WEIGHT AND DENSITY 

OF CROWNS OF 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONIFERS 

James K. Brown 

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Errors identified by the software have been corrected;

however, some errors may remain.

USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper INT-197 

January 1978 

WEIGHT AND DENSITY 

OF CROWNS OF 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONIFERS 

James K. Brown 

INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION 

Forest Service 

U.S. Departn1ent of Agriculture 

Ogden, Utah 84401 
THE AUTHOR 

JAMES K. BROWN received his bachelor's degree from the University of 

Minnesota in 1960, his master's from Yale University in 1961, and 

his Ph. D. from the University of Michigan in 1968, all in forestry. 

From 1961 to 1965 he did research on field measurement of fuel 

properties and fire-danger rating systems while with the Lake States 

Forest Experiment Station. in 1965, he transferred to the Northern 

Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, Montana, where he is responsible 

for research on the physical properties, inventory, and prediction 

of fuels. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

Special thanks are due David L. Bunnell and J. A. Kendall Snell 

who oversaw the fieldwork, climbed the trees, and performed much 

of the analysis. Without their aggressive and capable help, the study 

would not have been possible. The assistance with fieldwork and 

analysis provided by Cam Johnston, Roberta Hartford, and Mike 

Hartkorn is also appreciated. 
INTRODUCTION. 

METHODS . o 

Fieldwork 

Analysis 0 

CONTENTS 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Crown Weights o • • 

Bole Weights . . . . 0 • • • 

Whole Tree Weights . 

Branch Weights . . . . . . . 

. 

Foliage and Branchwood Fractions . . . . . 

Bolewood Fractions . . . . . • . . 

Validation of Predictions . . . . . . 

Crown Bulk Density 0 • • • • 

Moisture Content 0 

PUBLICATIONS CITED 

APPENDIX I 

. . 

. 

Page 

1 

. 3 

3 

6 

9 

. 9 

. 16 

18 

• 20 

• 20 

• 24 

25 

25 

• 28 

. 31 

Geographic Distribution of Sample Trees. . . o • • • 33 

APPENDIX II 

Listing of Data • . . . . . • . . . 0 • • • • • • • 35 

APPENDIX III 

Foliage and Branchwood Proportions . . . . . . • . 52 
RESEARCH SUMMARY 

Relationships between live and dead crown weight and d. b. h. (ranging 

fron1 0 to 40 inches), crown length, tree height, and crown ratio are 

presented for 11 conifer species in the Rocky Mountains. D. b. h. was 

highly correlated with crown weight; however, for most species, addition 

of height, crown length, and especially crown ratio improved precision. 

Site index and stand density improved precision of estimates slightly for 

about one-half of the species. Crown ratio accounted for most of the 

differences in crown weight between dominant and intermediate crown 

classes. Relationships between bole weights and d. b. h. and height are 

presented for trees up to 4 inches d. b. h. 

For partitioning estimates of crown weight into foliage, and branchwood 

diameter classes (0- to 0. 24-inch, 0. 25- to 0. 99-inch, 1. 00- to 2. 99-inch 

and 3. 00-inch and larger), accumulative fractions of foliage and branchwood 

and their relationship to d. b. h. are presented. Relationships between 

weights of foliage and branchwood by dia1neter classes, highly correlated 

with branch basal diameter, are included. 

Bulk densities for foliage and branchwood of live crowns ranged from 

0. 04 to 0. 14 lb/ft3 and were approximately twice that for foliage alone. 

Bulk densities and crown moisture contents were greater in the upper crowns .. 
INTRODUCTION 

Tree crowns are a vital component of forest biomass and the functioning of forest 

ecosystems. The capability to estimate tree crown biomass is needed for evaluating 

fire behavior potential of forest fuels, productivity, nutrient cycling, fiber utilization, and interception of rainfall and radiation. The study reported here, initiated 

out of the need to appraise forest fuels, deals with estimation of weights and sizes of 

crowns for commercial conifer species in the Rocky Mountains. 

Objectives of the study were to: 

1. Determine relationships for predicting weight of both dead and live tree 

crowns, from d.b.h., crown length, tree height, and crown ratio. 

2. Determine the fractions of crown weight for foliage and branchwood by diameter 

size classes of 0 to 0.24 inch (0 to 0.63 em), 0.25 to 0.99 inch (0.64 to 2.53 em), 

1.00 to 2.99 inches (2.54 to 7.61 em), and 3.00 inches (7.62 em) and larger (fig. 1). 

Determine the relationships among the fractions, species, and d.b.h. 

Figure 1.--Foliage and 

branchwood size classes~ 

for determining moisture 

content and size fractions of crown material. 

1 

3.00 + in 
3. Determine the bulk density of live tree crowns. 

To appraise fire behavior potential of fuels one must know the weight of vegetative 

material and its surface area. Surface area can be estimated from the size distribution 

of biomass. Fuels of critical importance to land managers include downed woody residues 

left after h~rvesting and thinning of trees, or residues created by factors such as 

windstorms and snow breakage. To help land managers in the Rocky Mountain area appraise 

the fuel and fire hazard of slash, a system for predicting slash weights and fire behavior potential has been developed (Puckett and others 1977). Slash weights are obtained from either a computer program for debris prediction 1 or a handbook that details 

computational procedures for predicting slash fuels using tables of crown weight per 

tree (Brown and others 1977). The computer program requires tree inventory data as 

input and computes weights of foliage and branchwood, unmerchantable bole tips, and 

cull material. It is the most accurate method for predicting slash because it sums 

weights predicted for individual trees read into the program. 

Rate of fire spread, area growth, intensity, flame length, and scorch height (Van 

Wagner 1973) are estimated in the system primarily using Rothermel's (1972) mathematical 

model of fire spread. Nomographs developed by Albini (1976) also provide a means for 

predicting fire behavior in slash. 

Many studies have shown that crown weights of conifers and hardwoods can be predicted from bole diameter. However, except for lodgepole pine in Canada (Muraro 1966; 

Kiil 1967; Johnstone 1970) and Engelmann spruce in Colorado (Landis and Mogren 1975), 

only 1 imi ted information exists for Rocky r1ountain species (Storey and others 1955; 

Fahnestock 1960). Also, limited information, especially size distribution of branchwood, 

has been published on West Coast species (Kittredge 1944; Chandler 1960; Cole and Dice 

1969; Storey 1969). 

Storey and Fahnestock studied trees having dominant and codominant crowns ranging 

in d.b.h. from about 2 to 40 inches. Influence of stand density on crown weight was not 

studied; however, site was shown to influence crown weight relationships (Storey and 

others 1955). Estimates of amount of foliage and branchwood were based on only a few 

observations. The study in this paper combines data by Fahnestock and Storey with 

considerable additional data, especially describing dead crown weights, size distribution of crown components, and live crown weights of trees less than 2 inches and greater 

than 20 inches. 

The branchwood size classes under 3 inches correspond in increasing size to 1-, 

10-, and 100-hour average moisture timelag classes for many woody materials (Fosberg 

1970). These size classes are used as moisture timelag standards in the U.S. National 

Fire-Danger Rating System (Deeming and others 1972). A moisture timelag is the amount 

of time for a substance to lose or gain approximately two-thirds of the moisture above 

or below its equilibrium moisture content. Appraisal of forest fuels is greatly facilitated when data on biomass are assimilated by these size classes. Once weight of 

foliage and branchwood by diameter classes is determined, surface area can be estimated 

using surface area-to-volume ratios for foliage (Brown 1970) and branchwood (Brown and 

Roussopoulos 1974). Weights must be converted to volumes using known or assumed values 

of density (Brown 1974) for calculating surface area from volume and ratios of surface 

area-to-volume. 

1Brown, J. K., and C. M. Johnston. 1976. Debris prediction system. Unpublished 

report on file at the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, Montana. 

2 
METHODS 

Trees of dominant and codominant crown classes (Society of American Foresters 

1944) were studied for the following 11 species (abbreviations are used in tables and 

figures) : 

DF 

s 

GF 

LP 

pp 

AF 

WH 

L 

c 

WP 

WBP 

Douglas-fir 

Engelmann spruce 

Grand fir 

Lodgepole pine 

Ponderosa pine 

Subalpine fir 

Western hemlock 

Western larch 

Western redcedar 

Western white pine 

Whitebark pine 

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco 

Picea engelmannii Parry 

Abies grandis (Dougl.) Lindl. 

Pinus contorta Dougl. 

Pinus ponderosa Laws. 

Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. 

Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. 

Larix occidentalis Nutt. 

Thuja plicata Donn 

Pinus monticola Dougl. 

Pinus albicaulis Engelm. 

Sample trees were selected to complement data on dominant and codominant crown 

classes gathered by Storey and others (1955) and Fahnestock (1960). Combining data 

economized effort to develop prediction equations for a wide range of tree sizes. 

Trees of intermediate and suppressed crown classes were studied for ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, grand fir, and western redcedar. These four species range from shade intolerant to tolerant. By studying them, the influence of shade tolerance and crown 

class and their interaction on crown weight per tree could be examined. Throughout the 

remainder of this paper, "dominants" refer to both dominant and codominant crown 

classes and "intermediates" to both intermediate and suppressed crown classes. Most of 

the intermediates sampled were from the intermediate rather than the suppressed crown 

class. 

Fieldwork 

Selection of Trees 

Trees were selected, ranging from seedling size to 34 inches d.b.h. The sampling 

was designed to include the natural variation in crown weight by selecting trees from 

stands on poor-to-good sites and from low-to-high stand density conditions throughout 

western Montana and northern Idaho (fig. 2). The geographic distribution of trees is 

shown in appendix I. Trees were randomly picked; however, they were not accepted if 

they were (1) open-grown or "wolf" trees; (2) extremely lopsided in the crown; (3) 

deformed excessively by disease; (4) heavily defoliated; and (5) broken topped. These 

rules applied to data by Storey and Fahnestock except that our sites and stand densities 

were more restricted. 

3 
Figure 2.--These ponderosa pine show the variety of crown structure encountered in the 

sampling. 

Measurements 

On sample trees, crowns were visually divided into two or three horizontally 

partitioned live sections and one dead section that contained all dead branches within 

as well as below the live crown. Boundaries between live crown sections were located 

where diameters and lengths of branches changed distinctly. If changes in crown 

structure were not apparent, two crown sections were identified, with the boundary 

between them located near the middle of the crown. Weights, moisture contents, and 

crown volumes were determined by crown sections in order to characterize crown properties as accurately as possible. 

Trees less than 6 inches d.b.h. were felled, then limbed; larger trees were climbed 

and limbed by workers using climbing spurs and safety belt (fig. 3). All branches were 

cut flush with the bole and separated by crown section. Basal diameters of all live 

branches were measured beyond the butt swell, 1 to 2 inches from the cut end. 

Weights of each crown section and bole tips to 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-inch diameter 

outside bark, were measured using spring scales of varying capacity, depending on 

amount of material. Canvas and nylon slings held the crown material for weighing. 

From each live section, a sample branch was randomly picked and from each dead section, 

a sample branch was picked that appeared average in size among the dead branches. The 

sample branches were divided into foliage and branchwood by size classes. The foliage 

and branchwood in each size class were weighed separately and moisture contents determined from duplicate samples ovendried at 100° C for 24 hours. In all, 22 to 34 

moisture samples were taken for each tree. For small trees, most or all of the entire 

crown was often ovendried. 

4 
Figure 3.--Limbs were severed 

by the climber and allowed 

to free-fall except for large 

sample branches that were 

lowered by rope to prevent 

breakage. Tops were rigged 

with a safety rope to help 

control and direct the fall. 

Trees were sampled from April to October during three successive field seasons. 

New growth was included in all weight and moisture measurements. Once foliage and 

branchwood of the current year's growth could be separated, they were thoroughly mixed 

with old foliage and branchwood before moisture samples were taken. Thus, moisture 

contents were averages of old and new growth. 

Most trees were sampled after new foliage had been produced. Variation in foliage 

biomass due to sampling before and after growth of new foliage should be inconsequential 

except perhaps for ponderosa pine. For this species, which retains only 3 to 4 years' 

growth of foliage, trees with and without new foliage were sampled. Thus, this variation in foliage biomass was incorporated into the data. 

Other measurements included: 

--D.b.h. (outside bark); 

--diameter outside bark at the base of live crown; 

--total tree height (includes stump); 

--length of bole tips to 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-inch bole diameters; 

--live crown length (base of the live crown was identified as the position on 

the bole where a full crown could exist if lower branches were moved up to 

fill in open spaces); 

--length of the lower one or two live crown sections; 

--crown widths (average of two perpendicular measurements taken at the bottom 

of each crown section); 

--length of needle-free cavity (measured from the base of live crown to a point 

along the bole where live foliage was encountered); 

--width of needle-free cavity (average of two perpendicular measurements taken 

at the base of the live crown); 

5 
. ~ : -': :· 

--age at ground level (on trees greater than about 6 inches d.b.h., age was 

measured at d.b.h. and increased by a constant 10 years to approximate age 

at ground level); 

--site index (determined from site index curves and a 50-year base, USDA Forest 

Service Northern Region Compartment Prescription Handbook, October 1965); and 

--basal area and trees per acre (for surrounding trees greater than 5 inches d.b.h., 

basal area and trees per acre were measured using one prism plot (20 basal area 

factor) having the sample tree at the center. For trees 5 inches and less in 

d.b.h., a 1/300-acre plot was used). 

Many sample trees exceeded the d.b.h. range of Storey's and Fahnestock's data. A 

large number of trees within the d.b.h. range of their data were also sampled to help 

determine whether our data should be combined for analysis. Because Storey's and 

Fahnestock's data lacked weights of dead branches occurring below the live crown and 

lacked adequate information on size distribution of branchwood, some trees within the 

range of their data were sampled only for dead crown weights and counts of branch basal 

diameters for determining size distribution of crown material. For these trees, live 

crown weights were not recorded. A listing of data is in appendix II. 

Analysis 

Croum Weight and Bole Weight Per• Tree 

For each crown section, fresh crown weights were reduced to an ovendry basis, using 

an average moisture content that was determined by weighting sample moisture contents of 

foliage and the branchwood size c~asses by their respective weights. The foliage and 

branchwood weights were determined by means of step 2 in the section on foliage and 

branchwood fractions. 

Live crown weights gathered in this study are probably slightly different from 

those of Storey and Fahnestock. In the studies by Storey and Fahnestock, which consist 

almost entirely of the same shared data, live crowns include dead branches found within 

the live crown sections. In this study, live crowns contain only live branches. Most 

of the dead branch weight occurred below the live crown; thus, the inconsistency, if it 

exists, should be of minor consequence. Plots of crown weight over d.b.h. indicated 

that data from Storey, Fahnestock, and this study fit together smoothly and could be 

pooled. 

For d.b.h. greater than 1.0 inch, the relationships between ovendry crown weights 

and tree characteristics were determined by first screening logical combinations of the 

following variables using a multiple regression computer program called REX (Grosenbaugh 

196 7) : 

where 

w f(d, d2 , d3 , h, dh, d2 h, c, de, d2 c, R, dR, d2R) 

lnw f(lnd, lnh, lndh, lnc, lndc, lnR, lndR) 

d d.b.h., inch 

h tree height, ft 

c crown length, ft 

R crown ratio, (live crown length/tree height)lO 

w = weight of crowns, lb. 

Unless otherwise stated, the definition of these terms applies throughout the paper. 

Variables such as crown width and diameter at the base of live crown were omitted from 

the analysis; however, all data are available for others to analyze if desirable. 

6 
Height data were missing for some of Fahnestock's trees. To complete the data set, 

height was estimated from height-d.b.h. relationships of trees from the same area. 

Crown ratio was withheld from the screening process for dead crown weights. For screening, program REX provides a printout that lists ratios of residual mean square to total 

mean square for all possible combinations of variables. From the screening, several 

variable combinations having small residual mean squares were selected and details of 

multiple regression analysis examined using the following criteria to determine the bestfitting equations. The equations should: 

1. Give unbiased predictions for the data collected; 

2. fit trees greater than approximately 4 inches d.b.h. reasonably well; 

3. give positive predictions throughout the range of independent variables; 

4. have as low a residual mean square as possible; and 

5. give reasonable extrapolations beyond the range of sample data. 

To determine whether site quality and stand density could improve prediction of 

live crown weight beyond d.b.h., height, crown length, and crown ratio, variables from 

the "best-fitting equations" were screened together with site index, trees per acre, and 

basal area per acre. When regression coefficients for site and stand density variables 

(from equations selected in screening) were significant at the 0.90 probability level, 

they were considered influential. 

Trees having a d.b.h. less than 2 inches underwent a separate regression analysis, 

with height as the only independent variable. For trees 4 inches and less, functions 

for estimating total bole weight were determined in the same manner as for crown weights, 

except only d.b.h. and height were involved in the screening process. 

Foliage_, Branchwood, and Bole Fractions 

For each tree, the fractions of dead branchwood by size class were computed assuming that the proportion of weight in each size class for the dead sample branch represented the size distribution for all dead branches. However, for live crowns, fractions 

of foliage and branchwood by size classes were determined in four steps involving all 

branches on a tree: 

1. Simple linear regressions between weights of each crown component and branch 

basal diameter were determined using sample branch data. Besides branches randomly 

picked from each crown section, additional branches were collected to assure having 

branches of large basal diameters. Natural log transforms of dependent and independent 

variables were used and weights estimated from: 

where 

s2 

y = e (a + b (lnX) + 2 ) 

y ovendry weight of foliage or branchwood by size classes, lb 

X basal diameter of branch, inch 

(1) 

s 2 sample variance of the logarithmic equation used to correct for an approximate 

bias in converting logarithmic estimates to arithmetic units (Baskerville 

1972). 

2. Solving equation (1) for tallies of branches by basal diameters, weights of 

foliage and branchwood by the 0- to 0.24-inch, 0.25- to 0.99-inch, 1.00- to 2.99-inch, 

and 3.00-inch-and-over classes were computed for the live crown sections of sample trees. 

7 
3. Calculated weights of foliage and branchwood components were then adjusted so 

that the sum of all component weights equaled the weight of each crown section actually 

measured in the field, as shown in equation (2). 

where 

y!. lJ 

y' adjusted weights 

y calculated weight from equation (1) 

R ratio of measured weight for entire crown section to sum of estimated 

weights for all crown components 

i index for foliage and branchwood size classes 

j index for crown sections 

k index for individual branches 

n = number of branches in a crown section. 

(2) 

Lastly, the adjusted weights of each crown component were summed for the entire tree. 

4. For each sample tree, the following accumulative fractions of total live crown 

weight were calculated: 

pl foliage 

p2 pl + 0- to 0.24-inch branchwood 

p3 p2 + 0.25- to 0.99-inch branch wood 

p4 p3 + 1.00- to 2.99-inch branchwood. 

A similar set of fractions was calculated for dead branchwood but without foliage. 

These fractions were subjected to a least squares curve fitting analysis with d.b.h. as 

the independent variable. The fraction of any branchwood component can be obtained as 

the difference between two accumulative fractions. Fitting fractions of branchwood by 

individual size classes to d.b.h. was attempted, but for some sets of data it was 

difficult to find precise-fitting equations. Thus, accumulative fractions were used 

because they provided well-behaved data sets for curve fitting. 

Fractions for dividing small tree boles and unmerchantable bole tips into diametersize classes of 0 to 0.99 inch, 1.00 to 2.99 inches, and 3.00 inches and greater were 

computed from volume estimates of each size class. Volume of each size class was 

determined using length and diameter measurements of tip pieces. Tip pieces were 

·considered as cones and other pieces as frustums of cones. 

Bulk Density of Crowns 

Bulk density of live crowns was computed using ovendry weights of foliage alone, 

and foliage and all branchwood together. Bulk density of foliage was computed two ways, 

using crown volume determined with and without the needle-free cavity. Crown volumes 

were computed from measurements of length and width of the top crown section and the 

two lower crown sections combined. Top sections were considered as either cones or 

paraboloids, depending on a shape designation assigned in the field. Lower sections 

were treated as frustums of right cones. The needle-free cavity was treated as a 

paraboloid. 

8 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Crown Weights 

Dominants Greater Than 1 Inch D.B.H. 

Equations for live crown weight are presented in table 1 and for dead crown weight 

in table 2. In the tables, EXP is the base of natural logarithms. For all species, an 

equation containing d.b.h. as the only independent variable is presented because often 

d.b.h. may be the only information available for estimating weight. For some species, 

d.b.h. alone provided the best-fitting equation; however, where addition of tree height, 

crown length, or crown ratio to the equation improved fit, these equations are also 

presented. Although the equations in tables 1 and 2 were judged as "best fitting," 

other equation forms and combinations of independent variables gave good fits of the 

data. I found, as Crow (1971) reported, that the best-fitting equation varies by data 

sets. Several curve forms can fit about equally well. 

Intercept regression parameters that were statistically nonsignificant were sometimes retained in the equations when the fit for trees of small d.b.h. was improved. 

Although the regression constants in tables 1 and 2 are significant at a confidence 

level of at least 0.95, unreasonable predictions beyond the range of sample data are 

possible. Extrapolation of equations beyond about 40 inches d.b.h. risks substantial 

error. 

The data for Douglas-fir were particularly difficult to fit; hence, two equations 

covering different ranges in d.b.h. are presented. Data gathered by Fahnestock (1960) 

and myself are probably from different populations. Live crown weight populations 

within the Pacific Northwest are known to be different (Woodard 1974). 

This study showed that to achieve a good fit for prediction, actual deviation 

between observed and predicted observations should be examined. It can be difficult 

to find a function that fits the data well throughout a large range of d.b.h. High 

R2 values, as an indicator of good fit, can be deceiving. An examination of the literature on crown weight prediction suggests that some studies would profit from a reevaluation of prediction functions to improve accuracy, especially at the outer ends of their 

data range. 

In equations for 8 of the 11 species, crown ratio or crown length accounted for 

a significant reduction (at the 0.95 percent probability level) in residuals beyond 

that accounted for by d.b.h. Crown ratio was more effective at reducing residual 

variation than either41eight or crown length alone or in combination, as similarly 

found by Loomis and others (1966). Site index reduced residual variation beyond d.b.h., 

height, crown length, and crown ratio for onfy western larch. Although site is known 

to influence live crown weight per tree (Tadaki 1966; Brown 1965), this study and work 

by Storey and others (1955) indicates that d.b.h. together with crown ratio or crown 

length can largely account for site effects. Trees per acre reduced residual variation 

for four species and basal area for two species. These measures of stand density were 

ineffective variables for the other five species. Even though stand density was 

significant for about one-half of the species, the actual reduction in residual variation beyond that accounted for by the tree dimension variables was very small. 

9 
...... -, 

Table 1.--Live crown weight equations for dominant and codominant trees greater than l-inch 

d.b.h. 

Spe-: 

cies: R 2 

GF 

L 

s 

AF 

LP 

WP 

WBP 

c 

pp 

DF 

WH 

0.95 

.96 

.96 

.95 

.84 

.88 

.88 

.97 

.95 

.95 

.99 

.98 

.97 

.96 

.97 

.95 

.95 

.93 

.85 

.98 

.98 

.98 

26,100 

3,684 

11,470 

276 

947 

600 

1,065 

956 

1,567 

3,279 

0.889 

3.89 

7,965 

10,070 

37,560 

82,570 

4,712 

21,620 

13,460 

809 

1,076 

4,605 

Percent 

57 

38 

36 

25 

46 

22 

30 

24 

31 

45 

5 

14 

46 

52 

36 

53 

28 

64 

48 

15 

17 

36 

35 

45 

29 

16 

45 

44 

10 

34 

40 

41 

27 

Range 

in 21 d. b. h.-

Inches 

1-40 

1-.35 

1-29 

1-13 

1-16 

1-43 

1-8 

1-37 

1-34 

1-34 

1-32 

3/ 

-w 

3/ 

-w 

3/ 

-w 

w = 

w = 

w = 

w = 

w = 

w = w = 

w = 

3/ 

-w 

w = 

Equations 

EXP[1.3094 + 1.6076(lnd)] 

EXP[0.4373 + 1.6786(lnd)] 

EXP[l.0404 + 1.7096(lnd)] 

1.066 + 0.1862(d2R) 

7.345 + 1.255(d2 ) 

0.02238(d 3 ) + 0.1233(d 2R) - 2.00 

EXP[O.l224 + 1.8820(lnd)] 

0.09470(d 2R) 

3.65 - 0.04534(d 3 ) + 0.01233(d2 h) 

EXP(0.7276 + 1.5497(lnd)] 

0.65 + 0.06056(d 3) + 0.05477(d 2R) 

0.837l(d2 ) - 1.00 

EXP[l.7273(lndR) - 2.8086] 

EXP[0.8815 + 1.6389(lnd)] 

EXP[2.2812(lnd) + 1.5098(lnR) - 3.0957] 

EXP(0.2680 + 2.0740(lnd)] 

27.94 - 0.008695(d 2 h) + 0.02839(d2 c), 

for d ?15 inches, and R ~5 

EXP[l.l368 + 1.5819(lnd)], ford <17 inches 

1.0237d2 - 20.74, ford -~17 inches 

w = 0.3729(d 2 ) + 0.2840(dc) - 0.005525(d 2c) 

- 4.50 

w = 3.60 - 1.5450(d2 ) + 0.01734(d 3)+0.3880(dh) 

w = EXP[0.7218 + 1.7502(lnd)] 

1/ MSR indicates mean square residuals. For logarithmic functions, MSR was calculated 

as E(P-0) 2/df, where P and 0 are predicted and observed values transformed to arithmetic 

units and df is the residual degrees of freedom. 

2/ Range in d.b.h. for sample trees. 

3/ These equations are of the form lny =a+ blnX + (mean square error/2). The latter 

term corrects for bias in transforming logs and is included in the intercept term in the 

equations. The intercept term was adjusted by (mean square/2) when the summation of predicted minus observed values in arithmetic units showed less .bias with the correction term 

than without it. 

10 
'_;-·· 

Table 2. --Dead ermJn h7eight equations for dominant and codom1:nant tr•ees gr·eater' than l-1:nch 

d. b. h. 

Spe-: 

cies: 

: · ~R 100: '(;--) . 

R2 . . ~1SR_!_/ : Y : n 

GF 0.93 

.93 

Lb 2 

204 

487 

s . 89 

.87 

531 

992 

AF . 95 

.93 

. 91 

11.2 

116 

67 

LPY 

WP 

WBP 

c 

pp 

OF 

WH 

.80 184 

.86 . 93 

. 85 . 98 

.82 1.16 

.98 91.2 

.87 4,590 

.98 459 

.91 1,431 

.92 

.84 

237 

297 

Percent 

42 

62 

128 

165 

36 

104 

102 

135 

48 

51 

60 

23 

79 

28 

50 

140 

227 

22 

14 

16 

18 

13 

20 

26 

21 

20 

Range 

in 21 . d.b.h.- . 

Inches 

1-20 

1-23 

1-13 

1-16 

1-25 

1-11 

1-27 

1-34 

1-34 

1-21 

. 3/ F.quat10nsw = 1.36 + 0.04371(d 3) - 0.003564(d2 h) 

w FXP[3.5638(1nd) - 5.3154], ford 518 inches 

w = 0.38(1ive crown wt), for d >18 inches 

w FXP[3.2719(1ndh) - 3.2603(1nc) - 6.8771] 

w = F.XP[3.6172(1nd) - 6.6860] 

w = 1.65 + 0.5426(h) - 0.7808(c) + 0.04382(dc) 

w = F.XP[2.0757(1ndh) - 10.4711] 

w EXP[4.0365(lnd) - 6.5431], ford ~16 inches 

w 0.31(1ive crown wt), ford >16 inches 

w (0.026(d) - 0.025)(live crown wt), 

for d ~10 inches 

w 0.235(live crown wt), for d >10 inches 

w EXP[2.6076(lnd) - 4.3970] 

w = 0.001713(d2 c) + 0.33 

w = 0.001397(d2h) + 0.28 

w = 0.06117(d2) 

w = 0.01063(d3) 

w EXP[2.8376(1nd) - 3.7398] 

w = 7.29 + 0.02768(d 3) - 0.006978(d2c) 

w 0. 010 94 ( d 3) 

w = EXP[6.01ll(lnh) 

w = EXP[3.3664(lnd) 

2.0496(lnd) - 19.3401 

6.6768] 

l) MSR indicates mean square residuals. For logarithmic functions, MSR was calculated 

as L(P-0) 2/df, where P and 0 are predicted and observed values transformed to arithMetic 

units and df is the residual degrees of freedom. 

~ Range in 0.b.h. for sample trees. 

~ Corrections for logarithmic transformation bias were omitted because they contributed more bias than they eliminated. Distributions apparently deviate considerably from log 

normal. 

~This species retains little dead branchwood. For sample trees >4 inches d.b.h., 

dead weights ranged from 0.1 to 5.1 lb and averaged 1.1 lb. 

~ The equation for LP was from a free-hand curve through data that were insufficient 

for regression analysis. 

11 
~ :::r:: 

1-

z 

s: 

0 

e:::: 

u 

_J 

<( 

b 

1-

LJ... 

0 

z 

0 

1-

u 

<( 

e:::: 

LJ... 

co 

:::::! 

I-

::c 

<.;) 

LJ.J 

3 

z 

3 

0 

0::: 

u 

Cl 

<t: 

LJ.J 

Cl 

Cl 

z 

<t: 

LJ.J 

?: 

....J 

2200 

2000 

1800 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 4 8 

0.30 

0.20 

0. 10 

0 

pp 

12 16 20 24 30 32 

D. B. H. (IN) 

5 10 

D. B. H. (IN) 

15 

Figure 4.--Live and dead 

crown weight related to 

d. b. h. for g.-r>oups of 

species having similar 

relationships. 

DF,C 

pp 

WP 

s 

20 

Figure 5.--The fraction of total crown that is dead (live plus dead branches) for 

dominants. The curves were plotted from equations in tables 1 and 2. Two species 

represented by one curve were averaged. 

12 
Relationships between total crown weight (live plus dead) and d.h.h. are shown in 

figure 4. Crown weight estimates for individual species of each group are within 10 

percent of the average for the combined species curve. Figure 4 indicates that species 

tolerance is unrelated to crown weight per tree. The heaviest crowns are developed by 

ponderosa pine, a relatively intolerant species, probably because its branches grow to 

large diameters. The lightest crowns are also developed by an intolerant species--

western larch. 

For most species, the fraction of total crown weight that is dead increases with 

increasing d.b.h. and thus generally with increasing age (as shown in figure 5). This 

is expected because as trees age, branches die and can accumulate. Branch retention 

varies significantly among species. However, the pattern of differences in figure 5 

does not appear readily explainable. The curve for grand fir and subalpine fir should 

level off for trees larger than about 15 inches d.b.h. Larch and lodgepole pine are 

omitted from figure 5 because of negligible branchwood for larch and insufficient data 

for lodgepole pine. 

Dominants 1 Inch and Less in D.B.H. 

Separation of data into two groups, one for trees greater than 1 inch d.b.h. and 

one for smaller trees, permitted derivation of more accurate relationships than handling 

all data together. To obtain adequate data for the small tree group, trees less than 

2 inches d.b.h. were treated as a data set with tree height as an independent variable. 

As expected, live crown weight was strongly related to tree height (table 3). Generally, 

crowns of shade-tolerant species weighed more than crowns of less tolerant species. An 

exception is the shade-tolerant western hemlock, which was only heavier than western 

larch. The tolerant trees were also older than the intolerant trees; thus, age may help 

explain the major differences in weight. Dead crown weight was essentially negligible. 

For all species, it averaged 1 percent of total crown weight. The largest dead percentage was 2.4 for western larch, which is interesting because larch greater than 2 inches 

d.b.h. supported the least quantity of dead branches among all species. 

Intermediates 

Trees greater than 1 inch d.b.h.--Best-fitting equations for estimating live and 

dead crown weights are shown in table 4. 

As species increased in shade tolerance, the difference between total crown weights 

of dominants and intermediates decreased (fig. 6). This was also true for live crown 

weights. For western redcedar, the most tolerant of the four species studied, crown 

class essentially had no effect on total weight and live crown weight per tree. For 

ponderosa pine, the most intolerant species, total crown weight of intermediates was 

about one-half of that for dominants. 

For ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, differences in crown weights between crown 

classes can be explained by crown ratio and crown length. For these species (trees 

1 to 12 inches d.b.h.), crown ratio averaged 7.2 for dominants and 5.3 for intermediates. 

A test of differences between pooled residuals of dominants and intermediates and residuals from a composite regression showed that weight predictions based on d.b.h. were 

significantly different (95 percent confidence level). However, weight predictions 

based on d.b.h. and crown ratio were from a common population. Although crown ratio and 

crown length accounted for differences in weight between crown classes, the proportions 

of foliage and certain branchwood size classes varied considerably by crown class. 

The importance of crown ratio in predicting weights of grand fir and western redcedar was unclear. The test of differences in live and total crown weight between 

crown classes was nonsignificant for grand fir and significant for western redcedar. 

13 
~-~. : ! •• : , ·• _. 

Species 

DF 

s 

AF 

c 

GF 

pp 

WP 

LP 

WBP 

WH 

L 

GF 

c 

DF 

pp 

Table 3.--Equat'ions for live crol;)n weight of trees less them 2 inches d. b. h. 

n 

0.83 1.156 11 

.94 7.290 12 

.90 1.343 13 

.90 1. 908 12 

. 79 3.138 12 

.81 1.235 12 

.97 0.190 13 

.96 .220 12 

.93 .085 10 

.91 2.221 12 

.80 1.230 12 

. 85 .374 9 

.96 .142 11 

.66 .985 10 

. 35 .268 10 

Range 

in ht 

- -Ft- -

3.7-11.4 

1.9-10.4 

2.5- 9.9 

1.8-10.1 

3.1-14.0 

2.3-10.0 

2.8-11.5 

1.6-13.1 

2.5-10.0 

3.6-13.6 

2.8-18.0 

Equations 

Weight at 

5 ft 10 ft 

- - Lb - -

DOMINANTS 

w 

w 

w 

w = 

w 

w 

w 

w 

w 

EXP[-4.212 + 2.7168(lnh)] 1.2 

EXP[-3.932 + 2.57l(lnh)]l/ 1.2 

]J EXP[-3.335 + 2.303(lnh)] 1.4 

0.4284(h) 

0.345l(h) 

0.3292(h) 

0.03lll(h2 ) 

0.070 + 0.02446(h2 ) 

EXP[-5.126 + 2.563(lnh)]2} 

0.1128(h) + 0.00813(h2 ) 

1.2 

2.1 

1.7 

1.7 

0.8 

. 7 

.4 

. 8 

INTERMEDIATES 

7.7 

7.3 

7.2 

4.8 

4.3 

3.4 

3.3 

3.1 

2.5 

2.2 

1.9 

3.7- 9.5 w = 0.0538(h2 ) 

3.7-10.4 w 0.0307(h2 ) 

1.3 

. 8 

5.4 

3.1 

3.6-15.6 w 

3.9-14.6 w 

EXP [ -2.8065 + 1. 4802 (lnh)] 2} . 6 

EXPI-2.7297 + 1.1707(lnh)]l/ .4 

1.8 

1.0 

..!J ~1SR indicates mean square residuals. For logarithmic functions, ~1SR was 

calculated as L(P-0) 2 /df, where P and 0 are predicted and observed values transformed to arithmetic units and df is the residual degrees of freedom. 

ll These equations are of the form lny =a+ blnX + (mean square error/2). 

The latter term corrects for bias in transforming logs and is included in the 

intercept term in the equations. The intercept term was adjusted by (mean square/2) 

when the summation of predicted minus observed values in arithmetic units showed 

less bias with the correction term than without it. 

14 
I--

:::r:: 

<.!) 

LLJ 

5 

z 

5 

0 

0::: 

u 

__J 

<( 

I--

0 

I--

u.. 

0 

0 

!c( 

0::: 

Table 4.--Equations for live and dead crotun weirhts of intermediate and suppressed trees 

Spe-: Crown 

cies: section 

pp 

OF 

GF 

c 

Live 

Dead 

Combined 

Live 

Live 

Dead 

Combined 

Live 

Dead 

Combined 

Live 

Dead 

Combined 

~ (~)100~ ~1SR]:__/ : Y : n 

0.90 358.0 

. 81 9. 6 

.95 513.5 

. 96 

.90 

.89 

.94 

170.0 

1,758 

206.0 

1,083 

.92 731.0 

.83 80.4 

.94 651.8 

. 94 1 '041 

.90 24.4 

. 95 1 '077 

Percent 

66 

33 

60 

30 

121 

110 

59 

53 

112 

43 

55 

74 

so 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

13 

13 

13 

:Range : 

in 

:d. b. h.: 

Inches 

1-12 21w 

1-12 w 1-12 '!:_/w 

1-11 

l-11 

l-11 

1-11 

y w 

l-12 y w 

l-12 Yw 

1-12 y w 

1-11 Yw 

1-11 2:./w 

1-11 2:./w 

Equations 

EXP(-0.7572 + 2.2160(lnd)] 

EXP(-2.5176 + 2.5100(lnd)] 

EXP(-0.4282 + 2.1772(lnd)] 

10.9 - 11.34(d) + 4.059(d2 ) 

- 0.03283(d 2h) 

EXP(O.l508 + 1.862(lnd)] 

EXP(-1.9280 + 2.3530(lnd)] 

EXP(O.l242 + 2.0083(lnd)] 

EXP(l.Ol44 + 1.6156(lnd)] 

EXP(-2.6214 + 2.5492(lnd)] 

EXP(l.Ol52 + l.6839(lnd)] 

EXP(O.S743 + l.7960(lnd)] 

EXP(-2.7990 + 2.4942(lnd)] 

EXP(0.6224 + l.8289(lnd)] 

ll MSR indicates mean square residuals. For logarithmic functions, MSR was 

calculated as Z(P-0) 2/df, where P and 0 are predicted and observed values transformed to arithmetic units and df is the residual degrees of freedom. 

£1 These equations are of the form lny =a+ blnX + (mean square error/2). 

The latter term corrects for bias in transforming logs and is included in the 

intercept term in the equations. The intercept term was adjusted by (mean square/2) 

when the summation of predicted minus observed values in arithmetic units showed 

less bias with the correction term than without it. 

c 

1.0 

DF 

(/') 

I--

z 0. 8 <( 

z GF 

~ 

0 

0 

I 

0 0.6 pp I--

I 

(/') 

LLJ 

I--

<( 

0 0.4 LLJ 

~ 

0::: 

LLJ 

I--

z 

u.. 0. 2 0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

D. B. H. (IN) 

Figure 6.--Ratio of total crown weight for intermediates-to-dominants as a function 

of d.b.h. The ratios are calculated from equations in tables 1~ 2~ and 4. 

15 
For cedar, the differences in weight estimates seem small enough to ignore from a 

practical point of view. For both species, crown ratio was sampled over a narrow range; 

thus, evaluation of the relationship between crown weight and crown ratio was restrained. 

Over the range of d.b.h. studied, intermediates supported approximately 2 to 6 

times as much dead branch weight as dominants. Douglas-fir intermediates had 4 to 6 

times as much dead branchwood as dominants, the highest ratio of any species. Ponderosa 

pine showed the lowest ratio, the intermediates supporting nearly 2 times as much deadwood as the dominants. The ratios increased substantially for trees less than 3 inches 

d.b.h. because little dead branchwood was found on small dominants. Although the percent of total crown that is dead increased with increasing d.b.h. for dominants, it 

appeared nearly constant for intermediates. For intermediates 2 inches and greater in 

d.b.h., the dead percentage for ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir averaged about 25 percent 

and for grand fir and western redcedar about 12 percent. 

The influence of crown class on crown weight per tree suggests that for activities 

such as fuel appraisal, crown class can be disregarded for estimating crown weights of 

tolerant species. However, for intolerant species, weight estimates should be partly 

based on either crown class or crown ratio. Likewise, for estimation of total stand 

biomass involving intolerant or moderately tolerant species, crown class or crown ratio 

should be accounted for in estimating crown weight. 

Trees 1 inch and less in d.b.h .. --Except for grand fir, live crowns of intermediates 

under 2 inches d.b.h. weighed less than crowns of dominants (table 3). For trees greater 

than 8 feet in height, the equ~tion for grand fir intermediates predicts greater crown 

weights than the equation for dominants. This holds true even after eliminating intermediate No. 835 from the regression analysis because it appeared unusually heavy. Apparently, several intermediates, at least 35 to 45 years of age and 8 to 10 feet tall, 

were responsible for the large weight predictions of intermediates. Although short in 

height, they had bushy crowns containing lots of foliage and branchwood. At comparable 

heights, the faster grown dominant trees contained less branchwood and foliage. 

Similar to the trees greater than 1 inch d.b.h., crown weights for intolerant 

species were considerably greater for dominants than for intermediates. For tolerant 

species, crown weight predictions differ only a small amount between crown classes 

(table 3). Crown ratios averaged less for intermediates of all species and probably 

account for some of the weight differences between crown classes. 

The percent of total crown that is dead varied considerably among individual trees. 

The percent dead for the intermediates averaged: 

Species 

Ponderosa pine 

Douglas-fir 

Western redcedar 

Grand fir 

Percent dead 

18.3 

11.8 

6.0 

2.6 

The percent dead of intermediates is substantially greater than for the dominants, 

probably due to effects of shading. Among the intermediates, the tolerant species exhibited a smaller fraction of dead branchwood. 

Bole Weights 

The same procedure used in selecting equations for crown weights was applied to 

bole weights (including bark) for trees 4 inches and less in d.b.h. (table 5). Up to 

2 inches d.b.h., estimated bole weights for all species are almost the same; however, 

beyond 2 inches d.b.h., large differences among some species appear (fig. 7). For 

16 
Table 5. --Equations for estimatinu bole weights (uJ) of trees 4 inches and less 

in d. b. h. 

Species 

s 

OF 

pp 

LP 

WP 

c 

GF 

WH 

L 

AF 

WBP 

OF 

pp 

c 

GF 

0.96 

.99 

.96 

.97 

. 98 

.99 

. 99 

.98 

. 97 

.99 

.99 

.99 

.99 

. 95 

. 91 

.97 

.92 

.79 

.97 

.97 

.87 

Lb 2 Percent 

0.7472 

.4056 

1. 378 

. 07645 

.2868 

.1849 

.0926 

.6754 

.9778 

.4169 

1.113 

.3078 

.7491 

2.718 

4.866 

.8832 

5.271 

13.27 

2.497 

1. 467 

7.110 

17 

11 

20 

14 

13 

6 

7 

15 

18 

9 

14 

8 

12 

26 

34 

21 

49 

77 

23 

24 

52 

n Equations 

00~1INANTS 

10 ]J 

w = EXP[0.8381 + 1.3803(lnd)] 

12 

11 

w 0.74 + 1.59l(d2 ) 

w = 1.08 + 0.936l(d2 ) 

8 w = 1.49 2.388(d) + 2.297(d2 ) 

13 w 1.15 + 0.530(d 3) 

13 w = 1.436(d) + 0.3326(d 3) 

12 w = 0.62 + 0.8024(d 2 ) + 0.1724(d3) 

12 w = 0.31 + 0.8334(d) + 0.06819(d2h) 

12 w = 0.11 + 1.665(d2 ) 

12 w 0.65 + 0.1004(d2h) 

12 w 0.96 + 0.6532(d 3) 

12 w = 0.28 + 0.02692(d2h) + 0.1912(dh) 

12 w 1.55 + 0.4140(d 3) 

8 w 1.33 + 0.08614(d2h) 

8 w = 0.52 + 1.44l(d2 ) 

INTERMEDIATES 

8 w -0.88 + 2.234(d 2 ) 

11 w 0.20 + 0.07058(d2 h) 

11 w 0.74 + 0.4006(d 3) 

10 w 0.52 + 1.350(d2 ) 

8 w = 0.34 + 0.09182(d2h) 

8 w -1.63 + 2.172(d2 ) 

lJ MSR indicates mean square residuals. For logarithmic functions, MSR was 

calculated as Z(P-0) 2 /df, where P and 0 are predicted and observed values transformed 

to arithmetic units and df is the residual degrees of freedom. 

y This equation is of the form lny =a+ blnX + (mean square error/2). The 

.latter term corrects for bias in transforming logs and is included in the intercept 

term in the equation. The intercept term was adjusted by (mean square/2) when the 

summation of predicted minus observed values in arithmetic units showed less bias 

with the correction term than without it. 

17 
L 

Figure ?.--Weights of boles for 

40 dominants 4 inches and less 

in d. b. h. Almost all estimates 

for individual species differ 

35 WP from the group average by less 

than 20 percent of the group 

average. 

30 

DF, LP, 

PP,WH 

25 GF, C, c:o 

:::::! WBP 1-

I 

C) 20 LJ..J 

s 

LJ..J 

_.I 

0 

c:o PP, S 15 

10 

5 

0 2 3 4 

D. B. H. (IN) 

dominants, the extremes in estimated weights at 4 inches d.b.h. are 43 lb for western 

larch and 16 lb for Engelmann spruce. Differences in wood density and tree height 

account for the difference in weight. 

Limited data from this study suggest that bole weights of intermediates tend to 

weigh more than dominants. Except for western redcedar, equations in table 5 yield 

greater bole weights for intermediates than dominants. For western redcedar and 

ponderosa pine, differences in bole weights between dominants and intermediates were 

statistically nonsignificant according to a test of differences between pooled residuals of dominants and intermediates and a composite regression (90 percent confidence 

level). For grand fir and Douglas-fir, bole weights were significantly different between dominants and intermediates (99 percent confidence level). 

Whole Tree Weights 

For seedlings and small saplings, separation of crown weights from bole weights 

may be undesirable for some purposes. Thus, the equations in table 6 were derived to 

estimate whole tree weights. Weight estimates for individual species are within about 

15 percent of the average for the group of species. Weights of intermediate grand fir 

can be predicted using the equation for dominant grand fir. 

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir weighed noticeably more than the other species (fig. 8). For trees over 5 ft tall, average d.b.h. 

and age of the heaviest species group were greater than the other species. Although 

rate of height growth for the heaviest species group was less, more dry matter in 

crowns and boles had been produced. Proportions of foliage and branchwood are summarized in appendix III. 

18 
-·. ; . : .~ _.,::. 

Table 6. --Equations for predicting whole tree vJe1:ghts (w) of trees less than 15 feet in 

height 

Species R2 MSRl/ (~)100 : n EquationsY 

Lb2 Percent 

DOMINANTS 

OF, PP, s, AF 0.93 7.475 34 58 w ::; EXP(-3.385 + 2.560 lnh) 

WP, GF, WBP .90 9.925 52 42 w EXP(-2.876 + 2.175 lnh) 

c, L, LP .87 3.109 43 37 w ::; EXP(-3.720 + 2.411 lnh) 

WH . 71 4.745 77 11 w EXP(-4.824 + 2. 722 lnh) 

INTERMEDIATES 

c, OF, pp .79 1.698 58 31 w ::; EXP(-2.915 + 1.925 lnh) 

1J MSR indicates mean square residuals. For logarithmic functions, MSR was 

calculated as L(P-0) 2/df, where P and 0 are predicted and observed values transformed 

to arithmetic units and df is the residual degrees of freedom. 

1J These equations are of the form lny =a+ blnX + (mean square error/2). 

The latter term corrects for bias in transforming logs and is included in the intercept term in the equations. The intercept term was adjusted by (mean square/2) 

when the summation of predicted minus observed values in arithmetic units showed 

less bias with the correction term than without it. 

35 DOMINANTS: 

A= DF-PP -S-AF 

B = WP-WBP-GF 

30 C = C- L- LP 

D = WH 

INTERMEDIATES: 

25 E = C, DF, PP CCI 

::;! 

1-

I 

<.!) 20 I..LJ 

$ 

I..LJ 

I..LJ 

lY: 

1-

I..LJ 15 _j 

0 

I 

$ 

10 

5 

Figure B.--Whol-e tree weights 

for trees l-ess than 15 

feet tal- 1-. 0 5 10 

HEIGHT (FT) 

19 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

15 
Table 7.--Simple linear regressions for estimating weight of foliage and branchwood components of individual branches 

from dominant and codominant trees. Regressions are of the form lnw = a + b(lnd) where w = weightJ lbj 

d = branch basal diameterJ inches. Bias was corrected as shoum in equation (1) 

Statistic OF GF AF WH c s L pp LP WP WBP 

FOLIAGE 

a -0.6747 -0.4568 -0.6519 -0.5089 -0.6891 -0.5180 -1.545 -0.9641 -0.9175 -1.128 -0.9265 

b 2.121 2. 204 2.076 2.117 2.114 2.169 2.023 2.035 2.260 2.018 2.292 

n 64 65 56 61 69 44 51 48 47 64 40 

r2 . 95 . 92 .90 . 96 .95 . 95 . 94 .92 .87 . 94 . 88 

0 TO 0.24 INCH 

a -1. 465 -1.506 -1.233 -1. 192 -2.253 -1.082 -1.228 -3.424 -1. 224 -1.626 -1. 844 

b 2.000 2.083 2.268 2.083 2.021 2.336 2.158 1.180 2.490 2.202 1. 915 

n 56 60 52 57 63 38 53 39 45 61 37 

r2 . 96 . 93 . 91 . 96 .93 .96 .95 .74 . 95 . 91 . 70 

0.25 TO 0.99 INCH 

a -.9315 -1.120 -.5650 -.8144 -1.311 -. 9377 -.9763 -1. 070 -1.077 -1. 378 -1.008 

b 2.126 2.690 3.268 2.390 2.192 2.694 2.426 2.399 2.607 2.638 2.664 

n 40 37 35 30 44 30 23 41 28 45 24 

r2 . 91 . 91 . 91 .86 .89 .92 .87 . 94 .92 .91 .79 

1. 00 TO 2.99 INCHES 

a -1.000 -1.485 -1.675 -1. 168 -1.318 -.9333 -.7957 -1.125 -1.159 -2.894 -2.180 

b 3.002 3.960 7.047 3.912 3.536 3.184 1. 861 2.490 3.199 5.106 3.351 

n 20 13 9 12 15 12 10 18 11 14 4 

r2 .83 .83 .79 .85 .96 .78 .63 .89 .80 .91 . 76 

3.00 INCHES AND GREATERl/ 

a -3.687 

b 4.363 

n 11 

r2 81 

l/ For species other than PP, material 3 inches and larger either did not exist or was approximated by means 

other than regression analysis. 

Branch Weights 

Using logarithmic transformations, weights of foliage and branch components for 

individual branches were highly correlated with branch basal diameters, as shown in 

table 7 for dominants and table 8 for intermediates. The pattern of weight curves for 

individual branch components shown in figure 9 for grand fir is typical of most species. 

Except for western larch, the 1- to 3-inch branchwood class has the steepest regression 

slopes showing a rapid increase in the weight of the largest diameter material as branch 

basal diameter increases. 

Foliage weight per branch related closely to species tolerance with the most tolerant species supporting the most foliage (fig. 10). For the species groups in figure 10, 

deviations in foliage weight between individual species and the group average were 

mostly less than 10 percent of the group average. The maximum deviation was a negative 

25 per~ent for western white pine. 

Foliage and Branchwood Fractions 

For each species, five or six equations were required to describe the accumulative 

fractions of live and dead crown components. Most equations were exponential, and for 

live crown weight they provided close-fitting relationships between accumulative crown 

fractions and d.b.h. (fig. 11). Because of variation in retention of dead branchwood, 

accumulative fractions of dead crown components were less closely correlated with d.b.h. 

than accumulative fractions of live crown components. Equations for accumulative crown 

fractions and conditions for maintaining reasonable solutions at limits of the data are 

in appendix III. 

20 
Table B.--Simple linear regressions for estimating weight 

of foliage and branchwood components of individual branches from intermediate ann suppressed 

trees. Regressions are of the form lnw = a + b 

(lnd) where w = weight, lb; d = branch basal 

diameter, inch. Bias corrections for log transformations were omitted because they over 

compensated 

Statistic pp OF GF c 

FOLIAGE 

a -1.412 -1. 077 -0.6685 -0.8837 

b 1.902 2.023 2.092 2.010 

n 42 48 51 48 

r2 . 86 .78 .92 .94 

0 TO 0.24 INCH 

a -3.103 -1. 551 -l. 514 -2.325 

b l. 549 1. 934 1.842 1.863 

n 34 47 so 48 

r2 .77 .89 . 92 .91 

0.25 TO 0.99 INCH 

a -3.103 -0.7598 -0.3637 -l. 103 

b 1. 549 2.800 3.514 2.857 

n 34 26 28 33 

r2 .77 .88 .88 .86 

1. 00 TO 2.99 INCHES 

a -2.457 _ij -2.551 -2.456 

b 3.735 6.269 6.695 

n 9 5 10 

r2 .42 .79 .70 

lJ Regression was nonsignificant. 

7 

Grand Fir 

6 

co 5 :::::1 

:::c 

u 

z 

<( 4 0::: 

co 

0::: 

l.J..J 

a.. 3 I-

:::c 

<..:) 

l.J..J 

s 2 

0 0. 5 1.0 1.5 

1. 00 to 2. 99 I N 

• FOLIAGE 

•• • • . 

• ~0. 25 to 0. 99 IN ~ .. , 

~ 

~~ 

Figure 9.--Weight per branch 

of foliage and branchwood 

by size class as a function 

of branch basal diameter 

for grand fir. BRANCH BASAL DIAMETER (IN) 

21 
"•\ 

5 

03 

:::;:! 

w 4 <.:> 

<( 

_.I 

0 

u... 

u... 3 0 

:::r:: 

u 

z 

<( 

0::: 

co 2 0::: 

w 

0... 

r-

:::r:: 

~ w 

5 

0 0. 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2. 5 3.0 

BRANCH BASAL DIAMETER (INl 

Figure 10.--Foliage weight per branch for groups of species that reflect general levels 

of species tolerance. Group 1 is the most tolerant and group 4 the least tolerant. 

V"l 

z 

0 

ru 

<( 

0::: 

u... 

z 

$ 

0 

0::: 

u 

w 

> 

~ _.I 

:::J 

:2: 

:::J 

u 

u 

<( 

l.O r-.....~~---~~~s~;;;;;;~ ~,,,........_ 

~,,,........_ p 4 = p 3 + l. 00 to 2. 99 1 N 

~,,,........_ 

0. 8 1-

~,,,........_ 

~~.,. 

,.,., .,., 0. 6 r- .,.,., 

~,,,, 

p ,,,........_ 

3 "'P ~Ilia......._ 2 i- 0. 25 ~~,~--- 0. 99 I ,,,........_ 

.,.,. ,.,.,. 

,.,., 

N ~,,,, 

.... .,.,. '''• ••••• p 2 = p ,.,.,.,.,. 

0. 4 r- ••••••••• • 1 + 0 to o. 24 1 ~·'•'•'••••••••• 

····· 

p 1 =FOLIAGE 

••••••••• •••••••••••• ~ 0. 2 1-

Douglas-fir 

I I I I I I I 

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 30 32 

D. B. H. (IN) 

Figure 11.--Accumulative fractions of crown components for live crowns of Douglas-fir. 

For P1~ P2~ and P3~ r 2 = 0.95 and for ~ r 2 = 0.43. 

22 
0. 60. FOLIAGE 0 to 0. 24 IN 

0.40 

0. 50 ', ,, ,, ,, ', ,, ,, ,, 0.40 ,,, ,,, 0.30 ,, ,,, ,,, .,, ,, .,, ,,, ,, ~, ,,, 0.30 ,,,, c 

•••••• ,, ,, 

,, ••• 0. 20 .... ' 

•••••• DF .. , ' 

····· ' 0.20 ,, ... ~ 

•••••••• ~ L ,, •••• •••• '~ 0. 10 •••••• 

z ~-- ''''••J DF 

0 

$ 0. 10 --.... -.. ... L 

0:::: c 

u 

I...LJ 

> 

_...J 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 LL.. 

0 

z 

0 

1- 0.50 c u 

<( 0. 25 to 0. 99 I N 1. 00 to 2. 99 I N 

0:::: 

0.40 LL.. 

... ----- 0.40 

,, -........... 0.30 ............ -. ... L 

••••••• ..... , 

.. , 0.30 .. , 

.,, ,,, ,,, 0.20 .,, .. ,,, DF 0. 20 

c 

0. 10 0. 10 

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 

D. B. H. (IN) 

Figure 12.--Foliage and branchwood fractions of live crown weight related to d.b.h. for 

dominants of western lcn~ch3 Douglas-fir3 and western redcedar. The curves for foliage 

and 0- to 0.24-inch branchwood encompass the fractions of all 11 species studied. 

23 
Relationships between d.b.h. and actual fractions of foliage and branchwood components follow similar trends among species, probably largely influenced by the mechanical 

requirements for supporting suspended loads (l\kMahon 1975) (fig. 12). Foliage and 0- to 

0.24-inch branchwood fractions decrease markedly with increasing d.b.h. The 0.25- to 

0.99-inch branchwood fractions display the greatest variation; however, they generally 

increase up to 4 to 12 inches then decrease. The 1.00- to 2.99-inch branchwood fractions increase steeply throughout the range of sample tree data except for ponderosa 

pine. Its fraction levels off above a d.b.h. of 20 inches because increasing amounts 

of branchwood exceed 3 inches in diameter. 

Large fractions of foliage and branchwood components are not necessarily associated 

with large weights per tree of foliage and branchwood components. The crown weights and 

component fractions must be viewed together to determine component weights. Generally, 

the tolerant species support the greatest weights of foliage, an exception being ponderosa pine which produces nearly as much foliage as Engelmann spruce at comparable tree 

diameters. Weights of 0- to 0.24-inch branchwood are greatest for the firs and hemlock. 

Weights of branchwood exceeding 1 inch are considerably greater for ponderosa pine than 

for other species. 

For the species where dominants and intermediates were both sampled, the fraction 

of foliage for the dominants was consistently greater than for the intermediates, 

averaging 3 percentage points more at 2 inches d.b.h. and 16 percentage points more at 

12 inches d.b.h. Differences in branchwood fractions between dominants and intermediates varied by species and d.b.h.; thus, any pattern of differences common to all 

species was not evident. 

Bolewood Fractions 

Weights of unmerchantable tips and boles of trees 4 inches and less in d.b.h. can 

be partitioned into 0- to l-inch, 1- to 3-inch, and 3+-inch diameter size classes using 

fractions in table 9. Because unmerchantable tip and small tree bole material 0 to 0.25 

inch in diameter was insignificant, this size class was lumped into the 0- to l-inch 

class. The size class fractions are averages of data for all species. They were 

averaged after finding that variation of the fractions among species and dominants and 

intermediates was small. 

Table 9.--Fractions for partitioning uJeights of unmerchantable tips (for trees 

5 inches and greater d.b.h.J and small tree boles (4 inches and less 

d.b.h.) into 0- to l-inch~ 1- to 3-inch~ and 3+-inch size classes 

Size Tirs Small tree boles 

class :Merchantable toE diameter, inches D. b. h., inches 

(inch) 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 

0 - 1 0.03 0.01 0.003 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 

1 - 3 .97 .39 .10 .91 .83 .31 .19 

3+ 0 .60 .90 . 01 .14 . 68 .80 

24 
Validation of Predictions 

Verification of prediction equations is an arduous task because many sources of 

variation in inventorying standing trees and weights of do\med material after cutting 

are difficult to control. Nonetheless, predictions were compared against inventoried 

weights in three stands dominated by a single species--ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and 

lodgepole pine. Crown and bole weights were predicted before cutting from complete 

stand inventories on areas approximately 0.15 acre in size. D.b.h., crown ratio, and 

crown class were used in the predictions. After cutting, the fresh slash was intensively inventoried using the planar intersect method (Brown and Roussopoulos 1974). 

For slash less than 3 inches in diameter, predicted weights were less than inventoried weights by 15, 22, and 37 percent of inventoried values. For all slash, 

predicted weights varied from 4 percent more to 15 percent less than inventoried 

weights. Some of the discrepancies were traced to biases in the test; thus, differences between predicted weights and actual weights would be less than indicated by our 

test. The work in conducting a field verification test and the inconclusiveness of 

comparing two estimates based on sources of variation that are difficult to control 

makes this type of verification unappealing. The most productive verification would 

be additional crown weight sampling. 

Considering the standard errors of estimate for the crown and bole weight equations 

and the verification test, most estimates of slash weight from crowns and unmerchantable 

bole tips for a stand of trees should be within 20 percent of the true mean. Occasionally estimates can be expected to deviate from the true mean by as much as 50 percent. 

Crown Bulk Density 

Bulk density of live crowns influences crown fire potential, interception of rainfall, interception of forest fire retardants, infrared detection of forest fires, and 

other phenomena. Quantifying bulk densities should help understand how tree species 

affect these phenomena and assist in analytical modeling of tree crown influences. 

For dominants, bulk densities for foliage and all branches of live crowns ranged 

from 0.04 to 0.14 lb per cubic foot (fig. 13). The lowest bulk densities were displayed 

by western redcedar and western larch, probably largely because of the open crown nature 

of these species (Harlow and Harrar 1950). Crowns of whitebark pine had the greatest 

bulk densities, probably because the sample trees were relatively old and slow grown, 

and possessed short thick branches. Subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce also had high 

bulk densities, probably because branches were densely distributed within narrow crowns. 

Bulk densities for foliage of live crowns averaged one-half of the bulk densities 

for entire crowns (foliage and branchwood). The ratios of foliage bulk density to 

entire crown bulk densities ranged from 0.36 for ponderosa pine to 0.61 for Engelmann 

spruce. Species having high crown bulk densities also had high foliage bulk densities. 

Conversely, species having low crown bulk densities also had low foliage bulk densities. 

Bulk densities for foliage computed using crown volumes, excluding foliage-free 

cavities, differed only slightly from bulk densities based on crown volumes including 

foliage-free cavities. Because foliage-free cavities were a small part of crown 

volumes, only bulk densities based on the entire live crown volume are presented here. 

Foliage-free cavities of the pines and larch, which are generally more intolerant and 

retain foliage for only 1 to 3 years, were larger than cavities of the other species. 

25 
0. 15 

0. 125 

"' 0. 10 1-

~ 

o:::l 

.:=:! 

>- 1-

(/) 0.075 z 

L.I...J 

0 

~ 

__J 

::::J 

o:::l 0.05 

• • • 0.025 • 

c 

• • • • • • • 

L 

: BRANCHES AND FOLIAGE 

I FOLIAGE 

• • • • • • • • • 

WH WP LP 

• • • • • • • • 

GF 

SPECIES 

i 

• 

• • • • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • 

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

DF pp s AF WBP 

Figure 13.--Live crown bulk densities of dominants for foliage and for foliage and 

branchwood together. For all species~ coefficients of variation for bulk densities 

of foliage and branch~ood ranged from 32 to 65 percent~ and averaged 47 percent. 

Hence, bulk densities were altered more by omission of foliage-free cavities, as shown 

by the average ratios of bulk densities including foliage-free cavities to those without foliage-free cavities: 

Species 

L, WP, PP, LP, WBP 

AF, GF, DF, WH, C, S 

Ratios 

1.16 

1. 03 

To investigate the relationship between bulk density and d.b.h., regression 

analysis using polynomial, exponential, and linear models was employed. Relationships 

for only three species were significant and of these, the highest r 2 was 0.33. Although 

regression analyses failed to confirm relationships between bulk density and d.b.h., 

a plot of bulk density over averages of d.b.h. groups indicates that bulk density decreases as d.b.h. increases, at least up to 4 inches d.b.h. (fig. 14), One exception 

was ponderosa pine where bulk density increased with increasing d.b.h. Sample ponderosa pines of large d.b.h. were primarily from poor-to-medium sites. They supported 

many heavy branches, 3 to 6 inches in diameter, that probably accounted for the increased bulk density at large d.b.h. 

26 
Figure 14.--Live crown bulk 

densities for foliage and 

branchwood of dominants related to d.b.h. Lodgepole 

pine was omitted because 

all of its sample trees were 

less than 2 inches d.b.h. 

0. 15 

;.._ 0. 10 LL 

>- IV1 

z 

w 

a 

~ 

--l 

::::J 

CCI 0. 05 

0 0 to 2 2 to 4 

D. B. H. (IN) 

WBP 

AF 

pp 

s 

DF 

GF 

WH 

WP 

c 

L 

4+ 

Bulk densities increased vertically through the crowns, as shown in the following 

tabulation of live crown bulk densities: 

Species group 

OF, GF, WP, PP, LP 

AF, WBP 

C, L 

s 

WH 

Crown section 

Top Middle and bottom 

(Pounds per cubic foot) 

0.123 

.225 

.060 

.114 

.072 

0.075 

.110 

. 042 

.102 

. 068 

Ratio of top-tomiddle and bottom 

1.6 

2.0 

1.4 

1.1 

1.1 

· .i Bulk densities of each species in a group were within 10 percent of the group aver-

·,! age. Engelmann spruce and western hemlock showed little variation in bulk densities 

between the upper and lower portions of the crown. Most of these sample trees had small 

d.b.h. The data for the other tolerant species indicate that variation in bulk density 

between upper and lower crown sections is greater for large trees. Thus, larger spruce 

and hemlock than studied here may show greater vertical variation in bulk density. 

Bulk density of intermediates was less than for dominants but only decidedly so for 

grand fir, as shown in the following tabulation of intermediate-to-dominant bulk density 

ratios: 

Species 

OF 

pp 

c 

GF 

Intermediates-to-dominants ratios 

Foliage and branches Foliage 

0.80 ( 0. 20) 0.81 (NS) 

.87 (NS) .92 (NS) 

.93 (NS) .92 (NS) 

.66 (0.02) .56 (0.01) 

27 
The parentheses contain levels of significance from a two-tailed t-test of differences 

between the bulk densities for intermediates and dominants. Branches of the sample 

grand fir intermediates appeared normal in length but were more spindly and sparsely 

distributed than for dominants. Hence, crown volume of intermediates was large relative to weight, resulting in low bulk densities. Surprisingly, bulk densities of 

intermediates and dominants for ponderosa pine were not significantly different. 

Apparently, both crown weight and volume are reduced for intermediate ponderosa pine, 

resulting in little change in bulk densities. This seems likely to hold true for other 

species as well. 

Moisture Content 

Moisture contents were intensively sampled to determine ovendry crown weights. 

Thus, reliable moisture estimates of foliage and branchwood at top, middle, and bottom 

live crown positions were obtained. Coefficients of variation computed for each species 

using individual tree moistures averaged 16 percent for foliage and 18 percent for 

branchwood. Evaluation of differences in moisture content among species and of seasonal 

variation in moisture content was confounded by uncontrolled sources of variation and 

thus was not attempted. 

At the same crown positions, foliage moisture was consistently greater than 

branchwood moisture by an average of 24 percentage points (table 10). Moisture contents 

of both foliage and branchwood were highest in the top sections and decreased downward 

through the crown. Perhaps the upp~ sections of tree crowns contain a larger proportion of young growth that is characterized by low dry matter content and high percentage 

moisture content than the lower sections of crowns. Or perhaps growing tips, distributed more densely in the upper sections, exercise priority in the distribution of water 

in response to internal water deficits (Kramer and Kozlowski 1960). In either case, 

higher moisture contents are maintained in the upper crown. The moisture content of 

entire live crowns averaged 102 percent for dominants and 86 percent for intermediates. 

Thus, simply doubling ovendry weights of crown material should result in reasonable 

estimates of fresh green weights. 

Although the data clearly indicate that the moisture content of dominants is 

greater than intermediates, conclusions are tenuous because influences such as date and 

site confound the data for this comparison. Differences in moistures between crown 

sections of intermediates are much less than for dominants. In fact, foliage moistures 

of intermediates appear uniform throughout the crown. 

The variation in moistures between foliage and branchwood and by crown position 

points out the need to select samples wisely when studying tree crown moisture contents 

in order to avoid bias. 

This study has provided equations based on about 500 sample trees for predicting 

weights of foliage, live and dead branchwood, and small tree boles. Relationships between tree crown biomass and d.b.h., tree height, crown length, crown ratio, and crown 

class were evaluated in selecting the most precise and useful equations. Tree crown 

bulk densities were also determined. This information provides a basis for appraising 

fire behavior potential of tree cutting activities in advance of cutting. Numerous 

other applications from predicting tree crown biomass are also possible. 

28 
i ·) 

·~ ·· ... 

Tab 1 e 10.--Mo1:sture content (percent) by top_, middle, and bottom 

crown sections for fol1:age, branchwood, and foliage and 

br•anchwood combined. The moisture contents were averaaed 

for all species using individual tree moistur•es. Aver;ge 

moistures for all components are weighted by biomass of 

each component 

Moisture content 

Dominants Intermediates 

Crown component Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom 

Foliage 116 111 102 102 99 104 

Branchwood: 

0 to 0.25 inch 100 84 72 83 76 73 

0.25 to 1 inch 95 84 75 85 74 68 

1 to 3 inches 84 77 74 75 71 63 

All components 111 100 86 92 84 82 

29 

PUBLICATIONS CITED 

Albini, Frank A. 

1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

INT-30, 92 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. 

Baskerville, G. L. 

1972. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can. J. 

For. Res. 2:49-53. 

Brown, James K. 

1965. Estimating crown fuel weights of red pine and jack pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. 

Pap. LS-20, 12 p. Lake States For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn. 

Brown, James K. 

1970. Ratios of surface area to volume for common fine fuels. For. Sci. 16:101-105. 

Brown, James K. 

1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. USDA For~ Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-16, 24 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. 

Brown, James K., and Peter J. Roussopoulos. 

1974. Eliminating biases in the planar intersect method for estimating volumes of 

small fuels. For. Sci. 20:350-356. 

Brown, James K., ·J. A. Kendall Snell, and David L. Bunnell. 

1977. Handbook for predicting slash weight of western conifers. USDA For. Serv. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-37, 35 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. 

Chandler, Craig C. 

1960. Slash weight tables for westside mixed conifers. USDA For. Serv. Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn. Tech. Pap. 48, 22 p. Berkeley, Calif. 

Cole, Dale W., and Steven F. Dice. 

1969. Biomass and nutrient flux in coniferous forest ecosystems: the development 

of a quantitative ecological approach. In Coniferous Forests of the Northern 

Rocky Mountains: Symposium Proceedings, Missoula, Mont. 1968:55-67. 

Crow, Tom R. 

1971. Estimation of biomass in an even-aged stand--regression and "mean tree" 

techniques. In Forest Biomass Studies. Int. Union For. Res. Organ., 15th Congr. 

Proc. (Sect. 25), p. 35-48. Life Sci. and Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Maine, Orono. 

[Gainesville, Fla., Mar. 15-20, 1971]. 

Deeming, J. E., J. W. Lancaster, M.A. Fosberg, and others. 

1972. National Fire-Danger Rating System. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-84, 165 p. 

Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo. 

Fahnestock, George R. 

1960. Logging slash flammability. USDA For. Serv. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn. 

Res. Pap. 58, 67 p. Ogden, Utah. 

Fosberg, Michael A. 

1970. Drying rates of heartwood below fiber saturation. For. Sci. 16:57-63. 

Grosenbaugh, L. R. 

1967. REX-Fortran 4 system for combinatorial screening of conventional analysis of 

multivariate regressions. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-44, 47 p. Pac. Southwest 

For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif. 

Harlow, W. H., and E. S. Harrar. 

1950. Textbook of dendrology. 3d ed. 555 p. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

31 
', .. 

Johnstone, W. D. 

1970. Component dry weights of 100-year-old lodgepole pine trees. Can. For. Serv. 

Dep. Fish.and For., For. Res. Lab. Inf. Rep. A-X-31, 14 p. 

Kiil, A. D. 

1967. Fuel weight tables for white spruce and lodgepole pine crowns in Alberta. 

Can. Dep. For. and Rural Dev. For. Branch Publ. 1196, 13 p. 

Kittredge, J. 

1944. Estimation of the amount of foliage of tree and stands. J. For. 42:905-912. 

Kramer, Paul J., and Theodore T. Kozlowski. 

1960. Physiology of trees. 641 p. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Landis, Thomas D., and E. W. Mogren. 

1975. Tree strata biomass of subalpine spruce-fir stands in southwestern Colorado. 

For. Sci. 21:9-12. 

Loomis, Robert M., Robert E. Phares, and John S. Crosby. 

1966. Estimating foliage and branchwood quantities in shortleaf pine. For. Sci. 

12:30-39. 

McMahon, Thomas A. 

1975. The mechanical design of trees. Sci. Am. July:92-102. 

Muraro, S. J. 

1966. Lodgepole pine logging slash. Can. Dep. For. Publ. 1153, 14 p. 

Puckett, J. V., F. A. Albini, J. K. Brown, and others. 

1977. Users' guide to debris prediction and hazard appraisal. 34 p. USDA For. Serv. 

North. Reg., Missoula, Mont. 

Rothermel, R. C. 

1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. USDA For. 

Serv. Res. Pap. INT-115, 40 p. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. 

Society of American Foresters. 

1944. Forest terminology: a glossary of terms used in forestry. 84 p. Soc. Am. For., 

Washington, D.C. 

Storey, Theodore G. 

1969. Tree weights and fuel size distribution of pinyon pine and Utah juniper. 

In Project Flambeau ... an investigation of mass fire (1964-1967). Final Rep., 

v. III:l5-32. USDA For. Serv. Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., 

Berkeley, Calif. 

Storey, T. G., W. L. Fons, and F. M. Sauer. 

1955. Crown characteristics of several coniferous tree species. USDA For. Serv. 

Interim Tech. Rep. AFSWP-416, 95 p. 

Tadaki, Yoshiya. 

1966. Some discussions on the leaf biomass of forest stands and trees. Bull. Gov. 

For. Exp. Stn. 184:135-161. Tokyo, Japan. 

Van Wagner, C. E. 

1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Can. J. For. Res. 3(3):373-378. 

Woodard, Paul M. 

1974. Predicting crown slash weights in Douglas-fir. 94 p. Master's thesis, 

Univ. Wash., Seattle. 

32 
APPENDIX I 

Geographic Distribution of Sample Trees 

Location of sample trees is presented primarily to help others who may wish to 

combine data of their own with data from this study (fig. 15 and table 11). 

~ 11 SANDPOINT 

• PRIEST RIVER 

B. C. 

\ 

· ... --\, 

1 

M 0 N TA N'A--~ ' '-I I 

... , C' 

• KALISPELL \ ... O..'?_t,- ...~l') 

BIGFORK ~~ 

,-~~ 10 I 

•HAMILTON 

' I 

I 

I 

' ... 

/ 

J 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

. 

1 

N 

• I 

Figure 15.--Geographic distribution of sample trees. Numbers on 

the map are identified in table 11. 

33 
(J..l 

.j:::. 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Table 11.--Location of individual sample trees by species. The BOO series de$ignates intermediates; others ar

~ 

Identifying tree numbers 

Area pp WP LP WBP AF DF GF c L 

Bearmouth 1-7 

8-15, 19 192-197, 236 801, 802 

Missoula 225-233, 

237,C40-

C42 

16-18,124, 21,22,24, 147,149, 20,23,26, 834,835, 817-820, 

126, 821 25 151,152, 27,125,184, 838,866, 836,837 

Fish Creek 200,201, 822,853, 872 

203 858,860, 

873 

129,154, C30 84,87,88, 86,188, 95-98,123, 153,222, 156,157, 82,83,89, 

155,211, 90,91 189,223 130,166, 224,832' 187,C28, 92-94 

Ninemi1e 212,811, 210,C32, 833,844, C29,830, 

813,814, 803,812, 863 831,862, 

816,843, 815,856, 864,865, 

854,855 857 I(: 874,875 

Lolo Creek 127 99,100,12

Swartz Creek 217 804-806, 

828,829 

45' 115' 122' 28,29,158 38 31,34,47. 36,41,48, 42,43,825, 37,39,40, 

Superior 199,845-85~ 159,161 208,209, 827,867 . 44,46,823, 

868 861,881 824,826, 

879,880 

876-878' 52,79,163, 51,78,164, 53,54,840, 162,186, 49,50,77, 80,81 

884 C33 215 869,871 218,807, 185,191, 

St. Regis 810,841, 214,808, 

842,870, 809,839 

882,883, 

887 

121,198 216,C34- Cl8-C24 234,235 ll8, 116,117, ll9,120 

Plains C36,C37 204··206 207 ,Cl6, 

Cl7,885, 

886 

144 141,142, 131 '132' 133-135, 

Big Fork 146 136' 138- 137,143, 

140,859 C01-C07 

Priest River C43,C49 238, C48 

Exp. Forest C44-C47 

177 183 

Deception Creek 

57,58,70 55,59,60, 75,76 56,61,62, 74 ,220 

Moscow 72,73,221 64,67,71 

104,105, 108 '114 106,107, 

Pierce 109,112, 110,111 

113 -~~- ~~~---~~ - -~-- 
APPENDIX II 

Listing of Data 

Raw data for dominants are in table 12 and for intermediates in table 13. In both 

tables, tree numbers with a prefix C designate sample trees for which live crown weight 

was not measured. A dash in a column of data means no data taken. 

Data from Fahnestock (1960) and Storey and others (1955) that were used in formulating live crown weight equations are not listed. However, the d.b.h. distribution of 

their sample trees is shown in table 14. 

35 
Table 12.--Raw data for dominants 

. . 

. . Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole :Dia.: 

Tree: :Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight :Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

DOUGLAS-FIR 

27 0 4.2 17 4.2 2.9 -- 0.0088 0.6812 0.3616 0.3307 0 0 0.48 4.2 2 

96 0 4.5 8 4.5 2.2 1.3 0 .5181 .2822 .1455 0 0 .37 4.5 2 

98 0 4.5 8 3.9 2.5 .9 .0022 .2028 .1124 .0419 0 0 .28 4.5 1 

183 0 3. 7 6 3.7 2.5 .9 0 .2800 .1587 0 0 0 .16 3.7 1 

54 0.4 6.8 10 6.8 4.2 2.2 .0176 2.011 1.045 1.230 0 0 1.12 6.8 3 

23 .5 5.8 25 4.7 4.0 -- .0309 1.340 .6967 .8113 0 0 1.31 5.8 2 

36 .5 6.2 10 6.2 3.6 1.8 .0022 .8466 .4034 .4145 0 0 .75 6.2 2 

20 .7 7.1 18 5.5 4.3 -- .0044 1.645 .8532 .9304 0 0 1.94 7.1 3 

95 1.0 9.4 12 9.1 4.8 2.6 0 2.511 1.270 1.660 0 0 2.69 9.4 3 

(N 125 1.2 9.1 10 8.6 4.2 2.4 .0220 2.079 1;085 1.111 0 0 2.42 9.1 3 

0\ 130 1.9 11.4 15 11.4 6.7 4.0 .0022 5.752 2.870 3.743 0 0 6.36 11.3 4 

26 2.2 14.4 30 11.1 6.0 -- .2557 3.827 1.938 2.456 0 0 8.92 14.4 4 

97 2.2 11.4 12 10.6 4.9 3.2 0 4.374 2.216 2.932 0 0 7.02 11.4 4 

53 2.4 14.1 22 13.1 7.5 3.5 .0904 7.196 3.572 5.324 0 0 10.2 14.1 4 

123 2.5 14.1 14 14.1 6.2 4.8 .0044 10.44 5.095 7.639 0 0 11.6 14.1 6 

184 3.2 20.1 25 15.9 6.2 3.2 ·.6438 1.799 .9193 1.160 0 0 16.8 20.1 6 

166 5.7 34.1 88 25.1 8.2 5.3 4.090 16.71 8.175 12.42 0 0 67.2 30.8 6 

118 7.5 44.6 71 24.2 9.8 5.6 9.469 25.67 12.09 19.38 1.523 0 62.9 28.6 6 

206 9.8 58.9 85 29.9 19.3 6.7 37.33 46.18 21.49 34.78 11.19 0 51.8 25.7 6 

41 10.7 67.9 75 30.3 10.1 6.8 22.33 35.43 16.34 26.79 13.24 0 50.5 24.9 6 

C49 12.1 74.3 63 56.0 16.9 10.2 34.94 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C43 13.1 70.2 114 52.8 17.2 10.5 31.44 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C32 17.9 111.1 111 52.3 11.7 10.8 14.69 -- -- -- -- 6 

204 21.6 92.0 203 53.4 19.2 15.5 119.8 162.6 68.71 126.6 198.2 0 30.8 15.3 6 

48 25.0 106.3 181 61.8 28.0 17.2 173.6 210.3 87.69 164.5 287.6 9.006 34.0 17.7 6 1

205 26.4 92.3 210 63.8 20.2 . 18.8 181.6 170.6 69.99 133.8 263.9 30.10 26.9 13.4 6 1

208 28.3 142.7 219 81.7 20.1 18.3 220.6 255.2 108.2 199.0 304.6 0 43.0 20.9 6 

210 30.5 112.9 210 85.9 21.4 23.9 196.5 336.3 135.4 264.6 595.8 114.0 29.6 15.2 6 1

209 33.9 136.0 262 70.8 29.9 20.3 531.1 238.9 99.01 187.0 346.8 27.28 38.8 19.8 6 2
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

ENGELMANN SPRUCE 

32 0 2.6 7 2.6 1.3 -- 0 0.1389 0.0551 0 0 0 0.08 2.6 1 

33 0 1.9 8 1.9 .8 -- 0 . 0750 .0309 0 0 0 . 04 1.9 1 

150 0 3.5 13 3.0 2.2 1.0 0.0022 .4960 .2006 0 0 0 . 24 3.5 2 

190 0 3.6 12 3.6 2.7 . 7 .0022 .3285 .1389 0 0 0 .16 3.6 1 

30 0.3 5.0 12 5.0 2.5 -- 0 1.074 .4387 0.0397 0 0 .53 5.0 2 

101 .6 5.8 17 4.8 3.6 1.5 . 0287 1.036 .4321 . 0772 0 0 1.19 5.8 2 

<.N 145 .6 6.6 11 6.6 3.0 1.8 .0176 1.193 . 5137 .1587 0 0 .97 6.6 2 

-......] 103 .8 7.7 9 7. 7 3.3 1.6 .0022 1.440 .6548 .3616 0 0 1.08 7.7 2 

102 1.1 8.3 12 8.3 4.3 2.7 .0088 3.188 1. 506 1.085 0 0 2.78 8.3 3 

85 1.9 9.8 14 9.3 6.0 3.5 .0066 7.438 3.752 3.296 0 0 7.19 9.8 4 

160 1.9 10.4 36 8.3 4.5 1.7 .0683 2.452 1.142 .7650 0 0 5.58 10.4 3 

148 2.0 9.6 30 8.1 5.2 2.9 .0022 4.330 2.061 1. 497 0 0 5.66 9.6 4 

202 2.3 12.9 14 12.9 5.0 3.9 0 6.607 3.098 2.141 0 0 7.94 12.9 4 

35 3.2 14.2 20 12.7 5.2 3.8 .2579 7.383 3.655 3.062 0 0 9.94 14.2 6 

219 6.8 34.2 33 24.3 12.5 6.2 3.294 40.07 21.71 22.80 8.618 0 45.4 24.2 6 

213 8.8 57.5 126 31.4 11.3 6.8 7.324 67.26 37.13 40.46 11.62 0 50.6 26.8 6 

165 9.0 56.5 153 44. 3 11.3 7.7 4.374 36.19 19.56 20.33 1.448 0 54.2 28.6 6 

C27 14.1 84.5 91 76.2 17.4 13.0 33.29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C26 16.3 95.4 117 56.2 12.7 12.0 118.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C39 17. l 94.8 193 71.8 8.7 15.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C25 18. 7 104.0 117 68.5 16.9 12.8 34.59 -- -- ' -- -- 6 

C37 19.0 127.8 178 104.9 9.9 17.4 9.753 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C31 23.2 103.2 112 78.2 22.5 18.4 66.45 -- -- -- -- -- 6 
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia. : 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: 1ength:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr> Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

GRAND FIR 

43 0 4.6 8 4.6 2.0 1.0 0.0022 0.4762 o. 2138 0 0 0 0.25 4.5 1 

61 0 4.4 7 4.4 3.5 1.4 0 1.157 .4740 0.2668 0 0 .67 4.4 2 

62 0 3.7 6 3.7 1.9 1.0 0 .4519 .2050 0 0 0 .19 3.7 1 

114 0 3.1 4 3.1 2.1 .9 0 . 3461 .1565 0 0 0 .19 3.1 1 

67 0.4 5.7 9 5.7 3.2 1.7 .0022 .9149 .3924 .1213 0 0 .64 5.7 2 

71 .4 5.5 8 5.0 3.3 1.6 0 1.199 .4806 . 3329 0 0 .89 5.5 2 

141 . 7 7.0 10 7.0 3.9 1.5 0 1. 071 .4431 .2359 0 0 .88 7.0 2 

162 1.0 9.5 17 8.1 5.7 1.6 .0617 1. 34 7 .5534 .2998 0 0 1. 40 9.5 2 

42 1.1 7.6 42 6.6 4.4 2.2 .0022 4.228 1.682 1.272 0 0 1.68 7.6 3 

153 1.1 8.9 8 7.9 5.1 2.2 0 4.023 1.609 1.131 0 0 2.57 8.9 3 

(.N 142 1.3 9.5 10 9.0 5.9 2.0 .0331 2.672 1.096 .6217 0 0 2. 22 9.5 3 

00 64 1.8 14.0 12 11.6 5.2 2.2 .1698 2.985 1.186 .8885 0 0 4.11 14.0 3 

146 2.1 12.3 12 12.3 5.3 4.1 .0088 9.449 3.620 3.393 0 0 6.03 12.3 6 

108 2.3 14.3 18 12.3 5.2 2.6 .0882 5.479 1. 261 1. 515 0 0 6.84 14.3 3 

186 2.7 16.0 35 11.2 9.0 2.5 .2491 5.075 1.927 1.900 0.3483 0 9. 72 16.0 4 

56 3.2 18.5 23 17.0 6.5 3.9 . 2271 10.20 3.867 3.810 0 0 14.6 18.5 6 

220 4.2 22.1 30 20.9 10.5 5.1 1.360 21.62 8.054 8.719 0 0 31.0 22.1 6 

222 4.5 22.4 22 20.4 7.2 5. 1 . 3549 25.70 9.643 10. 12 0 0 29.6 22.4 6 

238 6.5 40.6 32 38.6 14.3 6.7 2.262 41.73 15.13 19.14 5.972 0 54.1 34.1 6 

218 7.5 4 7. 5 124 41.6 10.3 7.4 9.614 33.09 12.23 14.03 3.503 0 57.0 29.7 6 

207 10.5 78.8 93 69.6 13.3 10.4 35.57 101.6 35.32 54.97 40.99 0 58.5 25.5 6 

224 11.9 79.0 121 67.0 13.8 ll. 5 46.40 77.09 27.05 40.42 29.36 0 33.2 20.7 6 

C17 12.3 71.5 85 55.0 16.8 10.7 53.54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

116 12.4 69.0 91 40.7 15.5 10.0 46.13 73.03 25.42 39.38 29.48 0 29.8 17.5 6 

C16 13.6 69.1 85 53.1 17.5 11.8 69.38 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

117 15.6 72.7 92 47.7 21.9 13.5 104.3 181.8 61.52 108.9 115.3 0 20.4 12.2 6 

C44 16.0 103.8 81 55.1 19.5 11. 3 90.13 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C47 18.8 131.4 91 68.5 12.5 12.7 10.16 -- -- -- -- 6 

C46 19.0 126.3 96 94.3 22.8 16.6 89.49 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C45 20.4 136.8 106 108.1 17.3 17.0 200.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole :Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : C

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight : Foliage: 0 to 0,25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: vo

.. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

LODGEPOLE PINE 

24 0 1.6 5 1.3 1.3 -- 0 0.0309 0. 0132 0 0 0 0.04 1.6 1 

25 0 2.7 8 2.7 1.9 -- 0 .1543 .0705 0 0 0 .08 2.7 1 

90 0 4.3 5 4.3 2.2 1.0 0.0044 .2690 .1433 0.0992 0 0 .20 4.3 2 

91 0 3.9 5 3.9 2.1 1.0 0 .2337 .1301 .1102 0 0 .26 3.9 2 

(.N 88 0.3 5.4 6 5.4 3.0 1.8 0 .6790 .3902 . 3726 0 0 .77 5.4 2 

1.0 21 .6 6.3 7 5.5 2.8 -- .0066 .5842 .3153 . 2205 0 0 .91 6.3 2 

75 . 7 7.1 5 7.1 2.5 1.7 0 . 7143 .4365 .4519 0 0 1. 07 7.1 2 

76 .8 7.5 5 7.0 3.4 2.0 0 .7540 .4343 .4145 0 0 l. 44 7.5 2 

84 1.3 8.6 8 7.6 3. 7 1.9 .0022 1.186 .6878 .6768 0 0 1.97 8.6 2 

87 1.3 8. 1 7 7. 1 4.0 2.0 .0176 1.067 .6327 .6415 0 0 2.07 8.1 2 

38 1.5 11.3 12 10.3 3.7 2.0 .0044 1. 343 .7540 .6548 0 0 3.02 11.3 2 

22 1.8 13.1 11 11.9 5.8 -- .0882 2.703 1. 629 1.676 0 0 4.83 13.1 2 

C24 6.5 50.7 72 31.7 7.3 5.6 2.743 -- -- -- -- -- - 

C18 9.5 76.1 96 40.3 5.8 6.5 25.39 -- -- -- -- -- -- - 

C20 9.8 65.6 . 85 23.4 8.6 5.2 46.48 -- -- -- -- -- -- - 

C2l 11.6 78.9 75 46.5 8. 7 8.0 46.64 -- -- -- -- -- -- - 1

C22 12.8 73.9 77 44.1 13.5 9.3 66.75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 2

Cl9 14.0 76.6 85 50.2 16.5 10.0 147.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3

C23 15.6 84.1 97 60.2 23.7 12.1 177.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- - 10
+:>-

0 

Table 12.--(con.) 

Live :Dia. Dead 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch 

No. :O.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight 

13 

14 

18 

19 

155 

70 

154 

126 

10 

57 

129 

15 

16 

17 

58 

124 

12 

11 

45 

8 

9 

122 

211 

115 

212 

7 

2 

199 

5 

6 

4 

3 

1 

121 

198 

Inches 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.6 

.7 

• 7 

. 8 

1.0 

1.5 

1.6 

1.9 

2.6 

3.2 

3.2 

3.7 

4.4 

6.4 

7.6 

7.8 

10.5 

ll. 2 

11. 3 

13.8 

14.2 

18.2 

19.2 

20.6 

21. 1 

24.3 

25.5 

28.3 

31.3 

31.5 

34.0 

Ft Yr 

4.5 11 

4.3 7 

2.3 7 

4.6 6 

5.5 7 

6.0 6 

5.7 6 

6.1 11 

5.9 20 

9.7 6 

7. 8 11 

10.0 20 

11.0 18 

15.3 25 

13.9 7 

13.9 16 

28.3 45 

37.6 59 

38.8 36 

40.9 45 

50.6 57 

74.3 78 

66.6 85 

72.1 81 

72.4 87 

76.9 155 

82.5 100 

85.5 72 

76.7 210 

78.2 210 

87.3 210 

78.4 210 

112.8 217 

121.0 18f 

144.4 192 

Ft 

4.5 

4.3 

2.3 

3.3 

5.0 

6.0 

4.3 

4.8 

5.9 

9.2 

6.8 

7.0 

8.5 

10.2 

13.9 

11.6 

19.8 

22.2 

28.9 

28.4 

39.1 

40.3 

32.3 

38.9 

56.1 

46.5 

65.6 

66.5 

30.7 

39.8 

37.7 

52.7 

78.5 

89.2 

85.9 

Ft Inches 

2.5 

3.3 

1.6 

2. 1 

4.1 

3.8 

3.3 

4. 1 

3.9 

4.0 

3.4 

5.4 

6.4 

6.2 

7.1 

6.0 

5.4 

7.5 

19.1 

11.3 

12.9 

11.0 

8.3 

17.9 

18.0 

17.0 

26.5 

26.7 

16.8 

19.5 

22.4 

31.1 

40.1 

34.7 

29.6 

1.9 

1.8 

1.4 

2.1 

2.2 

2.4 

4.8 

4.0 

7.0 

8.7 

7.3 

9.8 

12.4 

17.0 

26.4 

24.8 

Lb 

0 

0 

0.0067 

. 0132 

.0088 

0 

.0573 

. 0595 

.0287 

.0154 

. 0110 

.2579 

.2579 

.5930 

0 

.3638 

3.682 

6.964 

8. 792 

20.41 

36.63 

35.85 

47.42 

118.4 

7.227 

80.78 

77.06 

260.9 

71.12 

67.35 

123.3 

373.0 

294.4 

259.6 

52.57 

Live crown weight 

Branchwood (inches) 

Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 

0.5313 

.5445 

.1852 

.2624 

1.038 

.7231 

.3792 

1.380 

2.831 

1. 034 

2.244 

2.410 

6.378 

3.605 

5.472 

8.944 

6.435 

11.45 

25.69 

25.47 

39.82 

47.96 

28.18 

84.56 

132.0 

124.9 

196.2 

266.6 

102.3 

146.4 

150.8 

163.7 

211.2 

407.4 

501.0 

- - - - Lb - - -

PONDEROSA PINE 

0. 1146 

.1036 

.0529 

.0705 

.1808 

.1477 

.0794 

.2844 

1.109 

.1543 

.3329 

.3020 

.7341 

.4938 

.4916 

.9458 

.7893 

l. 019 

1.925 

1.808 

2.070 

3.034 

2.150 

4.780 

13.73 

9.749 

1.832 

8.201 

1. 667 

1. 737 

11.97 

14.69 

0 

0 

0 

0.3131 

.3505 

.0838 

.1279 

.6945 

.4431 

. 2271 

.8378 

0 

.7408 

1. 612 

1. 861 

5.121 

2.701 

4. 885 

7.454 

5.077 

10.25 

24.82 

25.24 

45.23 

so .10 

27.28 

92.68 

146.8 

185. 1 

359.2 

352.8 

161.5 

269.1 

314.4 

295.1 

506.8 

588.8 

735.4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2.196 

1.268 

.6856 

4.129 

19.34 

21.95 

44.07 

46.47 

21.89 

88.24 

142.1 

237.6 

457.0 

366.1 

183.8 

138.6 

274.2 

267.5 

554.6 

626.5 

783.4 

3+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

() 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39.56 

0 

161. 8 

131.4 

245.5 

357.0 

813.2 

122.4 

583.0 

875. 1 

Bole : Bole :Dia.: 

tip : tip :tip : Cro

:weight: length:base: vol

Lb 

0.53 

.48 

.18 

. 38 

1. 22 

1. 32 

. 91 

l. 84 

3.23 

2.93 

2.79 

4.2P 

8.7R 

10.511 

14.48 

14.78 

20.78 

12.52 

40.45 

9.73 

8.50 

40.88 

43.37 

44.52 

41.50 

4.68 

9.53 

35.06 

3.92 

3. 22 

4.88 

6.01 

o.S8 

27.70 

9. 72 

Ft Inches 

4.5 

4.3 

') ~ 

~ . .) 

4.6 

5.5 

6.0 

5.7 

6.1 

5.9 

9.7 

7.8 

10.0 

10.6 

15.3 

13.9 

1.3. 9 

21.2 

14.7 

23.8 

12.4 

11.2 

2.7 

2.3 

2.4 

2.1 

9.0 

12.5 

19.1 

5.7 

7.0 

7.5 

8.9 

9. 1 

16.5 

1fl.S 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

6 

6 

4 

4 

0 

4 

4 

6 

6 

6 

6 

4 

4 

6 

4 

3 

4 

4 

4 

6 

6 

F

1 ,

1 '4 

1 '

2,

1,

4' 

6 '

5,

9,

13,

1 'f

4,9

11,

20,

42,

~, 

.)_' 

30,
·, . . , 

Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia. : 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

SUBALPINE FIR 

127 0 4. 1 4 4.1 2.5 1.0 0 0.6878 0.2910 0.1235 0 0 0.21 4.1 2 

149 0 3.0 14 3.0 1.3 . 8 0 .1984 . 0728 0 0 0 .11 3.0 1 

161 0 4.4 18 4.4 2.8 1.8 0.0176 . 8135 .3373 .1235 0 0 .so 4.4 2 

200 0 2.5 14 2.0 2.6 .9 0 . 3594 . 1345 0 0 0 .20 2.5 1 

201 0 4.3 12 3.5 2.2 1.2 .0331 .5445 . 2116 .0309 0 0 . 39 4.3 2 

31 0.3 5.4 12 5.4 2.4 -- 0 .8267 . 3461 .1345 0 0 .58 5.4 2 

151 .6 6.1 21 5.6 3.2 2.2 .0044 2.088 . 9436 .6151 0 0 1. 54 6.1 3 

+:::- 188 .6 6.1 37 5.1 2.7 1.5 .0088 1. 323 .5115 .0551 0 0 1. 02 6.1 2 

1-' 189 . 8 6.9 37 6.1 3.3 1.5 .0022 1.164 .4784 .1587 0 0 1. 12 6,9 2 

152 1.0 7.8 17 7.8 4.4 2.3 .0066 2.560 1.124 .6217 0 0 2.24 7.8 3 

51 1.2 8.8 20 8.8 3.9 2.3 0 4.202 1. 872 1.127 0 0 2.06 8.8 3 

164 1.3 9.9 13 9.4 4.9 2.5 .0176 3.276 1.466 .9061 0 0 2.84 9.9 3 

86 2.0 11.6 13 11.6 5.6 3. 7 .0044 6.651 3.210 3.091 0 0 6.64 11.6 4 

78 2.1 10.5 35 9.5 4.8 3.0 .0066 6.993 3.283 2.685 0 0 5.81 10.5 4 

159 3. 1 16.2 16 15.3 5.8 4.3 . 3483 7.304 3.389 2.681 0 0 14.6 16.2 6 

147 3.5 18.8 so 17.0 5.4 4.0 .2668 12.90 6.332 6.742 0 0 18.1 18.8 6 

203 4.0 23.1 51 21.4 6.8 4.7 .4079 13.49 6.296 5.066 0 0 28.3 23.1 6 

34 4.9 24.9 37 24.9 7.5 -- . 3285 17.71 8. 774 9.707 0 0 40.1 24.9 6 

217 6.8 32.8 91 30.6 9.8 6.9 .8047 37. OS 19.08 27.03 5.410 0 44.5 27.2 6 

215 7.3 60.3 150 35.4 8.0 5.8 17.25 44.87 22.17 24.06 0 0 62.0 36.8 6 

234 8.2 54.6 201 29.1 10.0 6.5 27.61 13.34 7.205 12.90 8.433 0 45.8 24.1 6 1

236 9.1 48.3 152 48.3 9.7 12.7 11.75 61.19 32.40 51.27 11.03 0 57.5 26.9 6 1

47 11.1 93.0 105 69.6 10.0 9.2 31.71 56.49 30.25 52.28 20.25 0 74.2 37.6 6 2

223 12.3 92.6 118 51.4 8.3 8.9 34.07 55.08 28.21 38.59 5.203 0 51. 7 30.8 6 1

235 12.7 54.5 73 42.5 12.7 10.6 24.51 91.03 49.53 90.20 33.26 0 52.4 30.4 6 3
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole :Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

WESTERN HEMLOCK 

68 0 4.4 10 3.9 2.2 1.0 0 0.3373 0.1808 0.0485 0 0 0.27 4.4 2 

178 0 4.5 5 4.5 2.0 .6 0 .1080 . 0595 0 0 0 . 12 4.5 1 

180 0 3.8 5 3.0 1.9 .5 0. 0022 .0992 .0529 .0132 0 0 . 09 3.8 1 

181 0 3.6 4 3.6 1.4 .6 0 . 0838 . 0441 0 0 0 .09 3.6 1 

175 0.1 6.5 7 5.5 2.2 1.0 0 . 3175 .1698 .0309 0 0 .38 6.5 2 

66 . 2 5.9 8 5.9 2.7 1.3 0 . 4321 .2315 . 0728 0 0 .39 5.9 2 

167 . 5 8.0 7 7.2 3.2 1.1 0 .6945 .3748 .0750 0 0 .77 8.0 2 

174 .6 8.3 6 7.7 4.1 1.7 0 .9700 .5159 .2998 0 0 .89 8.3 2 

168 1.3 12.7 19 9.8 4.2 1.8 .0198 1.506 .7959 .5534 0 0 3.31 12.7 3 

.j:::. 179 1.3 13.6 8 12.5 4.5 2.2 . OllO 1.660 .8819 .5159 0 0 3.06 13.6 3 

N 173 1.8 12.7 24 11.9 4.8 3.0 0 4.132 2.176 1. 839 0 n 5.84 12.7 4 

63 2.0 15.4 19 15.4 5.0 2.9 .0044 3.113 1. 620 1. 728 0 0 5.87 15.4 3 

65 2. 1 16.2 13 14.2 5.2 2.4 .0860 3.869 2.030 1.784 0 0 6.23 16.2 3 

69 2.3 18.2 17 15.2 5.7 2.5 .0838 2.679 1.409 1. 217 0 0 7.89 18.2 4 

169 3.0 21.4 25 17.5 9.3 3.2 .0860 7.046 3.662 3.829 0 0 17.4 21.4 6 

171 3.1 20.3 21 19.0 6.9 3.5 .0044 6.934 3.605 3.640 0 0 15.3 20.3 4 

172 5.0 29.0 25 27.0 10.1 5.2 .0838 15 .ll 7.681 9.162 0.8488 0 42.5 29.0 6 

170 5.7 27.4 23 25.6 10.7 6.2 .0838 20.95 10.76 13.17 0 0 42.8 24.3 6 

176 6.3 35.2 23 35.2 12.3 7.0 1.157 32.09 16.44 20.81 4.799 0 43.1 27.5 6 

182 7.0 38.4 32 38.4 12.8 7.2 .0882 31.46 16.12 20.21 2.967 0 4 7. 5 29.4 6 

CIS 9.6 72.8 95 61.6 19.7 9.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

Cl3 10.3 78.2 108 62.7 15.8 9.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C10 15.8 ll6 .4 ll6 69.9 21. 3 12.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 9 16.9 115.2 176 69.2 20.3 13.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 8 17.3 125.5 156 66.1 24.5 13.0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

Cl2 18.9 115.3 121 76.8 31.5 16.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C11 20.2 125.4 122 72.0 24.0 15.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

Cl4 21.4 126.2 161 111.5 31.6 21.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole :Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:1ength:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: 1ength:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

WESTERN LARCI! 

92 0 4.5 6 4.5 1.9 1.3 0 0. 2116 0.2447 0.1698 0 0 0.39 4.5 2 

100 0 4.5 10 4.5 2.0 1.0 0 .2183 .2293 .0309 0 0 .19 4.5 1 

120 0 3.6 3 3.6 1.0 0.4 0 .0198 .0198 0 0 0 • OS 3.6 1 

133 0 2.8 12 2.8 1.5 . 3 0.0044 .0220 . 0220 0 0 0 .04 2.8 1 

119 0.2 6.9 5 6.9 2.6 1.2 . 0022 .1565 .1631 0 0 0 .47 6.9 2 

89 .3 6.3 6 6.3 2.5 1.3 0 .3241 . 3505 .1058 0 0 .55 6.3 2 

128 . 5 5.0 9 5.0 3.4 1.6 . 0220 .4167 .4696 .2601 0 0 1.00 5.0 2 

.+:::- 81 .8 7.3 8 6.8 3.2 1.5 . 0044 .4453 .5137 .3836 0 0 0.99 7.3 2 

(.N 134 . 9 11. 3 13 7.7 3.5 1.1 . 0926 . 2822 .2932 0 0 0 1.23 11.3 2 

80 1.6 12.0 8 10.2 5.2 2.1 . 0353 1.292 1. 510 1. 221 0 0 3.76 12.0 3 

137 1.7 18.0 12 16.4 5.6 2.2 . 0220 1. 257 1.431 .9171 0 0 5.86 18.0 3 

99 1.9 13.6 16 11.8 4.0 2.8 .1058 1. 574 1.883 1. 728 0 0 6.48 13.6 4 

94 2.1 13.7 15 12.7 3.5 2.8 0 1. 894 2.238 1. 916 0 0 6.25 13.7 4 

135 2.2 14.5 8 12.8 6.2 2.8 .0022 2.335 2.754 2.370 0 0 8.84 14.5 4 

93 2.9 18.1 14 18. 1 4.8 4.2 0 2.577 3.071 2.654 0 0 14.7 18.1 5 

143 3.8 25.2 17 23.5 7.5 4.8 .1808 3.616 4.378 4.202 0 0 37.4 25.2 6 

83 4.7 45.6 52 23.8 6.8 3.3 5.135 3.325 3.973 3.629 0 0 70.1 44.6 6 

82 6.6 50.1 55 28.8 9.3 5.2 4. 235 6.524 8.151 8.541 0 0 99.9 42.6 6 

c 7 10.3 96.2 160 38.2 -- .1940 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 1 17.2 113.7 185 44.7 12.9 10.3 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 4 17.5 115.9 235 48.4 16.8 10.5 .6085 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 5 17.5 118.0 235 53.7 15.7 9.8 .2381 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 2 19.0 124.4 250 74.8 18.0 13.5 .2072 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 6 19.6 128.9 250 69.0 16.0 13.4 .1036 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

c 3 21.8 125. 3 250 61.3 20.2 13.2 .2844 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia. 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

WESTERN REDCEDAR 

37 0 1.8 6 1.8 1.4 1.1 0 0.0661 0.0661 0 0 0 0.02 1.8 2 

111 0 3.6 3 3.6 2.9 0.9 0 .3505 . 0882 0 0 0 .20 3.6 1 

132 0 3.7 6 3. 7 3.0 1.1 0 .3880 .0948 . 0728 0 () .18 3.7 2 

131 0.1 5.4 7 5.4 3.3 1.4 0.0044 .6614 .1587 .1676 0 0 . 31 5.4 2 

138 . 4 6.0 6 5.7 3.5 1.1 0 . 3219 .0794 .0595 0 0 .36 6.0 2 

44 . 8 7.7 15 7.7 4.8 2.0 0 1. 336 .3109 .5071 0 0 1 .45 7.7 3 

157 . 8 8.2 10 8.2 3.9 2.0 . 0463 l. 041 .2403 .4586 0 0 1. 39 8.2 3 

187 . 8 7.9 11 7.9 5.1 2.4 . 0485 .8951 . 2072 .3836 0 0 .91 7.9 3 

40 1.3 9.9 20 9.9 6.7 3.7 .1631 3.591 .8267 1.735 0 0 3.29 9.9 4 

.j:::. 140 1.5 10. 1 52 5.9 5.5 1.6 .1499 1. 854 .4299 .8532 0 0 3. 13 10.1 3 

.j:::. 

156 1.8 12.6 19 12.6 7.2 3.0 0 4.264 .9524 2.061 0 0 5.10 12.6 3 

39 2.0 11.8 13 11.8 8.4 3.4 0 5.609 l. 237 2.820 0 0 4.81 11.8 4 

74 2.1 16.2 16 15.2 5.1 2.4 .0816 3.609 .8201 1.768 0 0 6.13 16.2 4 

110 3.4 19.9 17 19.9 10.9 6.6 (j 12.97 2.822 6. 713 0 0 18. 1 19.9 6 

139 3.6 21.1 51 15.1 8.3 3.3 .0904 7. 778 1.706 3.968 0 0 20.3 21.1 6 

46 3. 7 20.1 27 20.1 8.5 5.5 . 0838 14.39 3.150 7.368 0 0 22.5 20.0 6 

49 4.2 24.3 48 18.9 8.0 4.0 . 1742 13.27 2.908 6.801 0 0 34.5 24.3 6 

136 6.1 50.0 150 23.9 11.2 3.8 4.861 11.09 2.381 5.807 1.142 0 81.0 38.7 6 

214 8.0 44.2 80 38.0 17.8 7.9 2.996 41.11 8.719 21.59 10.35 0 35.2 28.6 6 

77 10.6 67.6 84 51.5 15.8 8.9 16.62 52.99 11.30 27.85 12.51 0 55.0 30.0 6 

C28 12.6 66.2 99 45.3 16.0 9.7 16.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C48 15.5 77.0 76 68.1 20.3 13.9 29.58 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C29 17.6 77.9 106 56.4 22.6 13.2 40.43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

so 18.6 101.1 171 80.8 19.3 15.2 78.19 137.8 28.27 75.15 97.43 0 40.4 22.2 6 

185 21.0 105.2 237 76.0 26.0 16.4 108.0 154.6 31.40 85.07 138.5 0 45.2 24.3 6 

107 22.9 117.2 210 98.2 30.4 18.8 156.6 249.4 50.16 147.2 264.2 0 33.2 18.3 6 

191 26.3 107.3 210 84.3 24.1 21.4 178.5 212.9 42.58 118.8 284.6 9.275 33.5 2l.6 6 

106 26.6 126.5 210 80.2 23.0 19.3 195.1 226.2 45.53 125.5 237.1 0 29.5 16.2 6 
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia. : 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

WESTERN WI-liTE PINE 

28 0 2.8 9 2.8 2.3 -- 0 0.4343 0. 2072 0.1301 0 0 0.17 2.8 2 

29 0 3.5 10 3.5 3.1 0 .3990 .1653 0 0 0 .22 3.5 1 

52 0 2.8 6 2.6 2.0 0.8 0 .2756 .1191 .0331 0 0 .11 2.8 1 

112 0 2.8 4 2.8 2. 3. . 8 0 .1720 .0794 .0353 0 0 .12 2.8 1 

144 0.3 5.3 9 5.3 3.0 1.3 0.0002 .6834 .3307 .2138 0 0 .73 5.3 2 

60 .4 5.2 6 5.2 2.7 1.4 .0287 .8069 .4012 .3109 0 0 .62 5.2 2 

113 .5 5.4 7 3.9 3.5 1.8 . 0004 . 8774 . 4343 .3197 0 0 1. 22 5.4 2 

104 .9 7.5 9 7.0 4.0 2.2 0 1.495 .7694 .6614 0 0 2.22 7.5 3 

+::- 59 1.0 7.5 7 7.5 3.5 2.3 . 0375 1. 612 .8554 .8025 0 0 1.97 7.5 3 

U1 163 1.1 9.0 11 9.0 4.5 2.2 .0683 1.642 .8091 .7165 0 0 2.43 9.0 3 

177 1.4 7.8 11 7.8 4.4 2.0 .0002 l. 369 .6834 .5247 0 0 1. 97 7.8 2 

158 1.5 9.7 15 8.7 5.2 2.1 .0463 l. 585 . 7871 .5997 0 0 3.14 9.7 3 

73 1.6 11.5 9 10.5 5.0 2.4 .0794 2.090 1.049 .8356 0 0 3.92 11.5 3 

72 2.1 12.5 10 12.5 5.9 3.1 .1609 2.568 1. 376 l. 316 0 0 5.22 12.5 4 

79 2.3 11.1 31 10.0 5.6 3.2 .0002 4.535 2.502 2.584 0 0 7.20 11. 1 4 

109 2.5 14.8 19 12.0 5.4 2.8 .0926 3.155 1. 609 1. 347 0 0 9.62 14.8 4 

105 2.8 14.1 17 14.1 6.0 4.7 .1808 6.616 3.684 3.885 0 0 13.1 14.1 6 

216 4.7 26.3 55 15.1 10.8 4.0 4.991 10.72 5.781 5.650 0 0 44.2 26.3 6 

221 5.8 35.8 24 32.5 9.3 6.0 1. 931 20.67 11.83 13.26 0 0 55.2 32.3 6 

55 7.4 66.1 43 45.5 6.0 6.3 3. 790 13.90 7.789 8.320 0.1786 0 80.8 39.8 6 

C30 13.8 110.2 98 79.4 9.1 11.4 47.76 -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C34 15.6 85.0 160 68.8 10.3 14.4 33.59 -- -- -- 6 

C35 17. 1 106.8 186 82.9 7.6 15.3 12.29 -- -- -- 6 

C36 21.5 104.9 177 74.6 13.4 18.1 44.49 -- -- -- -- 6 

C33 22.1 136.9 144 88.3 9.5 17.1 5. 348 -- -- -- -- 6 

C38 24.7 126.4 169 87.1 15.7 19.2 49.11 -- -- -- -- 6 
Table 12.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole :Di

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip 

No. :D.b.h. :height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:bas

: : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Ivzches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inch

WliiTEBARK PINE 

192 0 2.5 15 1.5 1.3 0.8 0 0.1587 0.1124 0.0551 0 0 0.18 2.5 1 

226 0 4.4 14 4.0 1.6 1.2 0.0066 .2976 .2359 .0529 0 0 . 41 4.4 2 

230 0 3.5 6 2.4 2.1 .5 0 .0816 .0529 . 0397 0 0 .17 3.5 1 

197 0.2 4.8 26 4.2 1.6 1.3 0 .3241 .2491 .0728 0 0 .70 4.8 2 

.j:::.. 195 .4 5.3 25 4.6 1.0 1.0 .0198 .1411 .1235 0 0 0 .42 5.3 2 

0\ 228 . 8 6.5 67 6. 1 2.5 1.6 .0463 .6460 .4233 . 3064 0 0 1. 32 6.5 2 

196 1.3 8.0 45 5.5 2.7 1.8 .0529 .9061 .5666 .4850 0 0 2.3 8.0 3 

229 1.5 9.8 39 9.0 2.7 2.3 .1411 1.246 .7804 .6680 0 0 3.73 9.8 3 

193 1.8 10.0 50 8.2 2.0 2.3 .0088 1.179 .7452 .6195 0 0 5.52 10.0 3 

194 2.0 11.3 60 9.7 2.3 2.4 .0220 1. 299 .8003 . 7253 0 0 6.13 11.3 3 

232 3.3 17.9 102 10.5 3.4 3.0 .8466 2.394 1. 407 1.477 0 0 20.1 17.9 6 

231 3.4 15.0 63 11.1 3.5 4.2 2.668 3.062 1. 744 1. 975 0 0 13.5 15.0 6 

225 4.9 25.1 152 15.8 4.5 4.0 1.543 7.483 3.968 5.247 0 0 65.6 24.6 6 

227 5.0 16.9 150 16.1 4.3 6.0 .8973 9.610 4.683 7.359 0 0 28.3 16. 1 6 

237 6.4 38.4 175 27.4 7.0 5.9 2.156 13.72 6.371 11.17 1. 023 0 66.3 27.4 6 

C40 6.7 34.7 200 28.7 7.8 6.5 .7408 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

233 7.4 29.7 182 21.2 6.5 6.3 1. 795 19.21 8.931 15.92 2.564 -- 48.8 19.7 6 

C41 9.9 42.2 200 35.4 8.0 9.6 7.421 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 

C42 10.6 44.0 200 35.5 11.0 10.3 6.815 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 
Table 13.--Raw data foP intermediates 

: : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia. : 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h. :height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft YP Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

DOUGLAS-FIR 

802 0 3.8 28 1.1 3.3 0.3 0.0419 0. 1168 0.0860 0 0 0 0.22 3.8 1 

804 0 3.7 15 2.2 2.9 .9 .0441 .2668 .1918 0.0794 0 0 .38 3.7 1 

822 0 4.0 12 3.7 3.0 1.0 .0198 . 3858 .2888 0 0 0 .24 4.0 1 

853 0 3.6 12 2.6 2.0 .6 .0088 .1477 .1102 0 0 0 .15 3.6 1 

812 0.6 7. 7 14 5.1 2.8 . 8 .0220 . 3020 .2271 0 0 0 .69 7.7 2 

+::>. 805 . 9 6.6 35 2.5 3.5 1.1 .4343 .6283 .4409 .2800 0 0 1.48 6.6 2 

-....] 829 . 9 8.3 26 3.4 3.3 .8 .2293 .4012 .2954 .0485 0 0 1. 21 8.3 2 

840 1.0 9.5 24 5.5 3.6 .9 .0794 .5644 .4079 .1433 0 0 1. 07 9.5 2 

801 1.6 15.6 46 6.0 4.7 1.8 .2293 . 7584 .5027 .7319 0. 3770 0 4.49 15.6 3 

806 1.7 11. 1 40 8.1 5.5 2.0 1.094 2.134 1. 471 1.164 0 0 3.81 11.1 3 

803 2.1 15.6 51 6.0 4.5 1.6 . 3483 1. 552 1. 027 1. 314 0 0 8.80 15.6 4 

828 2.5 17.8 43 7.5 3.4 1.8 .6393 1. 726 1. 191 .9259 0 0 14.1 17.8 3 

815 4.1 30.2 38 8.7 6.5 2.7 1.455 3.962 2.604 3.567 0 0 42.4 30.2 6 

856 4.2 43.9 59 21.3 5.9 3.0 4.508 4.279 2.862 3.236 0 0 58.4 43.9 6 

857 6.7 57.4 85 41.4 5.5 5.6 7.897 7.791 5.132 6.997 1. 263 0 112.8 45.9 6 

871 6.9 48.1 74 30.9 11.2 5.7 5.983 25.34 16.33 26.67 2.648 0 82.5 35.2 6 1

858 7.5 69.9 76 46.7 5.1 6.0 9.855 8.309 5.390 8.609 2.258 0 80.9 37.9 6 

869 8.2 52.7 89 37.2 11.0 7.2 4.286 33.78 21.75 36.01 4.096 0 59.1 31. 1 6 2

881 8.6 47.7 145 28.5 13.9 6.6 10.25 20.03 12.61 26.35 11.45 0 55.7 25.6 6 2

860 10.2 77.0 74 26.8 11.1 6.0 59.17 14.97 9.504 17.97 4.676 0 54.0 26.8 6 

873 10.7 36.1 75 27.3 17.7 9.9 16.54 52.95 32.62 81.62 54.21 0 21.6 12.7 6 3

861 11.2 82.6 77 38.6 8.2 6.3 74.24 19.44 12.41 22.32 3.797 0 84.5 36.9 6 
Table 13.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole :Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h. :height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

GRAND FIR 

825 0 4.5 39 3.4 3.2 0.9 0.0463 0.5335 0.3020 0.1742 0 0 0.62 4.5 2 

827 0 4.5 24 2.4 3.0 .6 .0287 .2271 .1631 0 0 () . 37 4.5 1 

833 0 3.7 15 2.9 2.8 1.1 .0044 .3880 .2800 0 0 0 .28 3.7 1 

834 0 3.7 16 2.7 1.5 .6 .0066 .1808 .1301 0 0 0 . 11 3.7 1 

841 0 4.0 33 2.6 4.0 .9 . 0265 .4453 .2756 . 0860 0 0 .44 4.0 2 

832 0.3 5.3 28 2.8 4.5 .8 .0066 . 2998 .1896 .0529 0 0 .61 5.3 2 

.+:>. 842 .7 6.4 16 4.8 4.5 1.0 . 0265 .4608 .3064 . 0507 0 0 . 59 6.4 2 

00 838 1.0 9.5 34 9.2 6.0 1.9 .0838 2.191 l. 250 .6393 0 0 2.07 9.5 2 

810 1.5 8.3 45 6.4 4. 7 2.2 .1080 2.361 l. 389 . 6085 0 0 3.62 8.3 3 

835 1.5 9.1 48 8.2 5.0 2.6 .0198 4.015 2.130 1.865 0 0 3.54 9. 1 3 

807 2.1 12.4 36 9.0 6.8 2. 1 .2403 2.710 1.534 .8157 0 0 4. 14 12.4 3 

863 2.3 15.9 51 9.6 7.0 2. 1 l. 290 3.139 1.682 l. 426 0 0 8.51 15.9 3 

844 3.0 24.8 80 12.3 5.6 2.5 2. 372 4.634 2.438 2.275 0 0 21.0 24.8 4 

867 4.1 19.7 48 16.0 10.0 4.2 1.466 12.31 5.842 10.76 0.2976 0 24.1 19.7 6 

866 4.3 30.8 37 21.9 7.9 4.1 1.583 10.31 5.168 6.618 0 0 3.3. 3 30.8 6 

870 6.1 31.2 74 23.6 12.0 5.5 4.969 27.53 12.73 26.30 0 0 54.9 26.1 6 

882 7.7 54.0 100 39.0 9.8 7.4 19.91 20.72 10.14 15.25 0 0 47.2 28.0 6 

872 8.3 43.1 117 30.1 17.0 7.5 5.602 44.08 19.78 53.94 5.807 0 32.7 22.6 6 

886 8.4 55.7 98 37.2 10.2 6.9 l. 691 28. 73 13.47 28.04 11.65 0 55.8 28.3 6 

885 9.2 59.7 105 52.2 15.1 9.0 13.67 54.00 23.95 75.56 15.16 0 40.1 26.4 6 

887 10.0 64.8 115 54.6 14.0 9.5 44.21 32.31 14.59 39.77 4.899 0 44.7 24.8 6 

883 11.8 72.4 90 60.4 16. 1 10.6 22.84 31.4 7 13.42 54.15 14. 10 0 44.2 23.1 6 
Table 13.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : C

No. :D.b.h. :height:Age:length:width:base : weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: v

: : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

PONDEROSA PINE 

849 0 3.9 14 2.9 1.8 0.5 0.0044 0.0970 0.0375 0 0 0 0.68 3.9 1 

884 0 4.2 23 2.1 2.3 .5 .0088 .0992 . 0375 0 0 0 .18 4.2 1 

851 0.2 4.7 33 3.3 2.5 1.2 .0397 .4321 .1146 0.2624 0 0 .72 4.7 2 

852 .3 4.6 24 1.4 1.9 .6 .0088 .1477 . 0441 .0617 0 0 .38 4.6 1 

850 .4 5.3 33 3.1 3.0 .9 .1874 .1653 .0507 .0661 0 0 .63 5.3 2 

.:::.. 814 .9 6.8 17 4.2 2.8 1.4 .0198 .8157 .2161 .4762 0 0 1. 36 6.8 2 

1.0 843 1.0 9.8 43 6.1 3.5 1.2 .1235 .4674 .1213 .2800 0 0 1. 84 9.8 2 

848 1.2 9.4 48 2.2 3.0 .6 . 3417 .1565 .0463 .0661 0 0 1.68 9.4 2 

813 1.5 9.3 11 7.5 2.4 1.9 . OllO .6217 .1631 .3638 0 0 2.22 9.3 2 

846 1.8 14.6 51 3.2 3.3 .9 .8973 .3902 .0992 .2557 0 0 4.80 14.6 3 

845 2.7 28.3 65 11.4 5.4 1.6 2.469 1.543 .3836 1.083 0 0 13.7 28.3 4 

821 2.8 11.1 31 7.4 10.0 2.7 .5313 1. 969 .3858 2. 729 2.582 0 9.10 11. 1 6 

816 3.8 21. 7 48 14.8 8.7 3.3 5.902 3.805 .6945 6.305 7. 727 0 24.4 21.7 6 

811 4.4 37.4 57 18.8 4.0 3.0 3.752 4.987 1.113 4. 572 0 0 46.3 37.4 6 

847 4.5 38.7 65 18.1 7.0 3.0 3.640 2.546 .5710 1. 001 0 0 49.5 38.7 6 

868 6.2 53.9 75 19.7 5.5 3.5 5. 013 5.395 1-ll1 6. 358 2.348 0 83.9 48.2 6 

854 6.9 70.5 73 34.5 5.0 3.7 8.190 4.601 .8ll3 8.420 12.32 0 73.2 34.5 6 

877 8.1 40.3 140 18.0 9.7 5.4 12.52 6.625 1-129 12.76 19.12 0 48.5 27.7 6 

855 8.8 53.8 76 15.1 3.2 3.3 20.61 3.545 .5953 7. 088 ll. 21 0 44.3 18.9 6 

878 10.8 50.3 lOS 26.8 13.3 8.0 39.97 11.17 1.579 35.57 95.62 0 38.6 17.6 6 1

876 12.1 67.1 ll3 43.8 15.3 8.6 38.09 18.88 3-146 39.81 69.88 0 51.6 27.8 6 4
'-·~ 

Table 13.--(con.) 

: : : : : : : : : : 

Live : :Dia. : Dead : : Live crown weight : Bole : Bole : Dia.: 

Tree: : Tree : :crown :Crown:crown: branch : : Branchwood (inches) : tip : tip :tip : 

No. :D.b.h.:height:Age:length:width:base: weight : Foliage: 0 to 0.25:0.25 to 1: 1 to 3 : 3+ :weight: length:base: 

: : : : : : : : : : : : : 

Inches Ft Yr Ft Ft Inches Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb - - - - - - - - - - - - Lb Ft Inches 

WESTERN REDCEDAR 

820 0 4.0 26 2.1 2.7 0. 7 0.0353 0.2822 0.0794 0.0838 0 0 0.36 4.0 1 

831 0 3.7 24 3.0 3. 7 .8 .0088 .3086 . 0904 .0639 0 0 . 21 3.7 1 

836 0 4.2 16 3.7 5.4 . 8 . 0022. .2954 .0860 .0617 0 0 .20 4.2 1 

839 0 4.3 24 2.9 6.3 .8 .0309 .3946 .1124 .1124 0 0 . 36 4.3 1 

809 0.1 5.2 55 3.0 4.8 1.0 .0617 .5467 .1609 .1036 0 0 .78 5.2 2 

824 . 3 4.7 26 2.5 4.3 . 7 .1631 . 3461 .1014 .0705 0 0 .56 4.7 2 

U1 826 .5 5.8 so 3.3 4.5 . 8 .0331 .3329 .0926 .1058 0 0 .57 5.8 2 

0 

837 .6 8.0 21 6.1 4.0 1.1 .0419 .6658 .1874 .1984 0 0 . 84 8.0 2 

818 . 7 6.2 37 3.4 4.3 1.0 . 0617 . 7716 .2183 .2138 0 0 1. 09 6.2 2 

819 1.3 10.4 40 7.4 5.1 1.8 .0287 2.313 .6327 .8378 0 0 3.00 10.4 3 

808 1.4 10.3 43 8.4 5.3 2.0 . 2116 2.136 .5776 .8223 0 0 3.02 10.3 3 

817 3.5 20.1 64 11.7 8.0 3.0 1.424 5.959 1.552 2.822 0 0 17.3 20.1 6 

823 3. 7 23.3 70 13.1 11.1 3.0 2.260 6.592 1.676 3.644 0 0 22.3 23.3 6 

862 4.0 22.0 57 16.6 13.0 4.0 1.369 11.45 2.961 5.681 0 0 19.1 22.0 6 

830 4.8 29.0 58 13.0 5.8 3.3 3.360 11.03 2.703 7.553 1. 210 0 44.4 29.0 6 

874 6.0 43.7 71 27.2 13.7 5.1 5.827 22.15 5.417 15.43 2. 511 0 69.0 38.5 6 

859 6.6 43.5 72 20.9 14.5 4.9 9.387 20.71 4.967 16.03 5.465 0 34.9 32.8 6 

864 8.3 55.0 77 24.6 14.7 6.5 20.20 38.83 9.198 32 .19 13.15 0 28.8 21.7 6 

880 8.6 51.7 162 27.5 18.3 6.2 5.816 25.75 6.069 22.13 12.91 0 47.0 25.7 6 

875 10.3 51.8 74 37.8 19.8 8.9 9.330 56.50 13.13 53.04 74.62 0 26.9 19.9 6 

879 10.4 52.9 110 41.5 12.3 8.4 9.456 27.26 6.444 22.93 13.53 0 49.8 22.0 6 

865 10.6 64.3 70 39.9 22.4 8.2 17.82 61.29 14.28 55.69 36.07 0 28.8 22.7 6 
Table 14.--Distribution of sample trees by d.b.h. 

from data by Fahnestock (1960) and 

Storey and others (1955) 

D. b. h. S_eecies 

(inches): GF L s LP WP c : pp : DF WH 

2- 5.9 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 

6- 9.9 1 1 2 6 2 2 1 3 1 

10-13.9 6 2 29 10 6 3 5 

14-17.9 5 11 2 4 11 5 3 11 1 

18-21.9 6 11 3 5 1 7 5 3 

22-25.9 3 2 6 1 1 2 

26-29.9 1 2 1 

30-33.9 1 1 

34-37.9 1 2 1 

38-43.9 1 2 

Total 18 36 20 41 32 17 13 23 15 

51 
APPENDIX III 

Foliage and Branchwood Proportions 

Table 15. --Foliage and branchuJood proportions for crowns 

of trees 1 inch and less in d.b.h. 

Crown Species 

Live s, AF, c, GF, WH 

Dominants 

DF, WP, LP, WBP 

pp 

L 

Live 

Intermediates DF, GF 

PP, c 

Dead 

Intermediates DF, GF, PP, c 

52 

:Foliage 

0.62 

.52 

.57 

.40 

.55 

.63 

Branchwood 

0 to 0.25 

0.25 to 1 

0.26 0.12 

.27 . 21 

.14 .29 

.42 .18 

.39 .06 

.20 .17 

.94 .06 
Table 16.--Accumulative proportions of foliape and branchwood by size classes for live .. . crowns of dominants greater than 1 inch d.b.h . 

Spe- : Function R2 Conditions c1es: 

GF P1 1/(1.592 + 0.0529d) 0.94 If d >36.0 in, P1 = 0.286, P2 = 0.378, P3 0.488 

P2 1/(1.150 + 0.0416d) .96 

P3 1. 027 - 0.0150d) .94 If d <2.9 in, P3 = 1.0 

.. L P1 0.347 EXP(-0.0434d) .93 

P2 0.745 EXP(-0.0362d) .93 

P3 1.054 EXP(-0.0213d) .91 If d <2.9 in, P3 = 1.0 

P4 0.922 + 0.720/d .07 Ifd"<11.0 in, P4 1.0 

s P1 0.578 EXP(-0.0325d) .97 If d >40.0 in, P1 0.158, P2 0.277, P3 0.423 

P2 0.852 EXP(-0.0281d) .97 

P3 1.038 - 0.0154d .95 If d <2. 9 in, P3 = 1.0 

AF P1 0.597 EXP(-0.0425d) . 74 

P2 0.864 EXP(-0.0373d) . 72 

P3 1. 022 0.0108d .50 If d <2.9 in, P3 1.0 

LP P1 0.493 0.0117d .76 

P2 o. 777 0.0146d .70 

P3 1.049 0.0140d .55 If d <3.9 in, P3 1.0 

WP P1 0.550 EXP(-0.0345d) .95 

P2 0.914 - 0. 0978/d .91 

P3 1. 056 EXP(-0.0181d) .87 If d <3.9 in, P3 = 1.0 -

WBP P1 0.512 EXP(-0.0374d) .62 If d >20 in, P1 = 0.242, P2 0.268, P3 0.669 

P2 0.864 EXP(-0.0585d) .75 

P3 1. 077 EXP(-0.0238d) .53 If d <3.9 in, P3 = 1.0 

c P1 0.617 E XP (- 0 . 0 2 3 3d) .98 

P2 0. 756 EXP(-0.0241d) .98 

P3 1.060 EXP(-0.0223d) .98 If d ~2.9 in, P3 = 1.0 

PP P1 0.558 EXP(-0.0475d) .89 If d <31 in, P2 = P1 + 0.01 - P2 0.625 EXP(-0.0511d) .89 

,··1 

.l P3 0.985 EXP(-0.0310d) .85 If d <1.0 in, P3 1.0 

P4 1.083 - 0.0131d .70 If d "<6. 5 in, P4 1.0 

DF P1 0.484 EXP(-0.0210d) .95 If d >36. 0 in, P1 = 0.227, P2 0.315, P3 0.465 

P2 0.729 EXP(-0.0233d) .95 

P3 1. 034 0.0158d . 95 If d <2.9 in, P3 = 1.0 

P4 1.022 - 0.00182d .43 If d "<14.0 in, P4 1.0 

WH P1 0.547 EXP(-0.0370d) .96 If d >40.0 in, P1 0.125, P2 0.183, P3 0.361 

P2 0.835 EXP(-0.0380d) .97 

P3 1.0781 EXP(-0.0274d) .94 If d <2.9 in, P3 = 1.0 

53 
Table 17.--Accumulative proportions of foliage and branchwood 

by size classes foP live cr~ns of intermediates 

greateP than 1 inch d.b.h. 

Species: Function R2 Conditions 

c Pl 0.667 EXP(-0.0608d) 0.93 

P2 0.857 EXP(-0.0653d) .94 

P3 1. 031 EXP(-0.0270d) .73 If d ~1.0, P3 1.0 

GF Pl 0.571 EXP(-0.0544d) .93 . -: ... ~ :' .. ;, P2 0.929 EXP(-0.0678d) .93 

P3 1. 016 EXP(-0.0098d) .59 If d _:::_1.0, P3 1.0 

OF Pl 0.514 EXP(-0.0552d) .74 

P2 0.886 EXP(-0.0610d) . 75 

P3 1.0067 EXP(-0.013ld) .38 If d ~1.0, P3 1.0 

pp Pl 0.650 EXP ( -0. 154d) .79 

P2 0.844 EXP(-0.166d) .80 

P3 1. 086 EXP(-0.0833d) .75 If d ~1.0~ P3 1.0 

54 
Table lB.--Accumulative proportions o.f brcmchuJood by size classes .for 

dead crowns of dom-inants and intermediates greater than 

1 inch d. b. h.~ 

Species Function R2 Conditions 

omHNANTS 

GY:: .P1 1.434 E XP ( - 0 . 18 2 d) 0.77 If d <3.0 in, Pl = 1.0 

P2 1. 262 EXP(-0.0347d) . 17 If d >27.0 in, Pl = 0.01 

If d <8.0 in, P2 1.0 

OF P1 0.0836 + (1. 589/d) .81 If d <1. 8 in, P1 1.0 

P2 1.567 EXP(-0.0523d) .56 If d <9.0 in, P2 1.0 

s P1 1 . 4 6 6d (- O • G 4 5) .77 If d <1.8 in, P1 1.0 

P2 1/(0.847 + 0.0168d) .34 If d <10.0 in, P2 = 1.0 

AF P1 1.210d(-0.565) .62 If d <1.5 in, Pl = 1.0 

LP P1 1. 353d C-o. 7ss) .95 If d >20.0 in, Pl = 0.139 

P2 2.798 EXP(-0.126d) .77 If d >20.0 in, P2 = 0.226 

If d <9.0 in, P2 1.0 

If d <1.5 in, Pl = 1.0 

WP P1 1.0077d(-0. 456 ) .49 

P2 1. 029 - 0.00496d .12 If d <7.0 in, P2 1.0 

c P1 -0.0158 + (1.467/d) .87 If d <1.5 in, P1 1.0 

P2 1.453 EXP(-0.0540d) .66 If d <8.0 in, P2 1.0 

pp P1 1.411/d - 0.0434 .60 If d >30.0 in, P1 0.004 

P2 1. 062 0.0334d .69 If d >30.0 in, P2 0.06 

WH P1 1.961 EXP(-0.206d) .79 If d <4.0 in, P1 = 1.0 

P2 1. 0/ (0. 277 + 0.0614d) .24 If d >28.0 in, P1 0.005 

If d <12.0 in, P2 = 1.0 

INTERMEDIATES 

c P1 0.361d(-O.S 3 S) .60 

GF P1 1.549d (-1.089) .81 If d <1.5, Pl = 1.0 

If d >10.5, P2 = 0.88, P3 1.0 

OF Pl 0.0790 + 1. 248/d .46 If d <1.4, P1 1.0 

If d >1.4, P2 1.0 

pp P1 0.513d(- 1 • 079 ) .46 If d <3.4, P2 1.0 

P2 1/0.379 + 0.180d .65 If d >3.4, P3 1.0 

55 
Table 19.--Accumulative proportions of folioge and branchwoodl7by size 

class for entire trees less than 15 feet in heipht1 

SpeciesY 

C, GF, S, AF 

WP 

DF, PP, LP, H 

L, WBP 

C, GF 

DF 

pp 

Height 

(feet) 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

0- 4.9 

5- 9.9 

10-14.9 

No. 

sample 

trees 

Foliage 

DOMINANTS 

17 

26 

11 

4 

8 

5 

16 

23 

14 

9 

7 

8 

0.51 

.40 

.33 

.48 

.31 

.25 

.38 

.31 

.27 

.26 

.21 

.15 

INTERMEDIATES 

10 

9 

3 

4 

4 

1 

4 

5 

2 

.38 

.32 

.41 

.34 

.23 

. 25 

.24 

.18 

.16 

Branchwood (inches) 

0 to 0.25 1 to 

0.25 to 1 : 3 3+ 

0.72 

.56 

.45 

.69 

.47 

.37 

.56 

.45 

.38 

.49 

.40 

.29 

.56 

.47 

.55 

.59 

.40 

.42 

.32 

.23 

.19 

0.95 

.73 

.63 

.99 

.65 

.52 

.94 

.68 

.57 

.87 

.66 

.45 

.96 

.76 

.71 

1. 00 

.67 

.58 

.91 

.51 

.43 

1. 00 

"99 

.92 

1. 00 

1. 00 

.89 

1. 00 

1. 00 

. 87 

1. 00 

1. 00 

.89 

1. 00 

1. 00 

1. 00 

1. 00 

1. 00 

1. 00 

1. 00 

.99 

1. 00 

1. 00 

1.00 

1. 00 

1.00 

1. 00 

l/ Coefficients of variation averaged over the foliage and branchwood 

categories of all species groups were 16, 17, and 25 percent for the~ to 

4.9-foot, 5- to 9.9-foot, and 10- to 14.9-foot height classes, respectively. 

Fractions for individual species are within 20 percent of the group 

average. 

'S} U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-0- 777-095-48 

56 
.) ; - .. - .& ' 

Brown, James K. 

1978. Weight and density of crowns of Rocky Mountain conifers. 

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-197, 56 p. Intermt. For. 

and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah 84401. 

Relationships between live and dead crown weight and d. b. h. 

(ranging from 0 to 40 inches), crown length, tree height, and crown 

ratio are presented for 11 conifer species in the Rocky Mountains. 

KEYWORDS: crown weight, tree biomass, forest fuels, crown volume, 

crown bulk density. 

Brown, James K. 

1978. Weight and density of crowns of Rocky Mountain conifers. 

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-197, 56 p. Intermt. For. 

and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah 84401. 

Relationships between live and dead crown weight and d. b. h. 

(ranging from 0 to 40 inches), crown length, tree height, and crown 

ratio are presented for 11 conifer species in the Rocky Mountains. 

KEYWORDS: crown weight, tree biomass, forestfuels, crown volume, 

crown bulk density. 

J - _.p_ -. 
• I 

. i 

. I 

_ I 1. ~ .;j .,._ ._ ._£!§@ j§ 

Headquarters for the Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station are in Ogden, Utah. 

Field programs and research work units are 

maintained in: 

Billings, Montana 

Boise, Idaho 

Bozeman, Montana (in cooperation with 

Montana State University) 

Logan, Utah (in cooperation with Utah State 

University) 

Missoula, Montana (in cooperation with 

University of Montana) 

Moscow, Idaho (in cooperation with the 

University of Idaho) 

Provo, Utah (in cooperation with Brigham 

Young University) 

Reno, Nevada (in cooperation with the 

University of Nevada) 

. '.