands: a comparison of species. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Note NE-75, 5 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr.

1970. 20 years of intensive uneven-aged management: effect

on growth, yield, and species composition in two hardwood stands in West Virginia. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-154, 12 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr.

1971. Early crop-tree release in even-aged stands of Appalachian hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-203,

12 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, G. R., Jr.

1972. Reproduction 7 years after seed-tree harvest cutting

in Appalachian hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-223, 19 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, G. R., Jr.

1973a. The regeneration of central Appalachian hardwoods,

with emphasis on the effects of site quality and harvesting practice. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-282, 14 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, G. R., Jr.

1973b. Response to crop-tree release by 7-year-old stems of

yellow-poplar and black cherry. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap.

NE-253, 10 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr., and George Hart.

1961. An appraisal of early reproduction after cutting in

northern Appalachian hardwood stands. USDA For.

Serv. Stn. Pap. 162, 22 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

54
Trimble, G. R., Jr., and Donald W. Seegrist.

1973. Epicormic branching on hardwood trees bordering

forest openings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-261,

6 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, G. R., Jr., and H. Clay Smith.

1970. Sprouting of dormant buds on border trees. USDA

For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-179, 8 p. Northeast. For. Exp.

Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr., and H. Clay Smith.

1976. Stand structure and stocking control in Appalachian

mixed hardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-340,

10 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, George R., Jr., and E. H. Tryon.

1966. Crown encroachment into openings cut in Appalachian hardwood stands. J. For. 64:104-108.

Trimble, George R., Jr., and E. H. Tryon.

1969. Survival and growth of yellow-poplar seedlings depend

on date of germination. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

NE-101, 6 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Trimble, G. R., Jr., and E. H. Tryon.

1974. Grapevines a serious obstacle to timber production

on good hardwood sites in Appalachia. North. Logger

and Timber Process. 23(5):22-23, 44.

Trimble, G. R., Jr., and E. H. Tyron [Tryon].

1976a. Grapevine control in young even-aged hardwood

stands. North. Logger and Timber Process. 24(9):12-13.

Trimble, George R., Jr., and Earl H. Tryon.

1976b. Grapevine control in even-aged hardwood stands.

W. Va. For. Notes 6:12-14.

True, R. P.

1953. Studies on sprout reproduction of yellowpoplar as

related to decay. W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Curr.

Rep. 3, 4 p.

True, R. P.

1962. Decay in thinned sprout clumps of yellow-poplar.

(Abstr.) Phytopathology 52(5):486.

True, R. P., and E. H. Tryon.

1966. Butt decay in yellow-poplar sprouts in West Virginia.

W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 541-T, 67 p.

Tryon, Charles P., Thomas W. Beers, and Clair Merritt.

1960. The measurement of site quality for yellow-poplar.

J. For. 58:968-969.

Tryon, E. H., J. 0. Cantrell, and K. L. Carvell.

1957. Effect of precipitation and temperature on increment

of yellow-poplar. For. Sci.- 3:32-44.

Tryon, E. H., and K. L. Carvell.

1960. Environmental factors affecting yellow-poplar survival

under a young stand. Castanea 25:69-73.

Tryon, E. H., and Rudolfs Markus.

1953. Development of vegetation on century-old iron-ore

spoil banks. W. Va. Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 360,

63 p.

Tryon, E. H., and C. A. Myers.

1952. Periodic precipitation affects growth of yellowpoplar

on a West Virginia hillside. Castanea 17:97-102.

Tryon, E. H., and G. R. Trimble, Jr.

1969. Effect of distance from stand border on height of

hardwood reproduction in openings. W. Va. Acad. Sci.

Proc. 41:125-133.

Tryon, E. H., and R. P. True.

1952. Blister-shake of yellowpoplar. W. Va. Univ. Agric.

Exp. Stn. Bull. 350-T, 15 p.

Tryon, E. H., and R. P. True.

1964. Relative susceptibility of Appalachian hardwood

species to spring frosts occurring after bud break. W. Va.

Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 503, 15 p.

Tryon, E. H., and R. P. True.

1968. Radial increment response of Appalachian hardwood

species to a spring freeze. J. For. 66:488-491.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

1941. Climate and man. U.S. Dep. Agric., Yearb. Agric.,

1941. 1248 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1955 Wood handbook. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb.

72, 528 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1965. Yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). In Silvics

of forest trees of the United States. H. A. Fowells, compiler. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 271, p. 256-265.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1973a. The outlook for timber in the United States. U.S.

Dep. Agric., For. Resour. Rep. 20, 367 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1973b. Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of

the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 445,

124 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1974. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. U.S.

Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 450, 883 p.

U.S. Forest Products Laboratory.

1974. Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material.

U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 72, rev. 23-10, I-30 p.

Vaartaja, 0.

1961. Demonstration of photoperiodic ecotypes in Liriodendron and Quercus. Can. J. Bot. 39:649-654.

van de Werken, Hendrik, and James G. Warmbrod.

1969. Response of shade trees to fertilization. Farm and

Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 72, p. 2-4. Univ. Tenn. Agric.

Exp. Stn., Knoxville.

van Eck, W. A., and R. A. Woessner.

1964. A study of wood density in yellow poplar and red

oak as related to environment. W. Va. Acad. Sci. Proc.

36169-74.

Van Lear, David H., and John F. Hosner.

1967. Correlation of site index and soil mapping units poor

for yellow-poplar in southwest Viginia. J. For. 65:22-24.

Vick, C. B.

1965. Drying-rate curves for one-inch yellow-poplar lumber

in low-temperature forced-air dryers. For. Prod. J.

15( 12):500-504.

55
Vick, Charles B.

1973. Yellow-poplar (Liriodendron fulipiferu L.). U.S. Dep.

Agric. For. Serv., Am. Woods-FS-272, 7 p.

Vimmerstedt, J. P.

1957. Estimating d.b.h. from stump diameter in Southern

Appalachian species. USDA For. Serv., Southeast. For.

Exp. Stn., Res. Notes 110, 2 p. Asheville, N.C.

Vimmerstedt, John P., and Charles A. Osmond.

1970. Response of yellow-poplar to fertilization. In Tree

growth and forest soils. Proc. Third North Am. For.

Soils Conf. [N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, August 1968.1

p. 127-154. Ore. State Univ. Press, Corvallis.

Vogt, A. R.

1974a. Better survival of yellow poplar nursery stock. Ohio

Rep. Res. Dev. Agric. Home Econ. Nat. Resour.

59(4):67-68. [Ohio Agric. Res. and Dev. Cent. July-Aug.

1974. Wooster.]

Vogt, Albert R.

1974b. Possible methods for the improvement of yellowpoplar seed germination. Res. Summ. 74:4-5. Ohio

Agric. Res. Dev. Cent. Wooster.

Vogt, Albert R.

1974-75. Increasing and upgrading nursery production of

yellow-poplar. Tree Planters’ Notes 26(1):29-31.

Vogt, Albert R.

1975. Better germination of yellow-poplar. Ohio Woodlands 13(1):9, 20.

Wahlenberg, W. G.

1950a. Epicormic branching of young yellow-poplar.

J. For. 48:417-419.

Wahlenberg, W. G.

1950b. A long-term test; a quarter century of forest

regrowth in a cut-over and cleaned Appalachian cove.

South. Lumberman 18(2273):183-187.

Wahlenberg, W. G.

1952. Thinning yellow-poplar in second-growth upland

hardwood stands. J. For. 50:671-676.

Wahlenberg, W. G.

1953. Three methods of rehabilitation for depleted Appalachian hardwood stands. J. For. 51:874-880.

Wahlenberg, W. G.

1956. An early test of levels of growing stock in Appalachian hardwoods. J. For. 54:106-114.

Walker, Laurence C.

1972. Silviculture of southern upland hardwoods. Stephen F.

Austin State Univ. Sch. For. Bull. 22, p. 102-134.

Nacogdoches, Tex.

Walker, Laurence C., and Henry F. Perkins.

1958. Forest soils and silviculture in Georgia. Ga. For. Res.

Count. Rep. 4, 34 p.

Waller, H. D., and J. S. Olson.

1967. Prompt transfers to Cesium-137 to the soils of a

tagged Liriodendron forest. Ecology 48~15-25.

Walters, Russell S.

1963. Past growth of yellow-poplar and oak reproduction

key to future. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. CS-4, 6 p. Cent.

States For. Exp. Stn., Columbus, Ohio. [Can be obtained

from North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.]

Wartluft, Jeffrey L.

1977. Weights of small Appalachian hardwood trees and

components. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-366, 4 p.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Waterman, Alma M.

1956. Verticillium wilt of yellow-poplar. U.S. Dep. Agric.,

Plant. Dis. Rep. 40(4):349-350.

Wean, Robert E., and Arthur T. Guard.

1940. The viability and collection of seed of Liriodendron

tulipifera L. J. For. 38:815-817.

Webb, Charles D.

1970. Genetics and tree improvement in the oak-yellowpoplar type. In The silviculture of oaks and associated

species. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-144, p. 57-66.

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa.

Welch, Richard L.

1975. Forest statistics for the Piedmont of North Carolina,

1975. USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull. SE-32, 33 p.

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Wells, Carol G.

1961. Underplanting tests in pine stands. USDA For. Serv.,

Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Res. Note 160, 2 p. Asheville,

N.C.

Wells, Carol G.

1964. Slow growth of hardwoods planted beneath a pine

stand. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-22, 3 p. Southeast. For. Exp. Stn., Asheville, N.C.

Wells, Carol A. [G.], Dennis Whigham, and Helmut Lieth.

1972. Investigation of mineral nutrient cycling in upland

Piedmont forest. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Sot. 88:66-78.

Wendel, G. W.

1975. Stump sprout growth and quality of several Appalachian hardwood species after clearcutting. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Pap. NE-329, 9 p. Northeast. For. Exp. Stn.,

Broomall, Pa.

Whipple, Sherman D.

1968. Yellow poplar regeneration after seed tree cutting and

site preparation. Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull.

384, 15 p.

Whipple, Sherman D., and Karl Moeck.

1968. Tree seedling responses to fertilization by species and

slope. Highlights Agric. Res. 15(2):3. [Agric. Exp. Stn.,

Auburn Univ., Ala.]

Whitaker, Thomas W.

1933. Chromosome number and relationship in the Magnoliales. J. Arnold Arbor. 14:376-385.

Whitcomb, Bruce, Danny Bystrak, and Robert Whitcomb.

1977a. Mature tulip-tree-oak forest. Am. Birds 31(1):91-92.

Whitcomb. Bruce, Danny Bystrak, and Robert Whitcomb.

1977b. Selectively logged mature tulip-tree-oak forest. Am.

Birds 31(1):92-93.

56
White, Donald P., and Raymond F. Finn.

1964. Frost damage in a tulip poplar plantation as related

to foliar potassium content. In Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts

and Lett. Pap. 49, p. 75-80. East Lansing, 1963 Meeting.

Wiant, Harry V., Jr., Miguel A. Ramirez, and

Joseph E. Barnard.

1975a. Predicting oak site index by species composition in

West Virginia. J. For. 73:666-667.

Wiant, Harry V., Jr., Miguel A. Ramirez, and

Joseph E. Barnard.

1975b. Species composition as a predictor of site quality in

mixed Appalachian hardwoods. In Impact of inflation on

the management and utilization of hardwoods. Third

Annu. Hardwood Symp. Hardwood Res. Count. Proc.,

Cashiers, N.C. p. 80-83.

Wiant, Harry V., Jr., Carter E. Sheetz, Andrew Colannino,

and others.

1977. Tables and procedures for estimating weights of some

Appalachian hardwoods. W. Va. Univ. Agric. and For.

Exp. Stn. Bull. 659-T, 36 p.

Wichman, J. R., and W. R. Byrnes.

1971. Inherent tolerance of black walnut and tulip poplar

seedlings to soil-applied herbicides. Purdue Univ. Agric.

Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 878, 6 p.

Wichman, J. R., and W. R. Byrnes.

1975. Uptake, distribution, and degradation of simazine by

black walnut and yellowpoplar seedlings. Weed Sci.

23(6):448-453.

Wilcox, James R.

1966. Vacuum storage of yellow-poplar pollen. Joint Proc.,

second genet. workshop Sot. Am. For. and the Seventh

Lake States For. Tree Improv. Conf., Ott; 21-23, 1965.

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-6, p. 102-103. North

Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Wilcox, James R., and Kingsley A. Taft, Jr.

1969. Genetics of yellow-poplar. USDA For. Serv. Res.

Pap. WO-6, 12 p. Washington, D.C.

Williams, Robert D.

1964. Release accelerates height growth of yellow-poplar

seedlings. J. For. 62:95-97.

Williams, Robert D.

1976. Release accelerates growth of yellow-poplar: an

18-year look. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NC-202, 4 p.

North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn.

Williams, Robert D., and Sidney H. Hanks.

1976. Hardwood nurseryman’s guide. U.S. Dep. Agric.,

Agric. Handb. 473, 78 p.

Williams, Robert D., and Charles C. Mony.

1962. Yellow-poplar seedling yield increased by seed stratification. J. For. 60:878.

Williston, H. L.

1959. Inundation damage to upland hardwoods. USDA

For. Serv. South. For. Notes 123, 4 p. South. For. Exp.

Stn., New Orleans, La.

Wiltrout, Thomas R., and Harvey A. Holt.

1976. Prospects of controlling vegetation in new forest

plantations. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 30,

p. 31-36. [Milwaukee, Wis., Dec. 9-11, 1975.1

Witherspoon, J. P.

1968. Effects of internal I)’Cs radiation on seeds of Liriodendron tulipijiera. Radiat. Bot. 8:45-48.

Witherspoon, J. P., and G. N. Brown.

1965. Translocation of cesium-137 from parent trees to

seedlings of Liriodendron tulipifera. Bot. Gaz.

126:181-185.

Witkamp, M., and M. L. Frank.

1964. First year of movement, distribution and availability

of Cs”’ in the forest floor under tagged tulip poplars.

Radiat. Bot 4:485-495.

Woessner, R. A., and Sherwood Adams.

1973. Late season flowering in yellow-poplar. Tree Planters’

Notes 24(4):21.

Wood, F. A.

1970. The relative sensitivity of sixteen deciduous tree

species to ozone. (Abstr.) Phytopathology 60:579-580.

Woods, D. B., and N. C. Turner.

1971. Stomata1 response to changing light by four tree

species of varying shade tolerance. New Phytol.

70( 1):77-84.

Woods, Frank W., and Royal E. Shanks.

1959. Natural replacement of chestnut by other species in

the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology

40:349-361.

Wooten, Thomas E., Thomas W. Haene, and Fred W. Taylor.

1973. Effect of tree release on wood quality of mature

yellow-poplar trees. Wood Sci. 6:146-150.

Wright, Jonathan W.

1953. Summary of tree-breeding experiments by the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 1947-1950. USDA

For. Serv., Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Stn. Pap. 56,

47 p. Broomall, Pa.

Young, R. A., A. R. Gilmore, and W. R. Boggess.

1969. Underplanting yellow-poplar in a shortleaf pine plantation in southern Illinois. Univ. III. Agric. Exp. Stn.

For. Note 125, 4 p.

Zimmerman, Martin H.

1958. Translocation of organic substances in the phloem of

trees. In The physiology of forest trees: Proc. Symp.

[Harvard Forest, April 1957.1 p. 381-400. Kenneth V.

Thimann, ed. Ronald Press, New York.

Zobel, Bruce.

1974. Progress in hardwood forest management. In Whole

tree utilization of hardwoods. Second Annu. Hardwood

Symp. Hardwood Res. Count. Proc., Cashiers, N.C.

p. 53-66.

57
Appendixes

1. Yellow-Poplar Soil-Site Equations by Location

Fred Russ Forest

Cassopolis, Michigan Schomaker and Rudolph (1964)

For a 27-year-old yellow-poplar plantation:

Total tree height, in feet = 4.9

+ 28.1 (percent nitrogen, ovendry leaf weight)

Total tree height, in feet = 10.1

+ 223.3 (percent phosphorus, ovendry leaf weight)

Dobbs Memorial Forest

Terre Haute, Indiana Tryon and others (1960)

For a lCyear-old yellow-poplar plantation:

Total height, in feet = 3.48

+ 2.33 (thickness A, horizon, in inches)

r = 0.76 Sy.x, = 4.59

Total height, in feet = -5.90

+ 1.61 (depth to tight subsoil, in inches)

r = 0.63 Sy.x, = 5.47

Total height, in feet = 5.54

+ 1.50 (depth to mottling, in inches)

r = 0.63 Sy.x, = 5.47

Dixon Springs Agricultural Center

Dixon Springs, Illinois ’ Gilmore and others (1968)

For an ll-year-old yellow-poplar plantation:

No equation given, but variation in height (100 trees)

was significantly correlated with depth to fragipan

(r = 0.90) and depth of organic matter (r = 0.81).

Tar Hollow State Forest

Ross County, Ohio Munn and Vimmerstedt (1980)

Log (height), in meters = 1.51

- 6.72 (l/age, in years)

+ 0.00037 (corrected aspect, in degrees = minor

angle from southwest)

+ 0.11 [log (slope position = distance from plot

to ridge/slope length)]

+ 0.0048 (depth to B, horizon, in centimeters)

R2 = 0.65 Standard error of estimate = 0.03 meter

Central States

(Southeastern Ohio, southern Indiana and

Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee) A uten (1945)

Height of stand, in feet = 23.06

+ 1.125 (stand age, in years)

+ 2.62 (thickness of Al horizon, in inches)

R2 = 0.70 Standard error of estimate = 12.12 feet

New Jersey Coastal Plain Czapowskyj’(l962)

Average height dominant and codominant yellow-poplars,

in feet = 48.85

+ 1.13 (average age at breast height, in years)

+ 0.35 (clay in A horizon, in percent)

- 0.82 (hydraulic conductivity of B horizon,

in inches/hour)

+ 0.68 (total available water in root zone, in inches)

- 9.70 (bulk density of C horizon,

in grams/cubic centimeter)

R’ = 0.87

New Jersey Coastal Plain Phillips (1966)

Site index, in feet = 88.1

+ 0.739 (depth to mottling, in inches)

- 0.686 (depth to mottling, in inches)‘/l,OOO

+ 0.555 (percent clay in subsoil)

- 0.140 (percent clay in subsoil)‘/l,OOO

+ 3.558 (1) For poor bottomland sites

(2) For mid- and upper portions of stream-cut

slopes and occasional upland sites

(3) For good bottomland sites and lower 25 percent of stream-cut slopes

- 1.288 (36 inches minus depth to tight subsoil, in inches)

- 18.374 (0) If tight subsoil is less than 36 inches from

the soil surface

(1) If tight subsoil is 36 inches or more from the

soil surface

R* = 0.67 Standard error of estimate + 5.5 feet

Durham, North Carolina Metz (1947)

For yellow-poplar on alluvial soils:

Site index, in feet = 110.11

- lOl.O/(thickness of A horizon, in inches)

- 1.98 (imbibitional water value)

North Carolina-Lower Piedmont Hacker (1953

Site index, in feet = 74.88

+ 0.7163 (thickness of A horizon, in inches)

Virginia and CarolinasPiedmont Uplands Della-Bianca and Olson (1961)

Logarithm of total height = 0.42027

- 6.02173/(total age, in years)

+ 0.00098 (slope position, percent distance from ridge =

to stream = 100)

+ 0.00146 (percent organic matter in Al horizon x

thickness of A, horizon, in inches)

+ 040356/(thickness of total A horizon, in inches)

+ 0.00011 (percent sand in A, horizon x thickness

of total A horizon, in inches)

+ 0.04114 (latitude, in degrees and hundredths)

R’ = 56.5

0

58
Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains Ike and Huppuch (1968)

Logarithm of total height = 1.92943

- 7.65069/(total age, in years)

+ 0.00027 (elevation, feet above sea level to nearest 20 feet)

+ 0.00032 (slope position, percent distance from ridge = 0

to stream = 100)

+ 0.00044 (basal area, square feet per acre to nearest 20

square feet)

If sheltered cove site, add 0.02889 to A = 1.92943

If ridge site, subfruct 0.02889 from A

If Tusquittee soil, add 0.02666 to A

If Burton soil, add 0.05332 to A

R’ = 0.71 Standard error of Y = 0.04080

Flat Top Experimental Forest

Birmingham, Alabama Schomaker (1958)

For 2-year-old yellow-poplar plantation:

Total tree height, in feet = - 1.73

+ 0.26 (soil moisture, in percent ovendry weight)

Correlation coefficient = 0.823

Ames Plantation

Grand Junction, Tennessee

Site index, in feet = 41.2

+ 5.3 (slope position)

1 Ridge

2 Upper slope

3 Middle slope

4 Lower slope

5 Terrace

6 Bottom

+ 2.3 (aspect)

1 South

2 Southwest

3 Southeast

4 West

5 No slope

6 East

7 Northwest

8 Northeast

9 North

+ 0.2 (depth to mottling, in inches)

Hebb (1962)

2. Tree Volume and Weight Tables for Yellow-Poplar

Volume Tables

Tables 9-13 for tree volume are based on measurements of

336 trees felled in the mountains of Georgia, North Carolina,

Tennessee, and Virginia (Beck 1963, 1964). The sample trees

ranged from 1 to 30 inches d.b.h. and from 10 to 138 feet in

total height. Equations for volume computations are:

Total cubic-foot volume outside bark =

0.0025 D’H - 0.0028 (table 9).

Cubic-foot volume outside bark to 4-inch top (o.b.) =

0.0024 DZH - 0.6417 (table 10).

Cubic-foot volume outside bark to 8-inch top (o.b.) =

0.0024 D2H - 5.3000.

Cubic-foot volume inside bark to 4-inch top (o.b.) =

0.0020 D2H - 0.6837 (table 11).

Cubic-foot volume inside bark to 8-inch top (o.b.) =

0.0020 D2H - 5.1000.

Board-foot : cubic-foot ratio =

6.1670 + 8.4641 D/H - 249.2550 l/H (table 12).

Where D is diameter at breast height in inches and H is total

tree height in feet.

The equations for 4- and 8-inch top-diameter limits are

related by constant values. Therefore, volume o.b. and i.b. to

I-inch top may be obtained by subtracting constant values

from tables 10 and 11, respectively. Board-foot volumes in

table 13 were obtained by applying the ratios from table 12 to

cubic volume (o.b.) for 8-inch top.

59
Table 9.-Total cubic-foot volumes for natural yellow-poplar1

4 1.2 1 1.6 1.8 2.0

II

12

13

14

I5

16

17 57.8 61.4

ii 64.8 68.8

19 76.7

2o 85.0

21

22

II

21.2

25.0 1

30.2 31.8

36.0 37.8

22.5 23.8

21.2 28.7

32.4 34.2

38.0 40.1 42.2 44.4

44.1 46.6 49.0 51.4

50.6 53.4 56.2 59.1

132.2

21.5

67.2 70.4

75.9 79.5 83.1 86.1

85.0 89.1 93.2 97.2

94.8 99.3 103.8 108.3

105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0

115.8 121.3 126.8 132.3

24 144.0 151.2 1158.4 165.6 112.8

‘)$ 156.2 1164.1 I 171.9 1 179.7 187.5

ii

27

28

29

30

‘Includes wood and bark of entire stem from ground level to tree tip. Stump volume computed as a cylinder I foot high with a diameter equal to that

at its top. Source: Beck (1963). Blocked-m area mdrcates range of data.

Table l&-Merchantable cubic-foot volume outside bark (top diameter, 4 inches outside bark)’

Total tree height (feet)

105 110 I II5 I 12o 125 I 130 I 135

5 1.8

6

7

8

9

10

11

I2

13

14

15

16

17

I8

1Y

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

‘To obtain cubic-foot volume outsldc bark to an B-inch (o.b.)

2.1 2.1 3.0 3.3 1 3.6

3.2 4.1 4.5 5.0 5.4 5.8 1 6.3

4.6 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.6 8.2 8.8 9.4 10.5

7.0 7.8 10.1 10.9 11.6 12.4 14.0 r

10.0 13.0 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.8 17.8

16.2 17.4 18.6 19.8 21.0 22.2

18.2 19.7 21.1 22.6 24.0 25.5 27.0

m 23.6 25.3 27.0 28.7 30.5 32.2

25.7 33.8 35.9 37.9

29.9 39.3 41.1 44.0

45.3 48.0 50.1

41.9 51.4 54.8

61.6

68.7 73.0 j 17.3 81.7

81.0 85.8 90.6

99.9

109.1

68.7 72.2

77.1 81.0

GOD diameter in trees lamer than 1 I inches d.b.h.. subtract 4.7 cubic feet from tabular

11.1

q;:I;

28.4 29.9

33.9 35.6

39.9 42.0

46.4 48.8

53.4 56. I

60.8 63.9

51:;

58.8

66.9

75.6

84.9

32.8 34.2

39.1 40.8

52.1

60.5

69.6

79.2

89.5

loo.4

values. Source: Beck (1963). Blocked-m area Indicates range ofaata.

60
Table Il.-Merchantable cubic-foot volume inside bark (top diameter, 4 inches outside bark)’

D.b.h. Total tree haght (feet)

(inches) 35 1 40 1 45 1 50 1 55 1 60 1 65 70 I 75 [ 80 I 85 1 90 Tm-100 ~llO~p[ 120 F@ T 130 1 135

________________________________________________________________------_______~~~,~,~~,_____________________---------__________-----.--------____-------------------

3.7

1 I,*

8.2 7

23.5 24.7

28.1 29.6

5 1.1 11.3 2.8

6 4.4 4.71 5. 1

7

8

9

IO

I1

12

13

14

I5

I6

17

18

19

20

9,

15.3 16.3 17.3 18.3

18.7 19.9 21.1 22.3

22.4 23.8 25.2 26.7

26.4 28.0 29.7 31.4

30.7 32.6

ys ::::

45.6 48.4

34.6 36.6

39.8 42. I

51.2 54.4

57.1 60.7

67.3

33.1 34.8

38.5 40.5

443 46.6

50.5 53.1

57.1 60.0

64.1 67.4

71.5 75.1

79.3 83.3

87.5 91.9

21.3

;;

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

‘To obtain cubic-foot volume inside bark to an E-inch (o.b.) top diameter in trees larger than I I inches d.b.h., subtract 4.4 cubic feet from tabulzr

values. Source: Beck (1963). Blocked-m ared ,nd~n,e\ range of data

Table 12.-Ratio of International IN-inch board-foot volume to cubic-foot volume’ for Southern Appalachian yellow-poplar

(top diameter, 8 inches outside bark)

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

(inches) 65 70 75 1 80 I 85 - - 90 1 95 1 loo I05 110 [ 1157120 I25 1 I30 -_1--

______ Rutjo ______________________.__._.__--._____._____----------.____----------_______-----_.

II 3.76 3.94 4.09 1 4.22

I

1 4.33 4.81 4.87

12 1 3.89 4.06 4.20 4.32 4.43 4.88 4.94

13 4.02 [ 4.18 4.31 4.43 4.53 4.62 4.70 4.77 4.84 4.90 4.961 5.05 5.10

I4 4.16 4.30 1 4.42 4.53 4.63 4.71 4.79 4.86 4.92 4.98 5.03 5.08 5.12 1 5 I6

I5 4.42 4.54 4.64 4.81 4.88 4.94 5.00 5.05 5.10 5.19 5.23

I6 4.54 4.65 r

1 4.73

4.74 4.83 ] 4.90 4.97 ] 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.26 5.29

17 4.66 4.76 4.85 4.93 5.00 [ 5.06 5.11 5.16 5.21 5.25 5.29 5.32 5.36

18 4.% 5.03 5.09 5.15 5.20 5.24 5.29 5.32 5.36 5.39 5.42 5.45

20

21

I9 5.06 5.132 5.182

5.41

5.2433

5.45

5.2837 5.41

5.49

5.32 5.44

5.52

5.36 5.401 5.50

5.55 5.57

 5.43 5.4653

5.59

5.4955

5.62

1 ::::

5.64

=

22 5.50 5.54 [ 5.57 5.59 5.62 5.64 5.66 5.68 [ 5.70

23 5.62 5.65 5.67 5.69 5.71 5.73 1 5.75 5.76

24 5.70 5.73 5.75 5.77 5.78 5.80 5.81 5.82

25 5.79 5.81 5.82 5.84 5.85 5.87 5.88 5.89

26 5.87 5.89 5.90 5.91 5.92 5.93 5.94 5.95

27 5.97 5.98 5.99 1 5.99 6.00 1 6.01

28 6.05 1 6.06 6.06 6.07 6.07

29 6.13 6.13 (

1

6.14 6. I4

30

__~_

6.21 6.21 6.21 ( 6.21

‘Ratio of board-foot volume to cubic-foot volume (o.b.) in the saw-log portion of the stem. Source: Beck (1964). Mlucked-tn area mdtcate\ range of data

61
Table 13.-International I/l-inch board-foot volumes for Southern Appalachian yellow-poplar’

(top diameter, 8 inches outside bark)

D.b.h.

(inches) 65 70

Total tree haght (feet)

[ 75 80 85 1 90 95 T_ IOlrpF~ 110~115 [ 120 [ -i2r-p;o-JYYrpz-

____________ ~oo~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_______________~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~______~~~___~~~~~~~~____

*

c

II 51 59 67 1 76 1 84 92 101 109 II8 127 I35 I44

12 [ 67 1 77 87 97 107 II7 127 137 147 I58 I68 179

13 85 1 97 I08 120 132 I44 I56 I68 180 193 205 217 1 229 242

I4 I05 II9 1 I33 I46 I61 174 I89 203 217 231 245 260 274 1 288

I5 I44 I60 I76 1 192 208 224 241 257 273 290 306 323 339

I6 I71 I90 [ 208 227 1 245 264 1

]

1

282 301 320 339 357 1 376 394

I7 202 222 243 264 286 307 327 348 370 391 412 433 455

I8 282 306 329 353 377 400 424 448 472 495 519 543

I9 324 351 376 404 429 456 482 509 536

20 399 428 458 487 516 546 575 604

21 515 548 581 613 646 678

22 578 614 1 650 685 721 756

23 684 723 ’ 762 801 840

24 758 801 844 887 928 972 I.013 1,057

25 838 884 929 976 1,022 I.070 1,115 I.162

26 921 972 I.022 1,071 l,IZI 1,171 1,221 1,272

27 I.065 I.119 I.173 1,226 1,280 1,335

28 1,220 1

j 1

1,279 1,336 1,395 1,453

29 1.390 1,452 [

I

1,517 1,578

30 I.510 1,577 1,644 J I.711

‘Derived from board-foot:cubic-foot ratios. Source: Beck (1964). Blocked-m area mdtcates range of data

Weight Tables weight of total tree bark can be obtained by subtraction.

Tables 14 and 15, respectively, give green weight of total Tables 16-21 give dry weight of yellow-poplar trees by comtree wood and bark, and for total tree wood only. Green ponent parts. Tables 14-21 are based on a sample of 39 trees

Table 14.-Predicted weight of total tree wood and bark for yellow-poplar trees’

D.b.h.

(inches) 40 50 60 70

Total tree height (feet)’

80 90 1 100 110 120 130 140

____ Pounds _____________________________________-------------_____

GREEN)

6 218 270 321 373 424

7 293 363 432 501 570 638

8 378 469 559 648 737 825 913

9 588 701 812 924 1,034 1,145 1,254

10 858 995 ’ 1,131 1,266 1,401

11 1,030 1,195 1,358 1,521 1,683

12 1,218 1,412 1,605 1,798 1,989 2,180 2,370 2,559

13 1,420 1,647 1,872 2,097 2,320 2,542 2,764 2,985

14 1,899 2,159 2,417 2,675 2,93 1 3,187 3,442

15 2,168 2,465 2,760 3,054 3,347 3,639 3,929

16 2,454 2,790 3,124 3,457 3,789 4,119 4,448

17 2,757 3,135 3,510 3,884 4,257 4,628 4,998

18 3,077 3,499 3,918 4,335 4,75 1 5,165 5,578

19 3,882 4,347 4,810 5,271 5,730 6,188

20 4,284 4,797 5,308 5,817 6,324 1 6,829

3,696

4,219

4,776

5,366

5,989

6,645

7,333

8,054

8,807

21 4,705 5,268 5,830 6,388 6,945 1 7,501

22 5,145 5,761 6,375 6,986 7,595 8,202

23 6,275 6,943 7,609 8,272 8,933 9,592

24 6,809 7,534 8,257 8,977 9,694 10,410

25 7,365 8,149 8,931 9,709 10,485 11,259

26 8,787 9,630 10,469 11,306 ’ 12,140

27 9,448 10,354 11,256 12,156 13,053

2 10,132 11,103 12,071 13,036 13,998 8

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

*Includes l-foot stump allowance.

‘LogI Y = -0.69614 + 0.96067 Loga (D*Th); Y = total tree wood and bark green weight (pounds), D = diameter at breast height (inches),

Th = total tree height (feet).

62
in western North Carolina ranging from 6 to 28 inches d.b.h.

(Clark and Schroeder 1977).

Tables 22-24 show green weight of residues left after utilization of the sawtimber portion of the stem (Clark and others

1974). Moisture content of the sawlog portion of the main

stem averaged 98 percent. Therefore, dry weight of chippable

residue and sawdust can be obtained by multiplying 0.505

times values in tables 22 and 23. Bark moisture content averaged 114 percent. Multiplying 0.467 times values in table 24

gives dry weight of bark residue.

The variation in specific gravity among yellow-poplar trees

in the Southern Appalachians is discussed by Sluder (1972)

(fig. 30).

60

X = 0.41 (25.6 Ib/ft3)

1

S = 0.033 (2.1 Ib/ft3)

.32 .33 .34 .35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .40 .4l .42 .43 .44 .45 .46 .47 .48 .49 .50 .51 .52 .53 .54 .55

Specific Gravity

24.3 25.6 26.8 28.1 29.3 30.6 31.8 33.1 34.3

Pounds Per Cubic Foot

Figure W.-Frequency distribution of specific

gravities of the 500 trees on the basis of rings 21

through 30. (Sluder 1972)

63
Table IS.-Predicted weight of total tree excluding bark for yellow-poplar trees’

,

D.b.h. Total tree height (feet)l’

(inches) 40 50 60 70 1 80 1 90 100 110 120 130 140

6 173 215 257 299 340

7 234 291 347 403 459 515

8 303 377 450 523 595 668 740

9 474 566 657 749 840 930 1,021

10 695 807 * 919 1,031 1,142 1,253 1,363

11 836 972 1,106 1,241 1,375 1,508 1,641

12 990 1,151 1,310 1,469 1,628 1,786 1,944 2,101

13 1,157 1,345 1,531 1,717 1,902 2,087 2,272 2,456

14 1,553 1,769 1,983 2,197 2,411 2,624 2,836 3,048

15 1,776 2,023 2,268 2,513 2,757 3,001 3,244 3,486

16 2.014

2;266

2.293

2[581

2.572

21894

2.849

3:206

1 3.126 3,402 3,678 3,953

17 3,828 4,138 4,448

18 2,533 2,884 3,234 3,583 4,279 4,625 4,971

19 3,204 3,593 3,981 4,753 5,138 5,522

20 3,540 3,970 4,399 4,826 5,252 5,678 6,102

21 3,893 4,365 4,837 5,306 5,775 6,243 6,710

22 4,262 4,779 5,295 5,809 6,322 6,834 7,345

23 5,211 5,773 6,334 6,893 7,452 8,009

24 5,661 6,271 6,881 7,489 8,095 8,700

25 6,128 6,790 7,450 8,130 8,764 9,419

26 7,328 8,040 8,751 9,459 10,166

27 7,887 8,653 9,417 10,180 10,941

28 8,465 9,287 10,103 10,926 11,743

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

*Includes l-foot stump allowance.

lLog,o Y = -0.83371 + 0.97283 Log,0 (D’Th); Y = total tree green weight (pounds) excluding bark, D = diameter at breast height (inches),

Th = total tree height (feet).

Pounds

GREEW

Table K-Predicted weight of total tree wood and bark for yellow-poplar tree9

D.b.h.

(inches)

Total tree height (feet)*

40 1 50 1 60 1 70 I 80 I 90 100 110 120 130 I 140

Pounds

DRY)

6 93 116 140 163 187

7 127 159 191 223 255 287

8 166 208 250 292 334 376 418

9 263 317 370 423 477 530 584

10 392 458 ’ 524 590 656 722 788

11 475 555 635 715 795 875 956

12 566 661 757 852 948 1,044 1,139 1,235

13 665 777 889 1,002 1,114 1,227 1,339 1,452

14 903 1,033 1,163 1,294 1,425 1,555 1,686 1,817

15 1,038 1,187 1,337 1,487 1,638 1,788 1,939 2.089

16 1,182 1,353 1,523 1,694 1,866 2,037 2 208

17

2,380

1,336 1,529 1,722 1,915 2,109 2,302 2:496 2,690

18 1,499 1,716 1,932 2,149 2,366 2,584 2,801 3,019

19 1,914 2,155 2,397 2,639 2,882 3,124

20

3,367

2,123 2,391 2,659 2,928 3,196 3,465 3,735

21 2,342 2,638 2,934 3,231 3,527

22

3,824 4,121

2,573 2,898 3,223 3,549 3,875 4,201 4,527

23 3,170 3,526 3,882 4,239 4,595 4,952

24 3,455 3,842 4,230 4,619 5,008 5,397

25 3,751 4,172 4,594 5,016 5,438 5,860

26 4,516 4,973 5,429 5,886 6,343

27 4,874 5,366 5,859 6,352 6,846

28 5,245 5,775 6,306 6,836 7,367

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

*Includes l-foot stump allowance.

‘Loglo Y = - 1.22162 + 1.00963 Log,, (DzTh); Y = total tree wood and bark ovendry weight (pounds), D = diameter at breast height

(inches), Th = total tree height (feet).

64
Table Il.-Predicted weight of total tree excluding bark for yellow-poplar trees’

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

(inches) 40 1 50 1 60 1 70 1 80 I 90 I 100 110 120 130 140

__________________________----_______-------____------- Pounds ____________________--___----------_____--------_______

DRY

6 77 I 97 117 136 1 156

5 106 133 159 186 1 213 240

8 139 174 209 244 280 315 351

9 221 265 310 355 400 445 490

10 329 384 440 495 551 607 663

11 398 466 533 601 669 736 804

12 475 556 636 717 798 879 959 1,041

13 559 654 748 843 938 1,033 1,128 1,224

14 759 870 980 1,090 1,201 1,311 1,422 1,533

15 873 1,000 1,127 1,254 1,381 1,508 1,636 1,763

16 9 % 1,140 1,284 1,429 1 1,574 1,719 1,864 2,009

1,944 2,108 2,272

( 2,182 2,367 2,551

i3

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1,126 1,289 1,452 1,616

1,264 1,447 1,630 1,814

1,615 1,819 2,024

1,791 2,019 2,246 2,474

1,978 2,228 2,479 2,731

2,173 2,449 2,725 3,001

2,679 2,981 3,284

2,921 3,250 3,579

3,173 3,530 3,888

3,822 4,210

4,126 4,544

4,442 4,892

2,641 2,847

2.930 3,158

2,435

2,702

t2,983 l3,277

3;235 3.487

I+&

4,247

4,598

4.963

5;343

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

‘Includes l-foot stump allowance.

‘Log10 Y = - 1.31186 + 1.01330 LogO (D’Th); Y = weight (pounds, ovendry) all aboveground wood excluding bark, D = diameter at breast

height (inches), Th = total tree height (feet).

Table U.-Predicted weight of wood and bark in main stem to 8-inch d. i. b. merchantable top for yellow-poplar tree.9

D.b.h.

(inches) 60 70 80

Total tree height (feet)’

90 I 100 I 110 I 120 I 130 I 140

_____________________________-------____-----_-_______ Pounds-__-----_________-------____-----------___------------

DRY’

12 365 435 506 579 653 728 804 881

13 438 522 608 695 784 874 965 1,057

14 168 720 823 928 1,035 1 1,143 1.252 1.362

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

723

838

%2

1,096

I

842

976

1,121

1,277

1,444

1,623

1,815

2,018

%3

1.116

1;282

1,460

1,652

1,857

2,075

2,308

2,554

2,814

1 086

1.25 9

1,211

1,403

1,611

1.836

21077

2,334

1 1,337 1,465

1.55n 1fzOP 1

1;595

1,847

1,445 2.121

1,647

1,863

2,094

2,340

2,602

2,880

3,174

2,609

2,901

3,211

3,538

2;417

2,734

3,073

3,435

3,820

4,228

4,65 9

25 3,089 3,484 3,884 4,289 4;699 51113 I

26 3,810 4,247 4,690 5,139 5,592

27 4,152 4,629 5,112 5,601 6,094

28 4,511 5,029 5,554 6,085 6,622

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

Vncludes l-foot stump allowance.

‘Log,0 Y = - 1.92791 + 1.14055 Log,0 (D’Th); Y = weight (pounds, ovendry) wood and bark in main stem to 8-inch d.i.b. merchantable top,

D = diameter at breast height (inches), Th = total tree height.

65
Table 19.-Predicted weight of wood excluding bark in main stem to g-inch d.i. b. merchantable top for yellow-poplar trees’

D.b.h. Total tree height (feet)l

(inches) 60 I 70 80 I 90 I

100 1 110 I 120 I 130 I 140

_________________________________-__------------------~o~~~~_------------------_-_--___-__________________________

DRY

12 303 362 423 484 547 611 676 742

13 365 436 509 583 659 736 814 893

14 517 604 692 782 873 966 1,060 1,155

15 607 709 812 917 1,025 1,133 1,243 1,355

16 705 823 943 1,065 1,190 1,316 1,444 1,573

17 811 947 1,085 1,226 1,369 1,514 1,661 1,810

18 926 1,081 1,239 1,399 1,563 1,728 1,896 2,066

19 1,225 1,404 1,586 1,771 1,959 2,149 2,342

20 1,379 1,581 1,786 1,995 2,206 2,420 2,637

21 1,544 1,770 2,000 2,233 2,470 2,710 2,952

22 1,720 1,971 2,227 2,487 2,751 3,018 3,288

23 2,185 2,469 2,757 3,049 3,345 3,645

24 2,412 2,724 3,042 3,365 3,691 4,022

25 2,651 2,994 3,344 3,698 4,057 4,421

26 3,279 3,662 4,050 4,443 4,841

27 3,579 3,996 4,420 4,849 5,283

4,347 4,808 5 275 5,748

lBlocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

‘Includes l-foot stump allowance

‘Log,, Y = - 2.07644 + 1.15782 Loglo (D’Th); Y = weight (pounds, ovendry) wood excluding bark in main stem to I-inch d.i.b. merchantable

top, D = diameter at breast height (inches), Th = total tree height (feet).

Table 20.-Predicted weight of wood and bark in branches for yellow-poplar trees’

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

(inches) 40 I 50 1 60 70 1 80 1 90 100 110 I 120 I 130 140

--__F___________-_---------------_______________------- Rounds _____________________________-----_--------------------

DRY

6 12 14 17 19 21

7 15 19 22 25 28 31

8 19 24 28 32 36 40 43

9 29 34 39 44 49 53 58

10 41 47 53 59 64 70 76

11 49 56 63 69 76 83 89

12 57 65 73 81 89 97 104 112

13 65 75 84 93 102 111 120 129

14 85 96 106 116 127 137 147 157

15 96 108 120 132 143 155 166 177

16 108 121 134 147 160 173 186 198

17 120 135 150 164 178 193 207 221

18 132 149 165 181 197 213 229 244

19 164 182 200 c 217 234 252 269

20 179 199 219 238 257 275 294

21 196 217 238 259 280 300 320

22 212 236 258 281 304 326 348

23 255 280 304 328 352 376

24 275 301 328 354 380 405

25 295 324 352 380 408 436

26 347 377 408 437 * 467

27 371 403 436 467 499

28 395 430 464 498 532

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

‘Includes l-foot stump allowance.

‘Log,0 Y = - 1.71827 + 0.88172 Log,, (D’Th); Y = weight (pounds, ovendry) wood and bark in branches, D = diameter at breast height

(inches), Th = total tree height (feet).

66
Table 21.-Predicted weight of wood excluding bark in branches for yellow-poplar trees’

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

(inches) 40 1 50 1 60 1 70 80 [ 90 1 100 110 120 130 140

____________________-------------------_____----------- Pou,njs ____________________--------------------_______________

DRY

6 9 11 13 15 17

7 12 15 17 20 22 25

8 15 19 22 25 28 31 34

9 23 27 31 35 38 42 46

10 32 37 41 46 50 55 59

11 38 44 49 54 59 64 69

12 44 51 57 63 69 75 81 87

13 51 58 65 72 79 86 93 99

14 66 74 82 90 98 105 113 121

15 75 84 93 102 110 119 127 136

16 83 94 104 114 123 133 142 152

17 93 104 115 126 137 148 158 169

18 102 115 127 139 151 163 175 186

19 126 140 153 166 179 192 205

20 138 153 167 181 196 210 224

21 150 166 182 197 213 228 243

22 162 180 197 214 231 247 264

23 194 213 231 249 267 285

24 209 229 249 268 288 307

25 225 246 267 288 309 329

26 263 286 308 330 352

27 281 305 329 353 376

28 299 325 351 376 401

‘Blocked-in area indicates range of data. Source: Clark and Schroeder (1977).

‘Includes l-foot stump allowance.

‘Log,,, Y = - 1.76294 + 0.86612 Loglo (D’Th); Y = weight (pounds, ovendry) wood excluding bark in branches, D = diameter at breast

height (inches), Th = total tree height (feet).

Table 22.-Green weight of chippable residue from yellow-poplar saw-log merchantable stem to d-inch d.i. b. top’ 2

D.b.h.

(inches)

Merchantable tree height (number of 16-foot logs)’

l-1/2 1 2 I 2-l/2 1 3 1 3-l/2 4 4-l/2 5 1 5-l/2 6 6-l/2

____________________________--________________--------- pounds ______________________---________________________------

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

278 t 308 337 367 1 397 426 456

503

553

608

666

728

537

594 634

654 700

718 771 I

431 490 550 609 668

460 527 594 660 727

566 640 714 789

607 689 772 854

650 741 1 832 922

696 795 895 994

852 961 1,069

911 1,029 1,148 1

793

863

936

1,013

1,094

1,178

1,266

787

860

937

1,018

1,104

1,193

1,287

1,385 1,503

746

824 876

906 965

993 1,060

1,086 1,160

1,183 1,265

1,285 1,376

1.392 1.492

1;504 1;613

1,621 1,740 1

25 973 1,101 1,230 1 1,358 1,487 1,615 1,744 1,872 1

26 1,176 1,315 1,454 1,593 1,732 1,871 2,010

27 1,253 1,403 1,553 1,703 1,853 2,003 2,153

28 1,334 1,495 1 1,656 1,818 1,979 2,140 1 2,301

29 1,590 1,763 1,936 2,109 2,282 2,455

30 1,689 1,874 2,059 2,244 2,429 2,614

‘Blocked-in area indicates the range of data. Source: Clark and others (1974).

%ucludes a l-foot stump allowance.

;Y = 185.56929 + 0.02570 D’Mh; Y = weight (pounds) chippable residue from saw-log merchantable stem to g-inch d.i.b. top, D = diameter

at breast height (inches), Mh = merchantable tree height (feet).

67
Table 23.-Green weight of sawdust from yellow-poplar saw-log merchantable stem to B-inch d.i.b. top’ 2

D.b.h.

(inches) l-1/2

Merchantable tree height (number of ldfoot logs)’

2 1 2-l/2 3 1 3-l/2 1 4 4-l/2 1 5 1 5-l/2 1 6 1 6-l/2

____________________----______________---_-_--_________ PO,,,,& ____________________-----------____-----------_________

12 107 131 154 178 202 226 250

13 120 148 176 204 232 260 288 316

14 134 166 199 231 264 296 328 361 393

15 149 186 223 260 298 335 372 410 447 484

16 207 250 292 334 377 419 462 504 546 589

17 230 278 325 373 421 469 517 565 613 661

18 254 307 361 415 468 522 576 t 629 683 737

19 339 398 458 518 578 638 698 757 817

20 372 438 504 571 637 703 769 836 902

21 407 480 553 626 699 772 845 918 991

22 443 523 604 684 764 844 924 1,004 1,085

23 569 657 744 832 920 1,007 1,095 1,182

24 617 712 808 903 998 1,094 1,189 1,285

25 666 770 873 977 1,081 1,184 1,288 1,391

26 830 942 1,054 1,166 1,278 1,390 1,502

27 893 1,013 1,134 1,255 1,376 1,497 1,617

28 958

29

1,088 L 1,217 1,347 1,477

1,164 1,304 1,443 1,582

1,607 1 1,737

1,722 1,861

30 1,244 1,393 1,542 1,691 1,840 1,989

‘Blocked-in area indicztes the range of data. Source: Clark and others (1974).

*Includes a l-foot stump allowance.

‘Y = 32.15269 + 0.02071 D’Mh; Y = weight (pounds) sawdust from saw-log merchantable stem to g-inch d.i.b. top, D = diameter at breast

height (inches), Mh = merchantable tree height (feet).

Table 24.-Green weight of bark residue from yellow-poplar saw-log merchantable stem to &inch d.i. b. top’ 2

D.b.h. Merchantable tree height (number of ldfoot logs))

(inches) l-1/2 I 2 1 2-l/2 3 1 3-l/2 1 4 1 4-l/2 1 5 1 5-l/2 1 6 1 6-l/2

------------__----------________________--~-~~~--------poa~~ ________~____________------____---------_______________

12 167 193 219 245 271 297 323

13 181 212 242 273 303 334 364 394

14 196 232 267 302 338 373 408 444 479

15 213 253 294 334 375 416 456 497 537 578

16 276 322 369 415 461 507 553 600 646 692

17 301 353 405 457 509 562 614 666 718 770

18 327 385 444 502 561 619 678 736 794 853

19 420 485 550 615 680 745 810 875 941

20 456 528 600 672 744 816 889 961 1,033

21 494 573 _ 653 732 812 891 971 1,050 1,130

22 533 621 708 795 883 970 1,057 1,144 1,232

23 670 766 861 957 1,052 1,147 1,243 1,338

24 722 826 930 1,034 1,138 1,242 1,346 1,450

25 776 889 1,002 1,115 1,227 1,340 1,453 1,566

26 955 1,077 1,199 1,321 1,442 1,564 1,686

27 1,023 1,154 1,286 1,417 1,549 1,680 1,812

28 1,094 1,23 5 1,376 1,518 1,659 1,801 1 1,942

29 1,318 1,470 1,622 1,774 1,925 2,077

30 1,405 1,567 1,730 1,892 2,054 2,217

IBlocked-in area indicates the range of data. Source: Clark and others (1974).

‘Includes a l-foot stump allowance.

‘Y = 85.79319 + 0.02255 D’Mh; Y = weight (pounds) bark residue from saw-log merchantable stem to g-inch d.i.b. top, D = diameter at

breast height (inches), Mh = merchantable tree height (feet).

68
3. Yields of Unthinned Yellow-Poplar Stands

The diameter distribution and volume yield for natural,

unthinned stands are based on measurements of stands in the

mountains of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, and represent a wide range of ages, site indexes, and stocking levels.

Derivation of the diameter distributions in tables 25-29 are

fully described by McGee and Della-Bianca (1967). Tree

heights by diameter classes in tables 30-34 and yields by age,

site index, and number of trees per acre in tables 35-38 are

described more fully by Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

Stand volumes by age, site index, and basal area stocking

tables 39-42, previously unpublished, were derived from the

above described data set. Equations for the stand volume estimates in tables 39-42 are:

Table 39

Log (TCFV) = 2.06259 - 0.39144 100/S

- 0.08332 100/A

+ 1.05298 Log,o BA

Rz = 0.99

Std. Error = 0.0182

Table 40

Log (lOO*OBV/TCFV)

R= = 0.92

Std. Error = 0.0032.

Table 41

Log (lOO*IBV/TCFV) =

= 1.80258 + 0.03718 S/100

+ 0.02370 BA/lOO

- 0.01059 100/A

+ 0.08605 (Log,, BA)

1.66607 + 0.04826 S/100

- 0.03151 BA/lOO

- 0.01373 100/A

+ 0.11400 Log,, BA

Table 42

Log (BFV/TCFV) = 0.45860 + 1.80497 S/100

- 0.59978 100/A

- 1.17960 A*S/10,000

R2 = 0.86

Std. Error = 0.1313

Where TCFV =

OBV =

IBV =

BFV =

s =

A =

BA =

Total cubic-foot volume of wood and bark

Cubic-foot volume of wood and bark to

4-inch top diameter

Cubic-foot volume of wood only to 4-inch

top diameter

International l/4-inch board-foot volume

Site index (feet)

Stand age (years)

Stand basal area (square feet/acre)

In tables 30-34, derived by the equation footnoted in each

table, the following abbreviations apply:

Log =

H, =

Common logarithm

Average height of dominant and codominant

trees, in feet

H = Total height in feet of a tree of diameter D in

inches

Dmax = Maximum diameter occurring in the stand

T = Number of trees per acre

A = Age of stand in years

S = Site index

R’ = 0.92

Std. Error = 0.0042

69
Total Basal

trees area

(No.1 1 W’)

100 33

150 38

200 43

250 48

300 54

Number of trees per diameter class (inches)

5161718191 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

15 21 19 16 12 9 5 3

48 37 25 17 11 7 4 1

95 47 26 15 9 5 2 1

145 53 26 14 7 4 1 -

194 57 26 13 6 3 1 -

350 61 242 61 26 12 6 2 1 -

Age 30

100 51 3 8 13 14 15 14 12 10 7 4

150 61 12 23 25 24 21 17 13 9 5 1

200 70 29 39 36 30 24 18 13 8 3 -

250 77 51 56 46 35 26 18 11 6 1 -

300 84 77 72 54 39 27 17 10 4 - -

350 90 105 87 62 42 28 17 8 1 - -

A g e 40

50 44 - - 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 6 4 2

100 67 1 4 8 10 12 12 12 12 11 9 6 3 -

150 82 5 14 18 20 20 18 16 14 11 8 5 1 -

200 91 14 27 30 29 26 22 19 15 10 6 2 - -

250 98 28 42 42 37 31 25 19 14 9 3 - - -

300 106 44 59 53 44 35 27 19 13 6 - - - -

350 113 62 75 64 51 39 28 19 10 2 - - - -

Age 50

50 55 - - 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 5 4 2

100 82 1 3 5 7 9 10 11 11 10 10 9 7 5 2 -

150 98 4 1U 14 16 17 17 16 14 13 11 9 6 3 - -

200 110 10 21 25 25 24 22 19 17 14 11 8 4 - - -

250 117 21 34 36 34 30 26 22 18 14 10 5 - - - -

300 123 34 49 48 42 36 30 23 18 12 7 1 - - - -

A g e 60

50 68 - - - 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 2

100 98 12 4 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 6 4 2 -

150 116 3 8 12 14 14 14 14 14 13 12 10 9 7 5 1 - -

200 125 9 19 22 22 22 20 19 16 14 12 10 8 5 2 - - -

250 130 19 31 33 31 28 25 22 18 15 12 9 6 1 - - - -

Age 70

50 80 - - - 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2

100 114 12 4 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 4 l150 132 3 8 11 12 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 9 8 7 5 4 1 - -

200 141 9 18 20 20 19 18 17 15 14 12 11 9 8 6 4 - - - -

250 146 19 30 30 28 26 23 20 17 15 13 11 9 6 3 - - - - -

‘Source: McGee and Della-Bianca (1967).

Table 25.-Diameter dktributions for pure natural yellow-poplar stands by age and stand density per acre on site index 90’

Age 20

70
Table %.-Diameter distributions for pure natural yellow-poplar stands by age and stand density per acre on site index 100’

100 35

150 41

200 46

250 52

300 58

350 65

I

Age 20

Number of trees per diameter class (inches)

5161718191 10 1 11 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

13 20 19 16 12 9 6 4 1

43 36 26 18 12 8 5 2 -

84 48 29 18 11 6 3 1 -

129 56 30 17 10 5 2 1 -

173 63 31 17 9 5 2 - -

214 71 34 17 9 4 1 - -

Age 30

100 56 2 7 11 13 14 14 12 11 8 6 2

150 68 9 20 23 22 20 18 14 11 8 4 1

200 77 23 35 34 30 25 20 15 10 6 2 -

250 87 40 50 44 36 28 21 15 10 5 1 -

300 94 60 66 54 42 31 22 15 8 2 - -

350 103 79 81 64 48 34 23 14 7 - - -

Ag’e 40

50 48 - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 4 1

100 74 1 4 6 9 10 11 11 11 11 9 8 6 3

150 91 4 11 16 18 18 17 16 15 13 10 8 4 - -

200 104 11 22 26 27 25 22 20 16 13 10 6 2 - -

250 113 21 35 38 35 31 27 22 17 13 8 3 - - -

300 122 32 49 49 43 37 30 24 18 12 6 - - - -

350 131 44 63 60 52 43 34 25 17 10 2 - - - -

Age 50

50 62 - - 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 5 4 2

100 95 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 9 8 7 6 3 -

150 113 3 8 12 13 15 15 15 14 13 12 10 9 7 4 - -

200 127 8 17 21 22 22 21 19 17 15 13 11 8 5 1 - -

250 137 14 28 31 31 29 26 23 20 17 14 10 6 1 - - -

300 147 23 39 42 39 36 31 27 22 18 13 8 2----

Age 60

50 76 - - - 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 3

100 115- 2 3 5 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 6 5 4 -

150 137 2 6 10 11 12 13 13 13 12 11 11 10 9 7 6 4 - -

200 150 6 14 18 19 19 19 18 16 15 14 12 10 9 7 4 - - -

250 159 13 24 27 27 26 24 22 20 17 15 13 10 8 4 - - - -

Age 70

50 92--- 111 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1

100 136 - 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 - -

150 157 2 6 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 7 6 6 3 - - -

200 169 7 14 16 17 17 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 9 8 7 6 2 - - - -

250 179 13 23 25 25 23 22 20 18 16 15 13 11 10 8 6 2 - - - - -

‘Source: McGee and Della-Bianca (1967).

71
Table 21.-Diameter distributions for pure natural yellow-poplar stands by age and stand density per acre on site index 110’

Age 20

Total Basal

trees area Number of trees per diameter class (inches)

(No.) (ft’) 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 IO 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 I28 1 29 1 30

100 37 11 18 18 16 13 10 7 5 2

150 44 38 35 26 19 13 9 6 3 1

200 50 74 48 30 20 13 8 5 2 -

250 56 113 58 34 20 12 7 4 2 -

300 63 150 68 37 21 13 7 3 1 -

350 72 184 78 41 23 13 7 3 1 -

Ane 30

100 60 2 6 10 12 13 13 12 11 9 7 4 1

150 74 8 17 20 21 20 18 15 12 10 6 3 -

200 86 18 30 32 29 25 21 17 13 9 5 1 -

250 97 31 44 42 36 30 24 18 13 8 4 - -

300 107 45 59 52 43 35 26 19 13 7 1 - -

350 117 59 72 63 51 39 29 20 12 5 - - -

Ane 40

50 54 - - 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 5 4 1

100 83 1 3 5 7 9 10 10 11 10 10 9 7 5 3 -

150 104 3 9 13 15 16 16 16 15 13 12 10 7 4 1 -

200 117 8 18 23 24 24 22 20 18 15 12 9 6 1 - -

250 129 15 29 33 33 30 27 24 20 16 12 8 3 - - -

300 142 23 40 43 41 37 32 27 22 17 12 6 - - _ _

350 154 30 51 53 50 44 38 31 24 17 10 2 - - - -

Age 50

50 70 - - - 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 3

100 109 - 2 3 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 8 8 7 6 4 1

150 131 2 6 9 12 13 13 14 13 13 12 11 10 9 7 5 1 -

200 148 5 13 17 19 20 20 19 17 16 14 13 11 8 6 2 - -

250 161 10 22 26 27 27 25 23 21 19 16 14 11 7 2 - - -

300 175 16 30 35 35 34 31 28 24 21 18 14 10 4 - - - -

3 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2

100 133 - 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 4 2 -

150 161 2 5 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 9 9 8 7 5 2 - -

200 177 4 11 15 16 17 17 16 16 15 14 13 12 10 9 8 6 1 - - -

250 190 9 19 22 24 23 22 21 20 18 16 15 13 11 9 7 1 - - - -

Age 70

50 lO9---- 1111 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

100 159 - 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 3 -

150 184 2 5 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 5 2 - -

200 209 4 10 13 14 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 6 2 - - -

250 220 9 17 20 21 21 20 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 8 6 1 - - - -

‘Source: McGee and Della-Bianca (1967).

72
Table 28.-Diameter distributions for pure natural yellow-poplar stands by age and stand density per acre on site index 120’

Age 20

Total Basal

trees area Number of trees per diameter class (inches)

(No.) (ft’) 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 [ 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 [ 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30

100 39 10 17 17 16 13 10 8 5 3 1

150 46 33 33 26 20 15 10 7 4

200 54 64 47 32 22 15 10 6 3

250 62 97 59 37 23 15 9 6 3

300 70 128 70 42 26 16 10 6 2

350 80 154 82 48 29 18 11 6 2

100 67 1 5 8 10 12 12 12 11

150 82 6 15 18 19 19 18 16 13

200 95 14 26 29 28 25 22 18 15

250 108 24 38 39 35 31 26 21 16

300 121 34 50 49 43 36 30 23 17

350 134 42 62 59 52 43 34 26 18

- -

Age 30

10 8 6 4 1

11 8 5 2 -

11 8 4 - -

11 7 2 - -

11 6 1 - -

11 3 - - -

Age 40

50 59 - - 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 1

100 93 1 2 4 6 8 9 9 10 10 9 9 8 7 5 3 -

150 114 2 8 11 14 15 15 15 14 13 12 11 9 7 4 - -

200 133 6 15 19 21 22 21 20 18 16 14 12 9 6 1 - -

250 148 11 23 28 29 29 27 24 22 19 15 12 8 3 - - -

300 163 16 32 37 38 36 32 29 25 21 16 12 6 _ _ _ _

350 180 20 40 46 46 43 39 34 29 23 17 11 2 - - - -

Age 50

50 9--- 111 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 1

100 122 - 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 1 -

150 149 1 5 8 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 9 7 5 2 - -

200 172 4 10 14 16 17 18 17 17 16 15 14 12 11 9 7 3 - - -

250 188 7 17 21 24 24 23 22 21 19 18 16 14 11 8 4 - - - -

300 206 10 23 29 31 31 29 28 26 23 20 18 15 11 6-----

Age 60

50 98 - - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

100 154 - 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 4 -

150 185 1 4 6 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 7 6 4 - -

200 208 3 8 12 14 14 15 15 15 14 14 13 12 11 11 10 8 7 4 - - -

Age 70

50 1----- 1111 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

100 189- 12 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 2

150 223 1 3 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 1 -

‘Source: McGee and Della-Bianca (1967).

73
Table 29.-Diameter distributions for pure natural yellow-poplar stands by age and stand density per acre on site index 130’

Age 20

Total Basal

trees area Number of trees per diameter class (inches)

(No.) (ft’) 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 18 I19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I27 I28 129 30

100 41 9 16 16 15 13 11 8 6 4 2

150 50 29 31 26 20 15 11 8 6 3 1

200 59 55 45 33 23 17 11 8 5 2 1

250 67 82 58 39 27 18 12 8 4 2 -

300 77 106 71 46 31 20 13 8 4 1 -

350 89 125 83 54 36 23 15 9 4 1 -

Age 30

100 73 1 4 7 9 11 11 11 11 10 9 7 6 3

150 91 4 12 16 18 18 17 16 14 12 10 7 5 1

200 105 11 22 26 26 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 3 -

250 121 18 32 35 34 31 27 23 19 14 10 6 1 -

300 137 24 42 45 42 37 32 26 21 16 10 5 - -

350 154 29 51 54 50 44 38 31 24 17 10 2 - -

Age 40

50 65 - - - 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 1

100 104 - 2 4 5 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8 7 5 3 -

150 128 2 6 9 12 13 14 14 14 13 12 11 10 9 7 4 - -

200 150 4 12 16 19 20 20 19 18 17 15 13 11 9 6 1 - -

250 170 8 18 24 26 26 26 24 22 20 18 15 12 8 3 - - -

300 190 11 25 31 33 33 32 29 27 24 20 16 12 7 - - - -

350 211 13 30 38 41 40 38 36 32 28 23 18 11 2 - - - -

Age 50

50 89 - - - - 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 1

100 138 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 2

150 171

200 195 ; : 1; 1: :: :: ::,

11 11 11 11

16 15 15 14 :: :! 1;

9 8 3 3 - -

9 7 4 - - -

250 221 5 13 17 20 21 21 21 20 19 18 17 16 14 12 10 6 - - - -

Age 60

50 ll6----1111122233344444442

100 176 - 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 2 -

150 217 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 6 2 - -

Age 70

50 l25------11111222233333444442

100206- 11 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 l-

‘Source: McGee and Della-Bianca (1967). table 6, rev.

74
Table 30.-Total height by diameter class for pure natural yellow-poplar stands of various ages and stand densities on site index 90’

Trees

per acre Total height (feet) by diameter class (inches)

(number) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

100

150

200

250

300

350

47 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50

49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 -

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 -

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 -

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 - -

Aee 30

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

48 53 57 60 62 64 66 68 69 70 71

50 55 58 61 64 65 67 68 70 71 -

52 56 59 62 64 66 68 69 70 71 -

53 57 60 63 65 67 68 70 71 - -

54 58 61 64 66 68 69 70 71 - -

55 59 62 65 67 68 70 71 - - -

Age 40

44 51 57 62 66 70 73 75 77 79 81 83 84

47 54 60 65 68 72 74 77 79 81 82 84 85

49 56 62 66 70 73 76 78 80 82 83 85 -

51 58 63 68 71 74 77 79 81 83 84 - -

53 59 65 69 73 76 78 80 82 84 - - -

54 61 66 70 74 77 79 81 83 85 - - -

55 62 67 72 75 78 81 83 84 - - - -

Age 5 0

43 51 58 64 69 73 76 79 82 85 87 89 90 92 93

46 54 61 66 71 75 78 81 84 86 88 90 92 93 -

48 56 63 68 73 77 80 83 86 88 90 92 93 95 -

50 58 65 70 75 79 82 85 87 89 91 93 94 - -

52 60 66 72 76 80 83 86 89 91 93 94 - - -

53 62 68 74 78 82 85 88 90 92 94 - - - -

50

100

150

200

250

Age 60

41 50 58 64 69 74 18 82 85 87 90 92 94 96 97 99 100

45 54 61 67 72 77 81 84 87 89 92 94 96 97 99 100 -

47 56 63 69 74 79 83 86 89 91 93 96 97 99 101 - -

49 58 65 71 76 81 84 88 90 93 95 97 99 101 - - -

51 60 67 73 78 82 86 89 92 95 97 99 101 - - - -

50

Age 70

40 49 57 64 70 75 79 83 86 89 92 94 96 98 100 101 103 104 106

100 44 53 60 67 73 77 82 85 88 91 94 96 98 100 102 103 105 106

150 46 55 63 69 75 80 84 87 90 93 96 98 100 102 103 105 106 -

200 48 57 65 71 77 82 86 89 92 95 98 100 102 103 105 107 - -

250 50 59 67 73 79 84 88 91 94 97 100 102 104 105 - - - -

‘Log (H) = Log (Hc) + 0.01857

- [2.28645 0.59146 - Log (T)

- 0.64614 (100/A)

+ 2.57302 (WOO)]

(l/D - l/Dmax)

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

-

-

-

-

75
Table 31.-Total height by diameter class for pure natural yellow-poplar stands of various ages and stand densities on site index MO1

Age 20

Trees

per acre Total height (feet) by diameter class (inches)

(number) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 27 28 29 30

100 49 50 52 53 53 54 54 55 55

150 50 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 55

200 51 53 53 54 54 55 55 55 55

250 52 53 54 54 55 55 55 55 -

300 53 54 54 55 55 55 55 55 -

350 54 54 55 55 55 55 55 55 -

Ane 30

100 49 55 60 64 67 70 72 74 75 77 78 79

150 51 57 61 65 68 71 73 75 76 78 79 -

200 53 58 63 66 69 72 74 75 77 78 - -

250 54 59 64 67 70 72 74 76 78 79 - -

300 55 61 65 68 71 73 75 77 78 - - -

350 56 62 66 69 72 74 76 78 79 - - -

Age 4 0

50 44 53 60 65 70 74 78 81 84 86 88 90 92 93

100 48 56 62 68 73 77 80 83 85 88 90 91 93 94

150 50 58 64 70 74 78 81 84 87 89 91 93 94 -

200 52 60 66 71 76 80 83 86 88 90 92 94 - -

250 53 61 68 73 77 81 84 87 89 91 93 - - -

300 55 63 69 74 79 82 85 88 91 93 94 - - -

350 56 64 71 76 80 84 87 90 92 94 - - - -

Age SB

50 43 52 60 67 72 77 81 85 88 91 94 % 98 100 102 104 105

100 46 55 63 69 75 80 84 87 90 93 % 98 100 102 103 105 -

150 48 58 65 72 77 82 86 89 92 95 97 99 101 103 105 - -

200 50 59 67 74 79 83 87 91 94 96 99 101 103 105 - - -

250 52 61 69 75 81 85 89 93 95 98 100 103 104 - - - -

300 54 63 71 77 82 87 91 94 97 100 102 104 - - - - -

50

Age 60

41 51 59 67 73 78 83 87 91 94 97 99 102 104 106 108 109 111 112

100 45 54 63 70 76 81 86 90 93 96 99 101 104 106 108 109 111 112 -

150 47 57 65 72 78 83 88 92 95 98 101 103 106 108 109 111 113 - -

200 49 59 67 74 80 85 90 94 97 100 103 105 107 109 111 113 - - -

250 51 61 69 76 82 87 92 % 99 102 105 107 109 111 - - - - -

Age 70

50 40 50 59 66 73 79 83 88 92 95 98 101 104 106 108 110 112 113 115 116 118

100 43 53 62 70 76 82 86 91 94 98 101 103 106 108 110 112 114 115 117 118 -

150 46 56 65 72 78 84 89 93 97 100 103 105 108 110 112 114 115 117 118 - -

200 48 58 67 74 81 86 91 95 99 102 105 107 110 112 114 116 117 - - - -

250 49 60 69 76 83 88 93 97 101 104 107 110 112 114 116 118 - - - - -

‘Log (H) = Log (H,) + 0.01857

- [2.28645 0.59146 - Log (T)

- 0.64614 (100/A)

+ 2.57302 (S/100)]

(l/D - l/Dmax)

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

76
Table 32.-Total height by diameter class for pure natural yellow-poplar stands of various ages and stand densities on site index 11O1

Age 20

Trees

per acre Total height (feet) by diameter class (inches)

(number) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

100 50 52 54 56 57 58 59 60 60 61

150 51 54 55 57 58 59 60 60 61 61

200 52 55 56 57 58 59 60 60 61 -

250 53 55 57 58 59 60 60 61 61 -

300 54 56 57 58 59 60 60 61 61 -

350 55 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 - -

Age 30

100 49 56 62 67 71 74 77 79 81 83 85 86

150 51 58 64 68 72 75 78 80 82 84 86 87

200 53 60 65 70 73 76 79 81 83 85 86 -

250 54 61 66 71 74 77 80 82 84 86 87 -

300 56 62 68 72 75 78 81 83 85 86 - -

350 57 63 69 73 76 79 82 84 86 87 - -

Age 40

50 44 53 61 68 73 78 83 86 89 92 95 97 99 101 103

100 47 57 64 71 76 81 85 88 91 94 96 99 101 102 104

150 50 59 66 73 78 83 86 90 93 % 98 100 102 104 -

200 51 61 68 74 80 84 88 91 94 97 99 101 103 - -

250 53 62 70 76 81 86 89 93 % 98 101 103 - - -

300 55 64 71 78 83 87 91 94 97 100 102 104 - - -

350 56 65 73 79 84 89 92 96 99 101 103 - - - -

Age 50

50 42 52 61 69 75 81 86 90 94 97 100 103 106 108 110 112 114 115

100 46 56 64 72 78 84 88 93 96 100 102 105 107 110 112 113 115 -

150 48 58 67 74 80 86 90 95 98 101 104 107 109 111 113 115 - -

200 50 60 69 76 82 88 92 96 100 103 106 108 111 113 115 - - -

250 51 62 71 78 84 89 94 98 102 105 108 110 112 114 - - - -

300 53 64 72 80 86 91 96 100 104 107 109 112 114 - - - - -

Age 60

50 41 51 61 69 76 82 87 92 % 100 103 106 109 111 114 116 118 120 121 123

100 44 55 64 72 79 85 90 95 99 102 106 108 111 114 116 118 120 121 123 -

150 46 57 66 74 81 87 92 97 101 104 108 110 113 115 118 120 121 123 - -

200 48 59 68 76 83 89 94 99 103 106 110 112 115 117 119 121 123 - - -

250 50 61 70 78 85 91 % 101 105 108 112 114 117 119 121 123 - - - -

Age 70

50 39 50 60 68 75 82 87 92 97 101 104 108 111 113 116 118 120 122 124 126 127 129 130

100 43 54 63 71 79 85 91 95 100 104 107 110 113 116 118 120 122 124 126 127 129 - -

150 45 56 66 74 81 87 93 98 102 106 109 112 115 118 120 122 124 126 128 129 - - -

200 47 58 68 76 83 90 95 100 104 108 111 114 117 120 122 124 126 128 130 - - - -

250 48 60 70 78 85 92 97 102 106 110 114 117 119 122 124 126 128 130 - - - - -

‘Log (H) = Log (Hc) + 0.01857

- [2.28645 0.59146 - Log (T)

- 0.64614 (100/A)

+ 2.57302 (S/100)]

(l/D - lIDmax)

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

77
Table 33.-Total height by diameter class for pure natural yellow-poplar stands of various ages and stand densities on site index 120’

Age 20

Trees

per acre Total height (feet) by diameter class (inches)

(number) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

100

150

200

250

300

350

50 54 57 59 61 62 63 64 65 66

52 55 58 60 61 63 64 65 66 66

53 56 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

54 57 59 61 63 64 65 66 66 -

55 58 60 62 63 64 65 66 67 -

56 58 61 62 63 65 65 66 67 -

Aee 30

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

49 57 64 69 74 78 81 84 87 89 91 93 95

51 59 66 71 76 79 83 86 88 90 92 94 -

53 61 67 72 77 81 84 87 89 91 93 95 -

54 62 68 74 78 82 85 88 90 92 94 - -

55 63 70 75 79 83 86 89 91 93 95 - -

57 65 71 76 80 84 87 90 92 94 - - -

Age 40

43 54 62 70 76 82 87 91 95 98 101 104 106 108 110 112

47 57 65 73 79 84 89 93 97 100 103 105 108 110 112 114

49 59 68 75 81 86 91 95 98 102 104 107 109 111 113 -

51 61 69 77 83 88 93 97 100 103 106 108 111 113 - -

52 63 71 78 84 90 94 98 102 105 107 110 112 - - -

54 64 73 80 86 91 96 100 103 106 109 111 113 - - -

55 66 74 82 88 93 97 101 105 108 110 113 - - - -

Age 50

50 41 52 62 70 78 84 90 94 99 103 106 109 112 115 117 120 122 124 125

100 45 56 65 74 81 87 92 97 101 105 109 112 114 117 119 121 123 125 -

150 A7 58 68 76 83 89 95 99 103 107 111 114 116 119 121 123 125 - -

200 49 60 70 78 85 91 97 101 105 109 112 115 118 120 123 125 - - -

250 50 62 72 80 87 93 98 103 107 111 114 117 120 122 124 - - - -

300 52 64 78 82 89 95 100 105 109 113 116 119 122 124 - - - - -

Age 60

50 40 51 61 70 78 85 91 96 101 105 109 112 116 118 121 124 126 128 130 132 133 135

100 43 54 65 73 81 88 94 99 104 108 111 115 118 121 123 126 128 130 132 133 135 -

150 45 57 67 76 84 90 96 101 106 110 114 117 120 123 125 128 130 132 133 135 - -

200 47 59 69 78 86 92 98 103 108 112 116 119 122 125 127 129 132 134 - - - -

Age 70

50 38 50 60 69 77 84 91 96 101 106 110 114 117 120 123 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 139 141

100 41 53 64 73 81 88 94 100 104 109 113 116 120 123 125 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 141 -

150 44 56 66 75 83 90 97 102 107 111 115 119 122 125 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 141 - -

‘Log (H) = Log (Hc) + 0.01857

-[2.28645 - 0.59146 Log (T)

- 0.64614 (100/A)

+ 2.57302 (S/100)]

(l/D - l/Dmax)

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

78
Table 34.-Total height by diameter class for pure natural yellow-poplar stands of various ages and stand densities on site index 130’

Age 20

Trees

per acre Total height (feet) by diameter class (inches)

(number) 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 I13 I14 I15 1 16 117 I18 1 19 I20 I21 1 22 I23 I24 1 25 I26 1 27 128 I29 1 30

100 50 54 58 61 64 66 67 69 70 71 72

150 51 56 60 62 65 66 68 69 71 72 72

200 53 57 61 63 65 67 69 70 71 72 -

250 54 58 61 64 66 68 49 70 71 72 -

300 55 59 62 65 67 68 70 71 72 72 -

350 56 60 63 65 67 69 70 71 72 - -

Age 30

100 48 57 65 71 77 81 85 89 92 95 97 99 101 103

150 50 59 67 73 78 83 87 90 93 96 98 100 102 -

200 52 61 68 75 80 84 88 91 94 97 99 101 103 -

250 53 62 70 76 81 86 89 93 95 98 100 102 - -

300 55 64 71 77 82 87 91 94 97 99 101 103 - -

350 56 65 72 79 84 88 92 95 98 100 102 - -, -

Age 40

50 42 53 63 71 78 85 90 95 99 103 107 110 113 115 118 120 122

100 46 57 66 74 81 87 93 97 102 105 109 112 114 117 119 121 -

150 48 59 68 76 83 89 95 99 103 107 110 113 116 118 121 123 -

200 50 61 70 78 85 91 97 101 105 109 112 115 117 120 122 - -

250 51 62 72 80 87 93 98 103 107 110 114 116 119 121 - - -

300 53 64 74 82 89 95 100 104 108 112 115 118 121 123 - - -

350 54 66 75 83 90 96 102 106 110 114 117 120 122 - - - -

Age 50

50 40 52 62 71 79 86 93 98 103 108 112 115 119 122 124 127 129 131 133 135

100 43 55 66 75 83 90 96 101 106 110 114 118 121 124 126 129 131 133 135 -

150 46 58 68 77 85 92 98 103 108 112 116 120 123 126 128 131 133 135 - -

200 47 60 70 79 87 94 100 105 110 114 118 122 125 128 130 133 135 - - -

250 49 61 72 81 89 96 102 107 112 116 120 124 127 129 132 134 137 - - -

Age 60

50 38 50 61 71 79 87 94 100 105 110 114 118 122 125 128 131 133 136 138 140 142 144 145

100 42 54 65 74 83 90 97 103 108 113 117 121 124 127 130 133 135 138 140 142 144 145 -

150 44 56 67 77 85 93 99 105 110 115 119 123 126 130 132 135 137 140 142 144 146 - -

Age 70

50 37 49 60 70 79 87 94 100 105 111 115 119 123 127 130 133 135 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 151 153

100 40 52 64 74 82 90 97 103 109 114 118 122 126 129 132 135 138 140 143 145 147 148 150 152 153 -

‘Log (H) = Log (HJ + 0.01857

- [2.28645 - 0.59146 Log (T)

- 0.64614 (100/A)

+ 2.57302 (S/100)]

(l/D - l/Dmax)

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

79
Table 35.-Total cubic-foot yield of wood and bark for Table 36.-Cubic-foot yield of wood and bark to a Cinch

unthinned yellow-poplar stands of various stand densities, site top, outside bark, for unthinned yellow-poplar stands of

indexes, and ages’ various stand densities, site indexes and ages’

Site Index 90 Site Index 90

Trees

per acre _ Age (years)

(number) 20 1 30 1 40 1 50 1 60 I 70

________---------Cubicfeetperacre _________________

50 - - 1,560 2,170 2,850 3,590

100 730 1,510 2,330 3,180 4,080 5,020

150 860 1,810 2,760 3,710 4,660 5,580

200 980 2,020 3,050 4,030 4,950 5,780

250 1,110 2,210 3,280 4,260 5,130 5,870

300 1,250 2,400 3,490 4,450 - -

350 1.410 2.600 3.710 - - -

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Site Index 100

- - 1,920 2,730 3,640 4,670

840 1,810 2,870 4,020 5,270 6,610

990 2,180 3,430 4,730 6,080 7,450

1,120 2,450 3,820 5,180 6,540 7;840

1,270 2,700 4,140 5,540 6,870 8,090

1,430 2,950 4,460 5,870 - -

1,620 3,220 4,770 - - -

Site Index 110

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

-

960

1,130

1,280

1,450

1,650

1,87 0

- - 2,810 4,150

1,090 2,530 4,230 6,200

1,290 3,080 5,130 7,440

1,470 3,520 5,830 8,360

1,670 3,960 6,480 9,170

1.910 4.410 7.120 9.960

- 2,340 3,380

2,150 3,500 5,020

2,600 4,210 5,960

2,940 4,740 6,610

3,270 5,200 7,160

3,610 5,650 7,670

3.980 6.120 -

4,600

6,720

7,840

8,550

9,130

-

-

5,990

8,600

9,830

10,540

11,060

-

-

Site Index 120 Site Index 120

5,730

8,470

10,020

11,100

-

7,600

11,070

12,870

-

-

-

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

- - 2,670 3,950 5,470 7,260

980 2.370 4,000 5,890 8,070 10,570

1,140 2,860 4,830 7,050 9,520 12.260

1,280 3,250 5,470 7,900 10,530 -

1,440 3,640 6,060 8,640 - -

1,640 4,040 6,650 9,370 - -

1,870 4,490 7,250 - - -

Site Index 130

- - 3,190 4,810 6.770 9,110

1,120 2,780 4,810 7,240 10.110 13,500

1,310 3,390 5,870 8,760 12,100 -

1,480 3,900 6,730 9,950 - -

1,690 4,410 7,540 11,040 - -

1,940 4,960 8,380 - - -

2.230 5.560 9.240 - - -

350 2[180 4;910 7;790 1 - -

Site Index 130

50 - - 3,360 5,040 7,080 9,530

100 1,240 2,970 5,080 7,600 10,590 14,130

150 1,460 3,630 6,210 9,220 12,700 -

200 1,680 4,190 7,140 10,490 - -

250 1,920 4,760 8,020 11,660 - -

300 2,220 5,370 8,920 12,830 - -

350 2,560 6,030 9,850 - - -

‘Only trees 4.5 inches d.b.h. and larger are included.

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

Trees

per acre Age (years)

(number) 20 I 30 I 40 I 50 I 60 I 70

_________________ Cubic feet per acre _________________

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

- - 1,470 2,050 2,700 3,410

640 1,380 2,170 2,990 3,860 4,750

730 1,640 2,560 3,470 4,380 5,260

810 1,810 2,800 3,740 _ 4,620 5,420

900 1,960 2,990 3,930 4,760 5,470

1,010 2,110 3,160 4,080 - -

1,130 2,270 3,330 - - -

Site Index 100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

- - 1,810 2,590 3,460 4.450

740 1,670 2,690 3,800 4,990 6,280

860 1,990 3,190 4,440 5,740 7,050

950 2,220 3,540 4,850 6,150 7.400

1,060 2,430 3,820 5,160 6,430 7.610

1,180 2,640 4,090 5,440 - -

1,330 2,860 4,360 - - -

Site Index 110

- - 2,210 3,220 4,380 5,720

860 2,000 3,300 4,760 6,380 8,190

990 2,400 3,950 5,620 7,430 9,340

1,100 2,700 4,420 6,220 8,080 9,990

1,240 2,980 4,830 6,710 8,600 10,460

1,390 3,280 5,240 7,180 - -

1.570 3.600 5.650 - - -

‘Only trees 4.5 inches d.b.h. and larger are included.

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

80,
Table 37.-Cubic-foot yield of wood only to a I-inch top, Table 38.-International IN-inch board-foot yield to an

outside bark, for unthinned yellow-poplar stands of various g-inch top, outside bark, for unthinned yellow-poplar stands

stand densities, site indexes, and ages of various stand densities, site indexes, and ages’

Site Index 90

Trees

per acre Age (years)

(number) 20 [ 30 1 40 1 50 1 60 1 70

____________ _____ Cubic feet per acre _________________

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

- - 1,220 1,700 2,240 2,840

520 1,140 1,790 2,480 3,200 3,950

590 1,340 2,110 2,870 3,620 4,360

650 1,480 2,300 3,090 3,820 4,490

720 1,600 2,460 3,240 3,930 4,520

800 1,710 2,590 3,360 - -

890 1,840 2,730 - - -

Site Index 100

Site Index 90

Trees

per acre Age (years)

(number) 20 I 30 1 40 I 50 I 60 ] 70

______-----------~oa~dfe~~pe~ac~~_________________

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

- - 5,180 8,490 12,240 16,480

260 2,480 6,260 10,750 15,670 20,920

140 2,090 5,960 10,690 15,730 20,830

80 1,630 5,210 9,750 14,530 19,120

40 1,230 4,370 8,540 12,920 17,000

20 880 3,520 7,230 - -

10 590 2,670 - - -

Site Index 100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

- - 1,500 2,150 2,880 3,700

600 1,380 2,230 3,150 4,150 5,220

690 1,640 2,640 3,680 4,760 5,860

760 1,820 2,920 4,010 5,090 6,140

840 1,990 3,150 4,260 5,320 6,300

940 2,150 3,360 4,490 - -

1,060 2,330 3,580 - - -

Site Index 110

- - 1,840 2,670 3,640 4,760

700 1,650 2,730 3,950 5,300 6,810

800 1,970 3,270 4,660 6,170 7,760

890 2,220 3,650 5,150 6,710 8,290

990 2,450 3,990 5,560 7,130 8,680

1,110 2,690 4,320 5,930 - -

1,260 2,940 4,650 - - -

Site Index 120

- - 2,220 3,290 4,550 6,040

810 1,960 3,320 4,900 6,710 8,790

930 2,360 4,000 5,850 7,910 10,190

1,040 2,680 4,530 6,550 8,740 -

1,160 2,990 5,010 7,170 - -

1,320 3,330 5,500 7,760 - -

1,500 3,690 5,990 - - -

Site Index 130

50 - - 2,650 4,000 5,630 7,590

100 920 2,300 3,990 6,010 8,410 11,230

150 1,070 2,800 4,870 7,280 10,060 10,060

200 1,200 3,200 5,580 8,260 - -

250 1,370 3,640 6,250 9,160 - -

300 1,570 4,090 6,940 - - -

350 1,800 4,580 7,640 - - -

IOnly trees 4.5 inches d.b.h. and larger are included.

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

50 - - 7,120 11,590 16,790 22,830

100 460 3,760 9,020 15,270 22,270 29,990

150 290 3,420 9,100 15,940 23,370 31,170

200 180 2,930 8,540 15,430 22,770 30,150

250 120 2,460 7,780 14,510 21,580 28,460

300 80 2,040 6,960 13,410 - -

350 50 1,640 6,070 - - -

50 -

Site Index 110

- 9,400 15.310 22,370 30,720

100 750 5,340 12,380 20,810 301520 41,580

150 520 5,160 13,070 22,580 33,190 44,760

200 370 4,750 12,950 22,890 33,740 45,150

250 270 4,330 12,550 22,670 33,560 44,630

300 210 3,940 12,050 22,230 - -

350 170 3.550 11.450 - - -

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Site Index 120

- - 12,070 19,740 29,080 40,440

1,120 7,250 16,390 27,530 40,710 56,250

850 7,370 17,970 30,830 45,640 62,420

660 7,170 18,570 32,420 48,000 -

550 6,960 18,870 33,410 - -

470 6,780 19,080 34,200 - -

420 6,600 19,190 - - -

Site Index 130

- - 15,160 24,950 37,190 52,270

1,600 9,500 21,120 35,590 53,220 74,650

1,310 10,070 23,880 40,940 61,220 -

1,100 10,270 25,560 44,350 - -

990 10,470 26,960 47,180 - -

940 10,740 28,320 - - -

920 11.050 - - - -

‘Only trees 11 inches d.b.h. and larger are included.

Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1970).

81
Table 39.-Total cubic-foot volume of wood and bark by

age, site index, and basal area for unthinned yellow-poplar

stands

Site Index 80

Basal area Age (years)

(ft*/acre) 20 1 30 1 40 1 50 1 60 1 70

------______-_-_--Cubic feet/acre------------------

60 1,069 1,472 1,727 1,901 2,027 2,121

70 1,258 1,731 2,032 2,236 2,384 2,495

80 1,993 2,338 2,574 2,744 2,872

90 2,256 2,647 2,914 3,106 3,251

100 2,521 2,958 3,255 3,470 3,633

110 3,270 3,599 3,837 4,016

120 3,584 3,944 4,205 4,401

13-l ___ 4.291 4.575 4,789

140

Site Index 90

4;946 5,177

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

1Rf-l

1,212 1,668 1,958 2,155

1,425 1,962 2,303 2,534

1,640 2,259 2,650 2,917

2,557 3,000 3,302

2,857 3,352 3,690

3,706 4,079

4,062 4,470

4,864

Site Index 100

1,339 1,844 2,164 2,382

1,575 2,169 2,545 2,801

1,813 2,497 2,929 3,224

2,826 3,316 3,650

3,158 3,705 4,078

3,491 4,096 4,509

4,489 4,941

4,884 5,376

5,812

6,250

2,297 2,404

2,702 2,828

3,110 3,255

3,520 3,685

3,933 4,117

4,348 4,552

4,766 4,988

5,185 5,427

5,606 5,868

2,539 2,658

2,986 3,126

3,437 3,598

3,891 4,073

4,348 4,551

4,807 5,031

5,268 5,514

5,731 5,999

6,196 6,486

6,663 6,974

7,131 7,465

7,957

8.450

Site Index 110

Age (years)

20 1 30 ] 40 I 50 I 60 I 70

_____-----_______-C~bicfeet/~~re_-_____________~~~

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

20

1,454 2,002 2,349

1,710 2,354 2,762

1,968 2,710 3,179

2,228 3,067 3,599

3,427 4,022

3,789 4,446

4,153 4,873

5,301

5,731

6,163

2,585

3,041

3,500

3,962

4,426

4,894

5,363

5,835

6,308

6,784

7,261

7.740

2,756

3,241

3,731

4,223

4,719

5,217

5,717

6,220

6,725

7,232

7,740

8,251

8,762

9,276

2,884

3,393

3,905

4,421

4,939

5,461

5,985

6,511

7,039

7,570

8,102

8,636

9,172

9,709

10,248

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1,831

Site

2,521

Index

2,958

2,107

1.556

2,901 3,404

2,385

2,143

3,284 3,854

2,514

3,670 4,306

4,057 4,760

4,446 5,217

4,837 5,676

6,136

6,599

7,063

7,528

60

1;940

Site Index

2,671

2,233

1.649

3,074

2,527 3,480

2,270 2,664

2,824 3,888

4,298

4,711

5,125

5,541

5.958

3,255

130

3,470

120

3,633

3,747 3,994

2,932

4,181

4,242

3,126

2,768

4,522

3,272

2,950

4,733

4,739

3,088

5,052 5,288

5,240 5,586 5,847

5,742 6,122 6,408

6,247 6,660 6,971

6,754 7,200 7,537

7,263 7,743 8,105

7,774 8,287 8,675

8,286 8,834 9,247

8,800 9,382 9,820

9,316 9,931 10,395

9.833 10.482 10.972

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

3,134 3,449 3,677 3,849

3,607 3,970 4,232 4,430

4,083 4,494 4,791 5,015

4,562 5,021 5,353 5,603

5,043 5,551 5,918 6,194

5,527 6,084 6,486 6,789

6,013 6,619 7,056 7,386

6,501 7,156 7,629 7,985

6,991 7,695 8,203 8,587

7,483 8,236 8,780 9,191

7,976 8,779 9,359 9,797

8,471 9,324 9,940 10,404

8,967 9,870 10,522 11,014

9,465 10.418 11.106 11.625

82
Table 40.-Cubic-foot volume of wood and bark to I-inch

top d.o.b. for unthinned yellow-poplar stands

Site Index 80

Age (years)

20 1 30 1 40 1 50 1 60 I 70

____ _______ ______ Cubicfeet/acre ________ ______ ___

60 885 1,270

70 1,050 1,505

80 1,743

90 1,982

100 2,223

110

120

130

140

1,520 1,694

1,802 2,008

2.087 2,325

2,373 2,644

2,661 2,965

2,951 3,287

3,240 3,610

3,933

1,820 1,917

2,158 2,272

2,499 2,631

2,842 2,992

3,187 3,355

3,533 3,720

3,880 4,085

4,227 4,451

4.574 4.816

Site Index 90

60 1,012 1,451 1,738 1,936 2,081 2,191

70 1,200 1,720 2,060 2,295 2,467 2,597

80 1,389 1,992 2,385 2,658 2,856 3,007

90 2,266 2,713 3,023 3,249 3,420

100 2,541 3,042 3,390 3,643 3,835

110 3,373 3,758 4,039 4,252

120 3,704 4,127 4,435 4,670

130 4,496 4,832 5,087

140 5.229 5.505

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Site Index 100

1,128 1,618 1,937 2,159

1,338 1,918 2,297 2,559

1,549 2,221 2,659 2,963

2,526 3,025 3,370

2,832 3,392 3,779

3,140 3,760 4,189

4,129 4,601

4,499 5,012

5,424

5,836

2,320

2,750

3,184

3,622

4,061

4,502

4,945

5,387

5,830

6,272

6,714

2,442

2,895

3,353

3,813

4,276

4,740

5,206

5,672

6,138

6,603

7,068

7,532

7,995

Site Index 110

Age (years)

20 I 30 I 40 I 50 I 60 1 70

_________________ Cubicfeet/acre____-_______----_

Go

60 1,235

70 1,464

80 1,696

90 1,928

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

1,771 2,121

2,100 2,514

2,431 2,911

2,765 3,311

3,101 3,713

3,437 4,116

3,775 4,520

4,925

5,329

5,734

2,363

2,801

3,244

3,689

4,137

4,586

5,036

5,487

5,938

6,388

6,838

7,287

2,540 2,674

9:762

3,011 3,170

3,486 3,670

3,965 4,174

4,446 4,681

4,929 5,189

5,413 5,699

5,897 6,209

6,382 6,719

6,866 7,229

7,349 7,738

7,832 8,246

8,313 8,753

8.793 9.258

Site Index 120

60 1,334

70 1,581

80 1,831

90 2,082

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1 9 0

200

1,913 2,290 2,552

2,267 2,715 3,025

2,625 3,144 3,503

2,986 3,576 3,984

3,348 4,010 4,467

3,712 4,445 4,952

4,076 4,881 5,439

4,441 5,318 5,925

5,755 6,412

6,192 6,899

6,628 7,385

7,063 7,869

8,353

8,835

9,316

Site Index 130

2,742

3.251

3;764

4,282

4,801

5,323

5,845

6,368

6,891

7,414

7,936

8,458

8,977

9.496

10;012

2,887

3,423

3,963

4,508

5,055

5,604

6,154

6,705

7,256

7,806

8,356

8,904

9,452

9,997

10,541

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1,425 2,044

1,690 2,423

1,957 2,805

2,225 3,191

2,495 3,578

3,967

4,356

4,746

5,136

5,525

2,447

2,901

3,359

3,821

4,285

4,750

5,216

5,683

6,150

6,616

7,082

7,547

8,011

8,474

8,93 5

2,727

3,232

3,743

4,257

4,774

5,292

5,812

6,332

6,852

7,372

7.891

a;409

8,926

9,441

9,95 5

2,941 3,085

3,474 3,658

4,023 4,235

4,575 4,817

5,130 5,402

5,688 5,988

6,246 6,576

6,085 7,165

7,364 7,753

7,923 8,341

8,481 8,929

9,038 9,515

9,593 10,100

10,147 10,683

10,699 11,264

83
Table 41.-Cubic-foot volume of wood to I-inch top d.o.b.

for unthinned yellow-poplar stands

Basal area

(fV/acre)

Site Index 8 0

Age (years)

20 1 30 [ 40 1 50 1 60 1 70

_________________ Cubic feet/acre _________________

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

706 1,025 1,235 1,380

839 1,218 1,467 1,641

1,413 1,702 1,903

1,609 1,939 2,168

1,807 2,177 2,434

2,415 2,701

2,654 2,968

3,235

1,487

1,767

2,051

2,336

2,622

2,910

3,197

3,485

3.772

1,569

1,864

2,163 *’

2,463

2,766

3,069

3,372

3,675

3.978

60

Site Index 90

809 1,174 1,415 1,582 1,704

70 962 1,396 1,681 1,880 2,026

80 1,116 1,619 1,951 2,181 2,350

90 1,844 2,222 2,485 2,677

100 2,071 2,495 2,789 3,005

110 2,768 3,095 3,334

120 3,041 3,401 3,664

130 3,707 3,994

140 4.323

1,798

2,136

2,478

2,823

3,169

3,517

3,864

4,212

4,559

60

70 1,075

80 1,247

90

904

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

1,560

Site Index

1,879

100

2,101

1,810 2,180

1,313

2,438

2,061

1,581

2,483

1,768

2,777

2,314 2,788 3,118

2,568 3,094 3,459

3,399 3,801

3,705 4,143

4,485

4,826

2,264 2,388

2,627 2,770

2,992 3,115

3,359 3,542

3,727

1,905 2,009

3,930

4,095 4,319

4,464 4,708

4,832 5,096

5,199 5,483

5,565 5,869

170 6,254

180 6,637

Site Index 110

Basal area Age (years)

(ft’/acre) 20 I 30 I 40 I 50 1 60 I 70

_________________ Cubic f&/acre _________________

60 993

70 1,180

80 1,369

90 1,559

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

1,441 1,736

1.712 2,063

1,986 2,393

2.263 2.726

21540 3;060

2,818 3,395

3,097 3,731

4,067

4,402

4,736

1,941

2,306

2,676

3,048

3,422

3,797

4,172

4647

4,922

5,296

5,669

6,041

2,091 2,205

2,485 2,620

2,883 3,040

3,284 3,463

3,686 3,888

4,090 4,314

4,495 4,740

4,899 5,167

5.303 5,593

5,706 6.018

6,108 6,442

6,508 6,864

6,907 7,284

7,304 7,703

200

60

8,119

Site Index 120

1.075 1.560 1.879 2,101 2,264 2,387

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1;277 1;854 21233

1,482 2,150 2,591

1,688 2,449 2,951

2,750 3,313

3,051 3,676

3,353 4.039

3,655 4,403

4,766

5,128

5,489

5,849

2,497 2,690 2,837

2,897 3,121 3,291

3,300 3,555 3,749

3,704 3,991 4,209

4,110 4,428 4,670

4,517 4,866 5,132

4,923 5,304 5,594

5,329 5,741 6,055

5,734 6,177 6,515

6,138 6,613 6,974

6,540 7,046 7,431

6,941 7,478 7,886

7,339 7,907 8,339

7,736 8,334 8.790

60

Site Index 130

1.151 1.671 2.013 2,251 2,425 2,557

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200 -

1;368 1;986

1,587 2,304

1,808 2,624

2,030 2,946

3,269

3,592

3,915

4,238

4,560

21392 2,675 2,882 3,039

2,775 3,103 3,343 3,526

3,161 3,535 3,808 4,017

3,549 3,969 4,276 4,509

3,938 4,403 4,744 5,003

4,327 4,839 5.213 5,498

4.717 5,274 5,682 5,993

5,106 5,709 6.151 6,487

5,494 6,143 6,618 6,980

5,880 6,576 7,084 7,471

6,266 7,007 7,549 7,961

6,650 7,436 8,011 8,449

7,032 7,863 8,471 8,934

7,411 8,288 8.928 9.416

84
Table 42.-International I/4-inch board-foot volume to

B-inch top d.o. b. for unthinned yellow-poplar stands

Site Index 80

Basal area Age (years)

(ft’/acre) 20 1 30 1 40 [ 50 [ 60 1 70

_________________ Boardfeet/acre _________________

60 55 614

70 65 722

80 831

90 941

100 1,051

110

120

130

140

1,832 3,237

2,155 3,808

2,481 4,383

2,808 4,961

3,138 5,544

3,469 6,129

3,802 6,717

7,307

4,401 5,150

5,176 6,057

4,958 6,972

6,744 7,892

7,536 8,818

8,331 9,749

9,130 10,685

9,933 11,624

10.740 12.568

60 90

Site Index 90

972 2,823 4.854 6,421 7,313

70 106 1,143 33320 5,709 7,553 8,602

80 122 1,316 3,822 6,571 8,693 9,~

90 1,489 4,326 7,439 9,841 11,207

100 1,664 4,834 8,311 10,995 12,522

110 5,344 9,189 12,156 13,844

120 5,857 10,070 13,322 15,173

130 10,956 14,494 16,507

140 15,670 17.847

60

Site Index 100

143 1.500 4,241 7,097 9.137 10,127

70 168

80 194

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

11765 4,989 8,348

2,031 5,742 9,608

2,299 6,500 10,877

2,569 7,263 12,153

2,840 8,029 13,436

8,800 14,725

9,573 16,020

17,320

18,625

10,748

12,370

14,004

15,647

17,298

18,958

20,625

22,299

23,980

25,666

11,912

13,711

15,521

17,342

19,173

21,013

22,860

24,716

26,578

28,447

30,322

32.203

Site Index 110

Basal area Age (years)

(ft’/acre) 20 1 30 1 40 1 50 I 60 I 70

_________________ Boardfeet/acre __-_____---_____-

60 223

70 262

80 302

90 342

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

2,275 6,257

2.675 7,360

3;079 8,471

3,486 9,590

3,895 10,715

4,306 11,846

4,719 12,983

14,124

15,271

16,421

10,190

11,986

13,796

15,617

17,449

19,292

21,143

23,002

24,869

26,743

28,623

30,5 10

12,768 13,772

15,018 16,200

17,286 18,645

19,568 21,107

21,864 23,584

24,172 26,073

26,491 28,575

28,281 31,088

31,160 33,611

33,506 36,144

35,864 38,685

38,228 41,236

40,600 43,794

42.978 46,359

200

Site Index 120

48,932

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

343 3,401 9,107 14,433

403 4,001 IO,71 I 16,976

464 4,605 12,329 19,539

525 5,213 13,956 22,119

5,824 15,594 24,715

6,439 17,240 27,324

7,057 18,894 29,945

7,678 20,556 32,579

22,224 35,223

23,899 37,877

25,579 40,540

27,226 43,213

45,893

48,582

5 1,278

Site Index 130

17,599 18,475

20,701 21,731

23,826 25,012

26,972 28,315

30,137 31,637

33,319 34,977

36,516 38,333

39,727 41,704

42,95 1 45,088

46,187 48,486

49,435 51,895

52,694 55,316

55,963 58,748

59,241 62,189

62,529 65,640

60 521

70 613

80 705

90 798

100 892

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

5,033

5,920

6,814

7,714

8,619

9,529

10,443

11,362

12,284

13,209

13,115 20,228 24,006 24,525

15,426 23,793 28,236 28,847

17,755 37,385 32,499 33,202

20,099 31,001 36,790 37,586

22,457 34,639 41,107 41,996

24,828 38,296 45,447 46,430

27,211 41,970 49,807 50,885

29,603 45,661 54,187 55,359

32,006 49,367 58,585 59,852

34,418 53,086 62,999 64,362

36,838 56,820 67,429 68,888

39,266 60,565 71,874 73,429

41,702 64,322 76,333 77,984

44,145 68,090 80,805 82,553

46.595 71.869 85.289 87.134

85
4. Growth and Yield of Thinned Yellow-Poplar Stands

Table 43 summarizes the system of equations needed for

estimating growth and for projecting yields of basal area and

cubic-foot and board-foot volumes for thinned stands of

yellow-poplar. These data are based on remeasurement of the

series of sample plots described in Appendix III. The methods

used to derive the equations and tables were fully described

by Beck and Della-Bianca (1972, 1975). Estimates of growth

and yield require knowledge of stand age, dominant stand

height, site index, basal area, and mean stand diameter. In

application it should be remembered that the sample plots at

establishment were free of insects and disease, showed no evidence of past disturbance, and were fully stocked with no

“holes” in the canopy. Consequently, they represent maximum growth and yield potentials. If the stands to which the

predictors are to be applied show any of these extraneous factors, which may detract from growth, allowances should be

made for them.

Basal area.-Basal-area growth (from equation 1) by age,

site index, and initial basal area is presented in table 44. Basal

area at future ages may be obtained by summing annual

increments, or it may be obtained directly by use of equation

(2). From a given condition of age (A), site index (S), and

initial basal area (B,), future basal area (B,) at future age (A,)

may be projected. Projections should be limited to 5 years or

less. If longer projections are desired, they should be done in

a series with new estimates of initial age and inital basal area

inserted periodically. This is particularly important in young

stands where rates of growth are changing rapidly with both

age and density level.

Cubic-foot growth and yield.-Total cubic-foot volume

growth from equation (4) is presented in table 45. Total cubicfoot yields at future ages may be obtained through use of equation 5. Projections of cubic-foot volume are similar to those

for basal area, and the same techniques and conditions apply.

Boar&foot growth and yield.-The system for estimating

board-foot growth and yield differs somewhat from that for

cubic-foot volume. No direct estimators of growth are available. Instead, board-foot stand volume at a given point is

expressed as a function of basal area, height, and mean stand

diameter. Changes in these variables are estimated with equations (1), (7), and (8). Future volume is then estimated from

future values of B, H, and D. Volume growth is computed as

the difference between successive stand volume estimates.

The ratio of board-foot volume to stand basal area by

height and mean stand diameter class (from equation (6)) is

presented in table 46. Board-foot growth by age, site index,

and initial basal area are shown in table 47. These estimates

use an average value for mean stand diameter.

Table O.-Equations for estimating growth and yield in

thinned yellow-poplar stands

-

Equation

number Equation’

1 AB = (B,)(A,-l)[3.82837 + 0.01667(S) - 1nBJ

2 InB, = (lnBI)(AI/A,) + 3.82837 (1 -AI/AZ) +

O.O1667(S)(l -AI/A,)

3 lnTCFVl = 5.36437 -lOl.l6296(S’) - 22.00048(A,-‘) +

0.97116 (InB,)

4 ATCFV = TCFV, [3.71796&l) + O.O1619(S)(A,-‘) -

0.97116 (A;‘)(lnBI) + 22.ooo48 W’)l

5 lnTCFV* = 5.36437 - 101.16296(S1) - 22.00048(A~-‘) +

0.97116 (AI/A,)*(lnB,) + 3.71796 (1 -AI/A*) +

O.O1619(S)(l -AI/A,)

6 BFV/B, = -545.33701 + 222.63551(D1”) -

18.18270(D) + 0.35306(H)(D”‘)

7 1nH = 1nS + 21.08707 (l/50 -l/A,)

8 1naD = 0.89100 - 0.00852(Bl) - 195.13700@‘) -

O.O5810(BA-‘)

1 A, =

A, =

s=

B, =

B, =

AB =

TCFVl =

TCFV, =

ATCFV =

BFV =

D =

Initial age (years).

Future age (years).

Site index in feet at age 50 years.

Initial stand basal area in square feet per acre; all trees

4.6 inches d.b.h. and over are included.

Future stand basal area in square feet per acre; all

trees 4.6 inches d.b.h. and over are included.

Stand basal area growth in square feet per acre per year.

Initial total bole volume (cubic-feet of wood and bark)

of all trees 4.6 inches d.b.h. and over.

Future total bole volume (cubic-feet of wood and

bark) of all trees 4.6 d.b.h. and over.

Stand growth in total bole volume in cubic feet per

acre per year.

Board-foot stand volume per acre of trees 11 inches

d.b.h. and over; International l/4-inch rule to I-inch

top (o.b.).

Quadratic mean stand diameter (inches), all trees 4.6

inches d.b.h. and over are included.

LLD = Quadratic mean stand diamater growth (inches/year);

all trees 4.6 inches d.b.h. and over included.

In = Natural logarithm.

H = Dominant stand height (feet).

86
Table 44.-Basal-atva growth for thinned stands of yellow-poplar’

Site Index 90

1 (Z% 1-Gl-K 60 1 70 1 80 1 m~Y~iY’~o 1 120 1 130 1

----------__________ fl/@&Fr __________________----------~~___!__~~~---!_-~~___

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

:

65

70

75

3.3 3.5 3.8

2.62 2.84 f*: :*:

212

::! 2.5 2.4

1.9 2.0

1:9

2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0

1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6

1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2

1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1

1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9

A:8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7

0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.6

80

30

35

40

45

50

65

70

75

a0

0.8

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

4.0

1::

0.9

4.2

1.7

1.5

1.4

f ::

1.1

1.1

0.9

4.4

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5

Site Index 100

4.5

3.6

3.0 3.0 2.9

2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9

2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8

Site Index 110

20 3.9 4.4

25 3.2 3.5

30 2.6 2.9

35 2.3 2.5

40 2.0 2.2

45 1.8 1.9

50 1.6 1.8

55 1.4 1.6

60 1.3 1.5

65 1.2 1.3

70 1.1 1.3

75 1.1 1.2

a0 1.0 1.1

20 4.3 4.8

4.7

:*:

217

2.4

2.1

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

5.2

4.9

4.0

3.3

2.8

2.5

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

5.5

5.1

4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2

3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4

2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4

2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1

2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9

1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7

1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2

Site Index 120

5.8 6.0

25 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.0

30 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.1

35 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5

40 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

45 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7

50 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

55 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2

60 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0

65 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

70 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

75 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6

a0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5

3.4

3.0

2.7

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.5

(continued)

87
Table 44.-Basal-area growth for thinned stands of yellow-poplar (continued)

Site Index 130

Age Basal area (ft’/acre)

(years) 40 1 50 1 60 [ 70 1 80 1 90 1 100 110 1 120 1 130 1 140 1 150 I 160

_____________________________-------_-----------____ f$/acre/year ____________________--_______________________~~~~~~~

20 4.6 5.2 5.7 6.1 6.5 6.7 7.0

25 3.7 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.7

30 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.7

35 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1

40 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6

45 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2

50 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8

55 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

60 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4

65 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

70 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0

75 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9

80 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8

‘Only trees 4.6 inches d.b.h. and larger are included. Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1972).

5.8 5.9

4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9

2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7

2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5

2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Table 45.-Total cubic-foot growth for thinned stands of yellow-poplar’

Site Index 90

Age Basal area (ft’/acre)

(years) 40 ] 50 1 60 1 70 1 80 1 90 1 100 1 110 1 120 I 130 1 140 1 150 1 160

_____________________--_____----------_-____________ fr-‘/acre/year -----_-________----------------~-~~~~~~-------------

20 112 128 142 154

25 102 116 128 138 146

30 93 105 114 123 130 135 140

35 84 95 103 110 116 120 123 126

40 77 86 93 99 104 107 110 112 113

45 71 79 85 90 94 97 99 100 100

50 65 72 78 82 86 88 90 90 90 90

55 61 67 72 76 79 81 82 82 82 81

60 56 62 67 70 73 74 75 75 75 74 72

65 53 58 62 65 68 69 69 69 69 68 66

70 50 55 58 61 63 64 64 64 64 62 61 59

75 47 52 55 57 59 60 60 60 59 58 56 54

80 44 49 52 54

20 133 152 170 185

25 122 139 154 167

30 111 126 139 150

35 102 115 126 135

40 93 104 114 122

45 85 % 104 112

50 79 88 96 102

55 73 82 89 94

60 68 76 83 88

65 64 71 77 82

70 60 67 72 77

75 57 63 68 72

80 54 60 64 68

56 56 56 56 55 54 52 50 48

Site Index 100

199

178 188

159 167 174 180

143 149 155 159 163

129 134 139 142 145 147 148

117 122 126 128 130 131 132

107 111 114 116 118 119 119 118 117

99 102 105 107 108 108 108 107 106

92 95 97 98 99 99 98 98 96

85 88 90 91 91 91 91 90 88

80 82 84 85 85 85 84 83 81

75 77 78 79 79 79 78 77 75

70 72 74 74 74 74 73 71 70

(continued)

88
Table 45.-Total cubic-foot growth for thinned stands of yellow-poplar (continued)

Site Index 110

Age Basal area (ft’/acre)

(years) 40 1 50 1 60 1 70 1 80 1 90 1 100 I 110 1 120 I 130 I 140 1 150 I 160

_________________________~_____~___________~____~~~_ ffl/acre/year ---__----___---_____~---~~~~---~~~--~~~-~~~~--~~----

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

:

65

70

75

80

20

2s

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

154 177 198 217

142 163 181 197

130 148 164 178

119 135 149 161

109 123 136 146

100 114 124 134

93 105 115 123

86 97 106 114

81 91 99 106

76 85 93 99

71 80 87 93

67 75 82 87

64 71 78 82

174 202 227 250

162 187 209 228

149 171 190 207

136 156 173 188

125 143 158 171

116 132 145 157

107 122 134 145

100 113 125 134

93 106 116 125

88 99 109 117

83 93 102 110

78 88 96 104

74 83 91 98

234

212 224 236 246

190 201 210 218 226 232

171 180 188 195 200 20s

155 163 170 175 180 183 186 189

142 148 154 159 162 165 168 169 170

130 136 141 145 148 150 152 153 153

120 125 130 133 136 137 139 139 139

112 116 120 123 125 126 127 128 127

104 108 112 114 116 117 118 118 117

98 101 104 106 108 109 109 109 109

92 95 98 100 101 102 102 102 101

87 90 92 94 95 % % 95 94

Site Index 120

270 289

246 262 276 290 302

222 236 248 259 268 277 285

201 213 223 232 240 247 254 259 264

183 193 202 210 216 222 227 232 235

167 176 184 191 196 201 206 209 212

154 162 169 175 180 184 187 190 192

143 150 156 161 165 169 172 174 175

133 139 145 149 153 156 158 160 161

124 130 135 139 142 145 147 148 149

116 122 126 130 133 135 137 138 139

110 114 119 122 125 127 128 129 130

103 108 112 115 117 119 120 121 122

Site Index 130

20 196 228 256 283 307 330 350

25 183 211 237 260 281 300 318 334 349 363

30 168 193 216 236 255 271 287 300 313 325

35 154 177 197 215 231 246 259 271 282 291

40 142 163 181 197 211 224 236 246 255 263

45 131 150 166 181 194 205 215 224 232 239

50 122 139 154 167 179 189 198 206 213 219

55 114 129 143 155 166 175 183 190 197 202

60 106 121 134 145 154 163 170 177 182 187

65 100 114 125 136 145 152 159 165 170 174

70 94 107 118 128 136 143 149 155 159 163

75 89 101 111 120 128 135 140 145 150 153

80 84 96 105 114 121 127 133 137 141 144

‘Only bole wood and bark of trees 4.6 inches d.b.h. and larger are included. Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1972).

335 345 353

300 308 315

270 277 282

246 251 256

225 229 233

207 211 214

191 195 198

178 181 183

166 169 171

156 158 160

147 149 150

89
Table &-Ratio of board-foot stand volume per acre to stand basal area per acre for selected values of dominant stand height

and mean stand diameter for thinned stands of yellow-poplar1 2

Residual quadratic

mean stand diameter

(inches)

Dominant stand height (feet)

50 1 60 1 IO 80 I90 [ 100 1 110 1 120 1 130 1 140 150

7

8

9

10 32.69

11 51.60

12 68.85

13 84.66

14 99.18

15 112.56

16 124.89

17 136.29

18 146.83

19 156.59

20 165.61

21 173.97

22 181.70

23 188.84

24 195.45

22.48

43.86

63.31

81.08

91.39

112.39

126.23

139.02

150.85

161.81

171.97

181.40

190.15

198.26

205.78

212.74

33.07

55.02

75.02

93.31

110.12

125.60

139.90

153.14

165.41

176.79

187.36

197.19

206.33

214.82

222.71

230.04

18.80

43.66

66.19

86.73

105.55

122.85

138.81

153.58

167.26

179.%

191.77

202.75

212.98

222.50

231.38

239.64

247.34

0.49 9.83 19.17 28.52 37.86 47.20 56.54

28.78 38.77 48.76 58.74 68.73 78.11 88.70

54.25 64.84 75.44 86.03 96.62 107.21 117.80

77.35 88.52 99.68 110.85 122.01 133.18 144.34

98.44 110.15 121.86 133.57 145.28 156.99 168.70

117.78 130.01 142.24 154.47 166.70 178.93 191.16

135.58 148.31 161.04 173.77 186.50 199.23 211.%

152.02 165.23 178.44 191.65 204.86 218.08 231.29

167.25 180.93 194.60 208.27 221.95 235.62 249.30

181.38 195.51 209.63 223.75 231.87 252.00 266.12

194.52 209.08 223.63 238.19 252.75 267.31 281.86

206.75 221.73 236.71 251.69 266.66 281.64 296.62

218.14 233.53 248.92 264.31 279.70 295.09 310.48

228.77 244.56 260.35 216.14 291.93 307.72 323.51

238.68 254.86 271.04 287.22 303.40 319.58 335.76

247.94 264.50 281.06 297.62 314.18 330.74 347.30

256.57 273.50 290.44 301.37 324.30 341.23 358.17

264.63 281.93 299.22 316.52 333.82 351.11 368.41

25 201.54 219.19 236.84 254.50 272.15 289.80 307.46 325.11 342.76 360.42 378.07

‘Board-foot stand volume per acre of trees 11 inches d.b.h. and over using International l/4-inch rule. Source: Beck and Della-Bianca (1975).

*Residual stand basal area (square feet per acre) includes all trees 4.6 inches d.b.h. and over per acre.

Table 41.-Annual board-foot volume growth per acre of

ye&w-poplar trees 11 inches d. b. h. and over after thinning to

specified residual basal area’

Site Index 90 Site Index 120

Residual basal area (ft’/acre)

40 1 60 1 80 1 100 1 120 1 140 1 160

________________ Boardfeer/ccre/yecr ________________

30 336 390 420 - -

40 350 426 452 454 450

50 364 412 438 444 434

60 348 394 414 420 410

70 328 372 394 400 390

30 456

40 480

50 464

60 414

70 406

30 582

40 602

50 576

60 536

70 498

Site Index 100

532 572 586 586 - -

564 604 616 608 5% -

544 586 598 584 570 542

512 550 562 550 532 502

480 518 528 520 504 476

Site Index 110

684 744 164 766 - -

716 776 800 800 784 -

686 744 772 766 754 726

642 698 724 722 706 674

5% 652 676 676 660 628

Residual basal area (ft*/acre)

1 60 1 80 1 100 1 120 1 140 1 160

________________ Boardfeet/acm/year ________________

30 716 854 924 960 968 954 -

40 732 878 962 1,000 1,018 1,008 990

50 694 838 920 966 980 972 950

60 646 782 864 908 924 916 894

70 5% 722 798 840 854 848 824

Site Index 130

30 862 1,028 1,126 1,170 1,190 1,192 -

40 866 1,050 1,162 1,228 1,258 1,258 1,244

50 816 1,000 1,114 1,182 1,214 1,222 1,212

60 758 928 1,038 1,102 1,138 1,144 1,134

70 698 858 962 1,026 1,056 1,064 1,054

‘International l/4-inch rule. Source: derived from Beck and DellaBianca (1975).

90
5. Common and Scientific Names of Species

Common and Scientific Names of Trees, Shrubs,

and Vines

Common Name Scientific Name

Alder, tag

Ash, white

Baldcypress

Basswood

Beech, American

Birch, sweet

yellow

Bittersweet, climbing

Blackgum

Buckeye, yellow

Cherry, black

Cucumbertree

Dogwood, flowering

Grapevine

Hemlock, eastern

Hickories

Honeysuckle, Japanese

Hornbeam, American

Kudzu

Locust, black

Magnolia, southern

Maple, red

sugar

Oak, black

cherrybark

chestnut

northern red

scarlet

southern red

swamp chestnut

white

Persimmon, common

Pine, eastern white

loblolly

pitch

shortleaf

Virginia

Redcedar, eastern

sassafras

Silverbell, Carolina

sourwood

Sweetgum

Tupelos

Walnut, black

Yellow-poplar

Alnus serrulata

Fraxinus americana

Taxodium distichum

Tilia sp.

Fagus grandifolia

Betula lenta

Betula alleghaniensb

Celastrus scandens

Nyssa sylvatica

Aesculus octandra

Prunus serotina

Magnolia acuminata

Cornus florida

Vitis sp.

Tsuga canadensis

Carya sp.

Lonicera japonica

Carpinus caroliniana

Pueraria lobata

Robinia pseudoacacia

Magnolia grandiflora

Acer rubrum

Acer sacchanrm

Quercus velutina

Quercus faicata var.

pagodaefolia

Quercus prinus

Quercus rubra

Quercus coccinea

Quercus falcata var. falcata

Quercus michauxii

Quercus alba

Diospyros virginiana

Pinus strobus

Pinus taeda

Pinus rigida

Pinus echinata

Pinus virginiana

Junipetus virginiana

Sassafras albidum

Halesia Carolina

Oxydendrum arboreum

Liquidambar styraciflua

Nyssa sp.

Juglans nigra

Liriodendron tuliptfera

Common and Scientific Names of Animals and Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

Cardinal

Deer, white-tailed

Finch, purple

Mouse, white-footed

Quail, bobwhite

Rabbit, cotton-tail

Sapsucker

Squirrel, gray

Squirrel, red

Cardinal& cardinal&

Odocoileus virginianus

Carpodacus purpureus

Peromyscus sp.

Colinus virginiana

Sylvilagus floridanus

Sphyrapicus vaius

Sciurus carolinensb

Sciurus hudsonicus

*U.S. GOVERNMJST PRINTING OFFICE 1981 354-362/9140 91