Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of air-photo scale on early detection of Mountain Pine Beetle infestation Hobbs, Alison Jane 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A6_7 H62.pdf [ 8.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095675.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095675-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095675-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095675-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095675-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095675-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095675-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095675-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095675.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS OF AIR-PHOTO SCALE ON EARLY DETECTION OF MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE INFESTATION  by  ALISON JANE HOBBS B.Sc.  (hons.)» The U n i v e r s i t y  of London, 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard  The  University  of B r i t i s h  J u l y 1983 ® A l i s o n Jane Hobbs  Columbia  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by  department or by h i s or her  the head o f  representatives.  my  It is  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be  allowed without my  permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6  (3/81)  Columbia  written  i  ABSTRACT  Colour-infrared 1:1000, pine  1:2000,  (Pinus  active  infestation. techniques  1:3000 and 1:4000,  contorta  mountain  Dougl.) stand  pine  beetle  were a p p l i e d  of i n c i p i e n t  foliaged  trees  which  study  to these  photo-interpretation  at scales  1:4000 f o r e a r l y d e t e c t i o n  of mountain  Hopkins)  to determine i f  by m o u n t a i n p i n e  1:1000,  an  photo-interpretation  be d e t e c t e d  to determine  of  lodgepole  undergoing  transparencies  mortality could  was  was  of a  (Dendroctonus ponderosae  following attack  of t h i s  at scales  were o b t a i n e d  V i s u a l and d e n s i t o m e t r i c  symptoms  purpose  positive transparencies,  from  beetle.  the e f f i c i e n c y 1:2000, pine  greenThe  of  1:3000,  and  beetle-attacked  trees. Visual into  damage t y p e s .  mination scale.  Results  healthy  indicated that  as h e a l t h y  from  attacked  The  Total  slower green  response  differed  a t 1:4000 t h a n t r e e s was  8 3 % a t 1:2000,  than  with  a  deter-  a t each  were  correctly  Separation  an o v e r a l l  9 1 % a t 1:3000, a t 1:4000,  trees  of  accur-  and 8 3 % a t  however,  was  at the larger scales.  (TG), t o t a l  values  trees  a t 1:1000.  achieved  of  allowed  classification  15% fewer  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process  considerably  classification  ground-checking  o f damage t y p e  o f 89% a t 1:1000,  1:4000.  film  Subsequent  of accuracy  classified  acy  interpretation involved  r e d (TR) and t o t a l  of t h e images  infrared  of n e w l y - i n f e s t e d  from measurements of the h e a l t h y  trees.  At  (TIR)  trees 1:1000,  images (p  <  of  .05)  response icant  of  TIR  response  values,  when  for  trees  which  spectrum. was  the  reduction light,  by  scale of  to in  with The  other the  the  manager  70  of  mm  lodgepole  change.  to  TG  and  TR  non-attacked the  TG  and  pine,  higher  film  trees.  TR at  Signif-  response 1:2000,  1:3000  change  in  the  green-red  foliage  of  the  recently-attacked  scales.  for  in  of  with  portion  such  as  were  photographic  significant  data  film  suggest  a  is  differences in  1:4000 p h o t o g r a p h s  would  the  the  when  significant  dye-layers  to  reflected  scale.  this  a  of  the  This  study  colour-infrared  foliage pine.  There  response  mountain  methods, upon  for  interpretation  r e a c t i o n of  results  forest  rely  measured  Visually  decrease  of  detection  with  some  film  tation  other  compared  significantly  green.  degree  compared  relative  suggests  Densitometric affected  indicated  recently-attacked lodgepole  1:4000, the  trees  values  d i f f e r e n c e s were  values, and  newly-stressed  valuable pine  that  photographs management  beetle  aerial  colour  indicated  attacked  would  tool  for  the  early compared  which  r e c o g n i t i o n of  interpre-  provide  for  timber  sketch-mapping,  change  visual  to  generally dead  iii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS Page  ABSTRACT TABLE  OF  i CONTENTS  i  LIST  OF  TABLES  LIST  OF  F I G U R E S AND  i  i v  PLATES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  x  1.  INTRODUCTION  1  2.  BACKGROUND AND 2.1  L I T E R A T U R E SURVEY  The b i o l o g y  and e c o l o g y  2  of the mountain  pine  beetle  2  2.2  Management  2.3  The r o l e damage  3.  4.  2.4  Early  2.5  Colour  2.6  Study  THE  STUDY  strategies  of remote  9  sensing  i n d e t e c t i o n and  appraisal  13  d e t e c t i o n of v e g e t a t i o n infrared  film  response  objectives  stress to spectral  15 change..  23 23  AREA  26  3.1  D e s c r i p t i o n of the study  3.2  Selection  of the study  METHODS  area  area  26 27  30  4.1  Marking  the study  4.2  Aerial  photography  area  30 30  IV  4.3  Photo-interpretation  31  4.4  Densitometry  33  4.5  Field  verification  38  4.5.1  Laboratory  4.6  Statistical 4.6.1  RESULTS  analysis  Statistical and  5.  analysis  AND  scale  of tree  of f i e l d  analysis  cores  41  data  of f i l m  42 response  effects  43  DISCUSSION  5.1  Biological  5.2  Qualitative  44  data  44  interpretation  of  colour-infrared  photos  47  5.2.1 5.3  Statistical  6.  CONCLUSIONS  7.  LITERATURE  APPENDIX  Comparison  I  analysis  of f i l m  1982 p h o t o g r a p h s . . .  response  data  54 60 85  CITED  89  Histograms each  APPENDIX  o f 1981 w i t h  of  five  II Histograms each  of s i x f i l m  of  of f i v e  damage  response  variables  in  classes  six film  response  attack classes  95  variables  in 126  LIST  OF T A B L E S  Table I  Page Number tions  and a r e a  by p r o v i n c i a l  killed  trees  British II  of mountain  before  observed  Columbia  Structure  region  pine  beetle  based  during  infesta-  on r e c e n t l y  aerial  observations,  1982  of pine  8  needles  (Pinus  a n d 10 m o n t h s a f t e r  ponderosa  mountain  pine  Laws.)  beetle  attack III  20  Damage  types  conditions aerial IV  V  VI  as seen  on  large  scale  describe  tree  colour-infrared 32  o f ANOVA  for field  data  classified  according  to attack  o f ANOVA  for field  data  classified  according  t o damage  Results tions  to qualitatively  photographs  Results tions  used  Number  of lodgepole  agents,  as they  Tranquille  pine  occur  Valley  site,  type  popula-  status  of t r e e  s t r e s s e d by  by d a m a g e  study  of t r e e  45  popula-  class  46  environmental i n the  Kamloops,  B.C.,  1981 VII  49  Accuracy stessed original of  a  of p h o t o - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of healthy trees  of the 4 s c a l e s  colour-infrared  lodgepole  Valley,  a t each  pine  Kamloops,  positive  stand  B.C.,  and  using the  transparencies  i n the T r a n q u i l l e  1981  53  vi  VIII  Accuracy and  attacked  trees  the  original  colour-infrared  cies  Kamloops,  A comparison 1982  X  results  damage cies  class  XI  ANOVA  ANOVA film  response from  55  as they  colours with the appear  of a lodgepole  Valley, of f i l m  on c o l o u r -  pine  stand i n  1981  56  response  pine  values  from  stand  CIR  f o r each transparen-  i n the Tranquille 62  of f i l m  response  values  f o r each  showing values  Valley,  results  total  film  effects f o r each  response  Valley,  of s c a l e damage  change  class  of lodgepole  on  inter-  pine,  1981  showing  of lodgepole  Tranquille  69  CIR p h o t o g r a p h s  ANOVA  gory  i n the Tranquille  category  Tranquille XIII  transparen-  1981  results  preted  stand  as i n t e r p r e t e d  results  attack XII  colours  of a lodgepole  Valley,  positive  using  B.C., 1981  photographs  Tranquille  ANOVA  pine  non-attacked  of the 4 scales  o f 1981 d a m a g e - t y p e  damage-type  infrared the  a t each  of a lodgpeole  Valley, IX  of p h o t o - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  76  effects  values  pine 1981  of s c a l e  f o r each  change  attack  "ground-checked"  on  cate-  i nthe 77  vii  LIST  OF  FIGURES  AND  PLATES  Figure 1.  Page The  life  c y c l e of  relation 2.  Areas pine  3.  of  of  5.  Generalized  7.  for  8.  map  by  mountain  mountain  pine  beetle  spectrum  17  on  which  are  green  reflectance 18  film  to r e f l e c t a n c e  foliage  the  beetle  94),  for healthy  needles  of  24  Tranquillie  study  site  (Wr.  93)  River  area  with  marked  transmittance  green  28  curves  and  red  of  (Wr.  the 92)  filters  S p e c t r a l response Infrared  5  10  colour-infrared  pine  (Wr.  caused  by  superimposed  Spectrophotometric  gelatin 9.  attacked  in coniferous  Topographic  blue  i t s  7  damaged  of  mountain  loss  and  forest  r e f l e c t a n c e curves  needles  changes  pine  beetle  i n B.C  electromagnetic  Response  pine  Columbia  The  6.  timber  trees  4.  curves  mountain  lodgepole  recent  British  pine  the  beetle  Numbers in  to  the  35 curves  2443 f i l m  CC20 magenta  colour  using  f o r Kodak  Aerochrome  a  12  Wratten  compensating  filter  filter  and  a 36  viii  10.  Cross  tabulation  mountain pine  pine  f o r each  photographs  o f damage  beetle of four  classification  attack  status  scales  of the Tranquille  of  of  vs.  lodgepole  colour-infrared  Valley  study  site,  1981 11.  Film  50 response  healthy 12.  Film  response  mountain Effect red  pine  red  deviation  histograms  of  vs. lodgepole beetle,  Valley,  film  1981  70  colour-infra-  of lodgepole  pine  i n the 78  class  film  of lodgepole  pine  response i n the  1981  on t o t a l  79 response  to lodgepole  pine  pine  Tranquille  beetle,  of scale  ratios  f o r lodgepole pine  by  1981  Effect  mountain  of  63  stressed  Valley,  response  vs.  1981  non-attacked  on c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d  Valley,  of s c a l e  pine  Tranquille  on t o t a l  by damage  mountain 16.  Valley,  by d a m a g e - c l a s s  Tranquille Effect  Tranquille  of s c a l e  ratios,  15.  pine,  of s c a l e  film,  Effect  of s t r e s s e d  pine  Tranquille 14.  histograms  lodgepole  lodgepole  13.  deviation  of  i n an a r e a  beetle,  film  i n an a r e a  Tranquille  infested  Valley,  on c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d pine  colour-infra-  1981  80  response  infested  Valley,  by  1981  with 81  IX  Plates 1  A mosaic study  2 & 3  CIR  o f 1:4,000 CIR c o n t a c t  site,  Tranquille  Valley,  s t e r e o p a i r s (1:2,000)  prints 1981  39  of lodgepole  infested  with  mountain  compared  with  p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e same  1981  pine  o f t h e MPB  beetle  pine  newly-  i n 1981 trees i n 52  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I  gratefully  constructive Dr.  Nedenia  field. Min.  criticism  P.A. M u r t h a ,  thank  I also  the guidance,  provided  t o me  D r . J.A. McLean  Holm  f o rassistance  thank  of Forests,  equipment.  acknowledge  members  Kamloops,  b y my  support and thesis  committee:  a n d M r . P. G i m b a r z e v s k y . and companionship  of the Forest  f o rtheir  advice  I  i nt h e  Protection  Branch,  and l o a n of  1  1.  INTRODUCTION The  Hopkins, infests and  mountain is a  ponderosa  name  mature  pines  The  million  cubic  regions  Pinus  a  beetle  metres  1974).  a  20  1981  of  B.C.  with  In  than also  recent  resulting be  annual  harvest a  valuable causes  height  a  effectively  necessary.  colour-infrared  (van  by  5,000  and to  Sickle  lost. in  reduction  e_t a l . 15.7  forest  to  1982).  3  1/2  In  economic  (Manning  Mountain  pine  beetle  values,  wildlife  distribution  of  separate  1/2  aesthetic of  pest  beetle  of  Cariboo 1  appro-  that  the  loss  $450 m i l l i o n  is  reduction  insect  (Safranyik  the  than  amounts  timber  within  espec-  habitat; the  a  forest,  hazard. guidelines  infestation  implemented, study  killed  in  an  estimated  1974  Nelson  possible  diameter  fire  MPB  This  infestations.  and  management  from  in  kill  r e c r e a t i o n a l areas;  Various  were  the  It  Englemann,  killer",  serious  been  year  i n more  represents  increased  has  timber  of  loss  an  a  forests.  latifolia  "tree  most  resulted  the  and  the  attack  terms  in  means  It  ponderosae,  Lawson.  beetle  metres  change  is  var.  ending  of  in  ponderosa,  timber  area  ially  contorta  Canada.  the  infestation  Columbia  period  area  More  British  that  times  1982).  Dendroctonus  year  throughout  the  of  Pinus  i n Western  over  locations  pest  (MPB),  name D e n d r o c t o n u s  for  40,000 c u b i c B.C.,  beetle  pine,  pine,  Latin  priate  in  chronic  lodgepole  The  pine  exist.  early  evaluated  photographs  in  aimed  at  However,  detection the  the  reducing  use  early  of  of  losses  before  these  infestation  large  detection  scale of  can  is  aerial MPB  2  2.  BACKGROUND AND  2.1  The As  about pine  biology a  the  result  per  year  and  complete  tree  the  collect The  tree  between  11:00  very  lodgepole  The  mountain  forests. radiates occur  out  from  a  by  detailed studies  much  is  and  During  spores  days  in  of  6:00  (Amman  emerge  of  in  July  host  process,  the  adult  a  and  structure f l y from  exceeding  warm  part  on  the  15°C.  of  the  day,  1982).  extend  adult  inflict  over  within  beetles  a  a  1-2  are  extensive  month  or  so,  week  available  damage  on  mature,  pine. pine  beetle an  small  groups of  20  of  to  increase  in  beetle  populations,  (greater  than  cm)  i s endemic  epiphytotic  stand  under  the  beetles  forest  phloem  during  mature the  mycangium, merge  lodgepole  of  the  only  known  generation  bark  feeding  may  to  the  now  in  one  beetles  within  beetles  the  thick  The  temperatures  p.m.  numbers time  completes  the  will  occurs  the  frequency  20.0  i t s epidemiology  feeding  beetles  Occasionally  with  rapidly  short  beetle  1977).  adult  large  pine  Carolin  and  of  mountain  beetle  several  of  the  the  fungal  80%  Thus,  vigorous  and  a.m.  generally  a  general  SURVEY  of  beetle  activity  Emergence  within  pine  adult  after  flight  period.  several  emergence.  Maximum  but  of  ecology  maturation  to  head.  host  In  (Furniss  prior  beetles  and  mountain  forests.  LITERATURE  averaging  suitable  years,  which  e l e v a t i o n a l and  age  which  Infestations on  how  favour  diameter of  pine  occur,  depending  i.e. large years  will  trees.  conditions  80  lodgepole  outbreak  infested  40  presents  in  and  climatic  an  trees having conditions  3  (Roe  a n d Amman  1 9 7 0 ; Amman  and Baker  1972; S a f r a n y i k  et al.  1974). Initially on  detection  thought boring  of host  into  maximum  t h e bark  which  tree  Neighbouring  beetles  i s evident  around  the tree  points  where  enter  the outer  vertically  within  them  Hunt,  within  and Europhium  and  xylem,  eventual  that  tree  subsequently Generally, period to  entered bark,  stain  results  mortality begin  trees  show  attack  Once  spring.  by " p i t c h i n g  i n cracks  which  they  layer.  mark t h e  have  The b e e t l e s montia  and n u t r i e n t  Foliage  until  Occasionally,  out" adult  of t h e phloem  s t r e s s , and  summer-early  change  which  and v e r t i c a l l y  occlusion  1978).  carry  (Rumbold)  and Davidson,  radially  i n the late  no v i s i b l e  dust  An i n f e s t e d  are constructed  causes  (Shrimpton  preventing  infested.  tubes  Ceratocystis  which  i s achieved  thereby  of boring  Robinson  starts  When  and breed.  egg g a l l e r i e s  i n water  t o fade  i n the following  resist  t o feed  and spread  tree  become  and p i t c h  fungi,  of the tree  to the tree.  the tree.  clavigerum  the ray cells  t h e stem  the tree  selection i s  t h e female  f o rthat  then  t h e phloem-cambial  two b l u e  penetrate  trees  trees  an a g g r e g a t i o n  i s released,  and a t t h e base  beetles  Once  beetles  diameter  the f i n a l  she emits  due t o t h e p r e s e n c e  penetrated  with  1982).  beetles  pheromone  to large  however  of a tree,  of attacking  anti-aggregation  The  (Amman  a t t r a c t s other  density  overcrowding.  are oriented  volatiles,  t o be by v i s i o n  pheromone  an  the adults  will fall.  t h e new  growth  the tree  beetles  before  i s able any  4  damage  i s caused  resinosis of  the  of  tree The  the  inner  one  l a r v a e become  end  of  again June  mountain  bark,  the  lay  which  their  sides  week  and  dormant  of  response serves  eggs  i s brought  as  a  about  defense  the  i n niches,  gallery.  larvae begin in  late  thus  mid-July. beetle  This  by  mechanism  1978).  in April,  to  pine  tree.  females  along  approximately  feeding  the  (Shrimpton  adult  alternating  The  to  i n the  feeding  groups  eggs  hatch  in  on  the  phloem.  October/November  and  begin  completing  Figure  The  in  their  1 shows  context  of  the  the  maturation life  cycle  lodgepole  at  the  of  the  pine  system. There mountain noted  i s some  pine  that  beetle  the  (Hopping  this  be  the it  most has  stands  by  a to  current  vigour  the  could  mountain of  A  that  5-year value  successful  by  outbreaks  be  more  mountain  rated beetle  stand  of  than  pine  beetle  killed  the  and  most  beetle  occur  in  Mahoney  why  been p r e v i o u s l y  first Amman  in a  new  1969).  From  vigorous  trees  attack.  However,  an  equation  to r e s i s t a n c e / s u s c e p t The  measure  of  Periodic  Growth  Ratio  current  5-year  increment  and  indicates attack,  are  physiologically  infestation.  the  reasons  developed  according  dominant 1.0  the  I t has  Cole  pine  i s the  dividing  increment of  i n fact  1978).  are  1948;  mountain  pine  the  is calculated  past  pine.  that  trees  Beall  (Mahoney  stand  ibility  which  and  deduced  shown  weakened which  diameter  s u s c e p t i b l e to  been  surrounding  epiphytotics occur.  large  infestation i t may  controversy  co-dominant a  stand  while  (PGR),  lodgepole  resistant  a PGR  of  by  less  to than  6  0.9  indicates  ibility  to  a  infested  ness.  While  resistance  ed  trees  begins  to decline  Phloem  thickness  may  reached  resistant  therefore  greater  trees  to stand  and  looking  suscept-  will  been  to phloem  and  when  phloem a  the  becomes  the  then  collapse.  explainphloem  Stand  vigour  is still  thick.  threshold  is s t i l l  large  food  from  of  critical  but phloem  Once  host  (1982)  pines.  and  inverse  resinosis are  Berryman  slowly  freed  or  brood  thick-  i s an  resinosis  lodgepole  i s low  are k i l l e d ,  beetle  a t the dynamics  closure, more  of  there  thickness  infestation.  having  that  vigour.  resistance  population  trees,  found  r e s i n o s i s of  an  the production  proportional  phloem  decreases  when  the beetle  remaining  But  a t canopy  to support  thick-phloem and  and  production  p a r a d o x by  and  enough  brood  related  growth  be  et^ a J . ( 1 9 6 7 )  to attack.  apparent  that  is directly  beween  directly  this  (1976) showed  Reid  relationship  both  i n vigour  attack.  Berryman from  decline  diameter,  limiting At  thick  this  competition,  factor  point  increase  in  vigour. The pine in  above  interaction implies  the short  monetary cut  term,  losses  (A.A.C.) In  beetle (Fig.  description  of  B.C.  have 2).  due  The  some  mountain pine long  term  beetle-lodgepole  equilibrium.  infestations are responsible to  loss  lodgepole  of  pine  the greatest  been  of  volume in  timber  of  timber  f o r massive  the annual  allowable  B.C. losses  i n the south-central  extent  from  However,  losses  and  due  to mountain  south-east  i s indicated  pine  Interior i n Table  I  7  FIGURE  2:  A r e a s of r e c e n t b e e t l e i n B.C.  timber (After  loss Wood  c a u s e d by m o u n t a i n p i n e and van S i c k l e , 1983).  TABLE  I:  Number a n d a r e a o f m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e i n f e s t a t i o n s b y p r o v i n c i a l r e g i o n b a s e d on r e c e n t l y k i l l e d t r e e s o b s e r v e d d u r i n g a e r i a l s u r v e y s and l i m i t e d g r o u n d o b s e r v a t i o n s , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1982. (After: Wood a n d v a n S i c k l e , 1983).  No. o f infestations  Region Cariboo  Attacked  Number " 8  i n 1981  3 Volume  (m  )  No. o f stands cruised  1,750  222,000  50,000,000  13,600,000  13  350  22,000  900,000  257,000  -  2,600  38,000  4,300,000  1,590,000  6  Kamloops Nelson  Trees Area (ha)  Prince  George  100  1,500  16,000  3,200  -  Prince  Rupert  600  6,500  300,000  230,000  6  8  500  3,000  800  -  5,408  290,500  55,519,000  15,681,000  28  Vancouver TOTAL  a  Trees  b  H  =  attacked  i n 1981, d i s c o l o u r e d  Mean  %  Trees  H  C  R  G  P  57  16  18  8  1  6 27  7  3  57  36  35  20  8  1  50  19  22  8  1  i n 1982  Healthy  C  = Current,  R  = Red,  G  = Grey,  P  = Partial  attacked  attacked attacked attack  i n 1982  i n 1981 prior (strip  to  1981  attack)  00  9  and  presented  that  prompt  forest  2.2  graphically  m i t i g a t i v e measures  There employed  by  several  against  the  forest  from  alternative manager  occurring  c o n d i t i o n s which  is therefore  MPB  must  infestations  have  trees,  of  more  than  80  lodgepole  pine  stands  conditions  be  unfavourable  thereby  reducing  stand  fore  focussed  on  be  mountain  pine  be  apparent  taken  by  the  stated  susceptibility.  when  i t reaches  harvesting  and  is  some  danger  i n managing  in  that  i t may  adversely  practice  mean  should  current  may  annual  be  avoided  of  stocking  ment  of  ment  i s that  of  bark  beetle occur.  mountain  seem  beetle  be  they  i.e. large  silviculturally pine  may  once  to  i t would  pine  diameter  logical  to  lodgepole  that  maintain  epidemics,  A t t e n t i o n should  e_t a l . ( 1 9 7 4 ) a d v o c a t e d  stand  that  age,  mountain  management  them  conducive  recognized, of  prevent  suppress be  managed to  to  which  pine  forests  thereand  not  beetle.  Safranyik entire  years  to to  been  strategies  i n order  or  appear  beetle  This  It  strategies  are  epiphytotics  the  3.  manager.  Management  Since  in Figure  stand  by  mixed  not  increment a  stand  affect  reducing  and  spacing  diversity. a  80  stand  The  planned  to  100  years  of  be  delayed  beyond  of  a  are  stand  age. the  stand  genetics  and  be  stress  and of  better  by  this suited  age  when  alone,  diameter  control  They  There  reducing  competitive  of  equal.  by  advantage  will  harvesting  productivity. by  the type for  the  encourageof  manage-  wildlife  FIGURE  3:  Numbers British 1983).  o f t r e e s a t t a c k e d by m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e Columbia. ( A f t e r : Wood a n d v a n S i c k l e ,  YEAR  11  habitat,  r e c r e a t i o n and  watershed  can  only  be  carried  in intensively  managed  millions  of  hectares  lodgepole  stands  to  mountain  pine  Methods tics et  may  be  by  which  However,  chemical  the forms  great  care  of by  beetle  threshold  level.  control.  More  attract large  host  be  a  strong  as  the  bark  remain  and  susceptible  as  must  trees.  a  direct  populations review  the  are  beetles  Pitman  et  mountain  aggregative  at  near  of  the  pine  when  individual and  to with  that  mountain low  i s taken a  while  critical to  direct  (aggregation  them  have  been  from  attacking  isolated  beetles.  pheromone  to  approaches  themselves)  a l . (1968),  these  below  chemicals  preventing  of  acceptibly  action or  increas-  1974).  belief an  from  handled  a l .  and  strategy  health  be  et  the  control  some  thus  human  (Safranyik  maintained  use  applied  should  be  holding  the  necessity  traps,  from  infested  by  recently, attractant  to  dibromide  to  expressed  (Safranyik  populations  be  epiphyto-  ethylene  as  follows:  they  beetle  chemicals  of  only  beetle  personnel  by  of  hazardous  and  They  use  are  thorough,  trees.  trans-verbenol, to  to  are  could  produced  beetles  forests  pine  specifically  e_t a]^. ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,  beetle  mountain  the  preventing  trained  damage  pine  pheromones  by  life,  i f prompt,  mountain  pine  functions  i s expensive  Whitney  level  control  insecticides  other  pine  applied  disadvantages  insecticides trees;  been  areas,  Other  include  Insecticides,  have  ing.  incipient  suppressed  a l . 1974).  limited  of  Such p r a c t i c e s  beetle epiphytotics.  lindane,  in  out  management.  Later  used  the  used  to  pheromone,  they  together  found with  i t  12  alpha-pinene et  or  a l . 1978).  indicated and by  the  Recent  that  trees  monoterpene  mountain  for  myrcene,  pine  It  although  has  change  their  phloem  (Rasmussen  beetle  and  been  pheromone  1972).  followed  in  combination  arboricide,  infestation  to  one  logging  is  case  and/or  potential  food  a  in  Sanitation infestation generation (Whitney from  an  and  that  an  normal  outbreak  the  logging  beetles  a l . 1978). be  may It  is  destroyed  British  pine  diameter  beetle, trees,  and  i s required  pine  (1978) found  from  thus  the  that  a  turn  spread  in  of  an  the  to  important to  rate  of  that the  will  et  a l .  of  the any  the  spread  emergence  salvage  infestation  turn  (Safranyik  collapse  prior  the  reducing  which  reduce  a  thick  before  mountain  reduced  removed  prior  cause  in  spread.  numbers  out  synergist  insecticide, in  beetles,  will  attack  situation, sanitation  is  population  a  of  diameter  Dyer  infestation site, for  be  mountain  reduce  pine.  with  to  large  to  exobrevicomin,  densities  small  research  (Pitman  has  inferior,  successfully  of  i f carried  logs  was  of  used  Timber  source  salvage  of et  the  beetle  infested  brood.  of  suggested.  perimeter  decline  sixth  high  baited,  trees  be  terpenes, (1983)  found  however,  lodgepole  an  the  was  Further  by  In  ejt a l .  alpha-pinene  to  tree  trans-verbenol,  Myrcene  successfully  used  Borden  nearby  infestations in  host  sustained  found  to  are  with  attracted  attack  can  by  baited  beetle.  initially  pheromones  work  3-carene  trans-verbenol,  Columbia.  which  cause 1974).  of  the  an next  population bark  flight  of  or  waste  the  new  13  Fungal the  value  that  staining  of the i n f e s t e d  sanitation  after tion  beetle remote  advanced pine  flight  lead  time  product  from  a  forest  foliage,  foliage  (Steiner  to  attack,  properties Stressed  as  early  to  soon detec-  acquire  for efficient  mountain  1972).  detect,  survey  geometry  and/or  i s a manifestation  Since  t h e 1920's  and a p p r a i s e  injurious  forest  factor  and  plant  from  related  sensing  damage  such  the  (Gates  t h e a i r due foliage  dis-  change  has been  of inducing  (Levitt  as  and  used  i n Canada.  capable  s t r a i n on a p l a n t  matur-  by c h a n g i n g  of p h y s i o l o g i c a l  remote  leaf  factors  response  be d e t e c t e d  morphology  by  or deficiency  or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of that may  light  concentrations,  Environmental toxicity  appraisal  direct  of  i n part  pigment  tree  is a  Levels  are affected  the spectral  any e n v i r o n m e n t a l  potentially  photograph  height,  nutrient  a n d damage  the tree.  1966).  vegetation  1  which  (Murtha  Stress:  imperative  effective,  inclusions,  tree  affect  i n external  colouration,  1  reduces  be p e r f o r m e d  i n detection  from  canopy  and Gutermann  insect  changes  rapidly  necessary  on an a e r i a l  cellular  density,  availability,  1970).  A cost  operations  sensing  reflectance  structure,  inherent  operations  i s therefore  f o r salvage  cellular  water  system  sapwood  I t i s therefore  as p o s s i b l e .  of a tree  of l i g h t  disease,  logging  o f remote  image  reflectance  ity  trees.  pine  control.  The r o l e The  salvage  sensing  beetle  2.3  of lodgepole  1972).  a  to  14  The  Forest  ian  Forestry  for  detection  obtained largely tree  Service  are on  and used  the  difficult  to  with  the  error  and  aerial day  use  thereby  of  loss  season  by  effect one  of  and  on  biotic  symptoms.  Strain: (Levitt  that the or The  any  forest  pest  major  aerial single  such The  the  requires  appearance  1979).  on  spectral  (Murtha  1972,  abiotic  agent  will  causal  agent  may  b i o c h e m i c a l or  FIDS  high  also  stressed  of  reflectance  time  forest  tree, and  and  the  the  resulting  produce  similar  physical  change  by  upon  potential  F r e q u e n t l y , more  inferred  of  damage  1978).  be  of  aerial  dependent  the  damaged  associated  scale,  both  of  of  and  specification  are  Detection  aerial  interpretation  type,  accuracy  of  to  detection  incorrect  the  i t is  Problems  film  relies  overview  of  of  include:  as,  surveys  supplement  accuracy  knowledge of  and  to  Canad-  difficult  groups  used  from  interpreter.  damage  1972).  small  been the  The  i t i s also  the  Data  p r o v i d e s an  sketch-maps  Dawson  1978).  pests.  programs.  a i r photo-interpretation the  film  and  forest  which  or  have  variables  photo-interpretation  effects  annual  resulting  (Ciesla  agents,  performs  photographs  data  e x p e r i e n c e of  damaging  of  enhancing  aerial of  sketch-mapping the  of  (Harris  photographic  and  (FIDS)  However,  photographs  appraisal  Survey  management  1981).  distinguish  observations,  Disease  sketch-mapping  accuracy  Aerial  damage  (CFS)  i n pest  (Moody  determine  and  m o n i t o r i n g of  aerial  damage  trees.  Insect  than  strain  interpretation  caused  by  stress  of  the  products  of the a e r i a l  requires  that  a sample  To  date  most  infestation from  have  healthy  surveys  relied  trees,  early  fall,  when  In  1980 a  study  was  killed  ency after  were  foliage  2.4  pine  trend  Early  accurate beetle,  detection  i  out i n the Flathead  River  Valley i n  were  Lodgepole  normal  the previous  was  pine  sketch-mapped 70 mm  18.5%.  i s that  and  stands photo-  colour  transpar  were  carried  out  year  had  changed  Green-attacked  of a e r i a l  surveys  a historic  trees  based  record  and an i n d i c a t i o n  of vegetation  management  of  on of infesta-  stress  of pine  effort  of vegetation has been  ( i f there  i s a  stress  s t r a t e g i e s a r e dependent  assessment  considerable  detection  vegetation  conducted  provided.  and t i m e l y  early  I n B.C., t h e  i s made.  infestation,  detection  thus  trees  trees  from  change  of s t r e s s e d  are usually  and photography  error  beetle  pine  The v a l u e  beetle  Effective  of  trees  colour  are  damage  of red-topped  beetle  Sketch-mapping  The s a m p l i n g  mountain tion  carried  not recognized.  visual  beetle  pine  discolouration.  o f 1:5000 u s i n g  a l l attacked  colour.  foliage  a count  pine  at a scale  film.  of mountain  on d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  pine  identification  ground-checked.  ( H a r r i s e t a l . 1982).  by m o u n t a i n  graphed  be  but p o s i t i v e  surveys  using  the  B.C.  area  aerial  f o r mountain  south-east  survey,  damage  by m o u n t a i n  has been  expended  damage.  Early  referred  subsequent  upon  i n the  area  d e t e c t i o n of  t o as e i t h e r p r e v i s u a l change  pine  i n the  visible  16  portion  of the electromagnetic  extravisual visible term  region.  pine  curve  shown It  Murtha  by  1978).  (Gates  stressed leaves  structures Gausman  plants  by  spongy  f o r about  mesophyll-cellular  f o r about  about  20% t r a n s m i t t e d . much  stomata,  a  leaf  of the near therefore,  stomata.  rather  than  compared  a  lower  (1977) s t a t e s  8-10% o f n e a r  membranes,  cell  About  In a d d i t i o n , infrared  reflectance  light  this  reflect-  i n the near 1967;  reflectance light  by  i s reflected  by t h e  surface  with  non-  measurements of leaves  of the  reflectance that  than  c r y s t a l s and  infrared  reflectance;  wall-airspace  60% o f near  i s reflected, while  on  in spectral  Stressed  infrared  inter-  infrared  20% i s absorbed  Gausman  the  needles.  stressed-  wavelengths.  50% r e f l e c t a n c e .  entering  light  with  f o r healthy  1956; F r i t z  spectrophotometric  Gausman  light  open  (1974),  age have  leaves.  account  (Colwell on  ideas  curve  initially  near-infrared  of p l a n t s  taking  chronological  cytoplasm  that  most  i n the near-infrared  non-stressed  face  that  these  or  i n the  Superimposed  changes  occur  of t h e s t u d i e s  indicate  5.  4)),  change  f o r damaged  that  of the spectrum  Many  1970).  curves  plants  both  reflectance  i n Figure  hypothesized  of s t r e s s e d  portion  cellular  same  are reflectance  has been  vegetation  (1981) c o v e r s  i s shown  (see Figure  i s no s u b s e q u e n t  A generalized  needles  patterns  infrared  i f there  Puritch  "non-visual".  green  ance  detection  spectrum  (1977)  and  reported  i s r e f l e c t e d v i a the  i s f a r greater  from  plants  with  17  EE 3  3  EWAVELENGTH  o  o  w  J  GAMMA i RAY  L  J  I  n  I  -X RAY -  {T7T  10  8  IH-J  1  m  O  n  M  E nI  co  WAVELENGTH(X)  I  1  I  I  L J  1 AUDIO  I AC  J  5^  10.12  16  10  6  '  L  10*  l  I. 10  2  I  1  FREQUENCY, Hz  T-1  l WWW" '  T-0  FIGURE  i1 I.1 sI II L L,  L=-RADIO-BANDS—I RADAR INFRARED^L j£ROWAVEMEDIUM i^GHz T  -UV—J  10  20  gS  I  ]  4:  The  BLACK  REPRESENTS ATMOSPHERIC  electromagnetic  spectrum.  ATTENUATION  FIGURE  7,  5:  Generalized r e f l e c t a n c e curves f o r healthy green pine needles superimposed on w h i c h a r e r e f l e c t a n c e c u r v e s f o r damaged n e e d l e s . ( A f t e r : Oester, 1981).  REFLECTANCE  W A V E L E N G T H <M (nm.)  (Arrows  indicate  direction  of reflectance  change).  19  Some  insect  logical  colour  visible  regions  changes  caused  no  visual  of  early  tion  reported  detecting  beetle 1971,  the work  pine  trees  not  following  of  the  changes  observed pine  on  CIR  occurred beetle of  attack.  Table  A  the  Scales  used  in  the  and  remote infrared  haze  stress  II  the  indicates  needles  small  leaves  in  10  increase  were  visually  to  bark  Heller  of  that  1968, no  ponderosa there  reflective anatomical  months in  penetra-  due  consequently  loss  the  [Ips  e_t a _ l . 1 9 6 7 ;  attack,  pine  than  colour  of  area  initial  beetle  Some o f of  the  reflectance  (1968) s p e c u l a t e d  vigour  infrared.  success  within  that  (1973),  rather  bark  detection  (Ciesla  such  interpreta-  pronounced  separation  Heller  i n ponderosa  beetle  affects  utility  species  1959).  symptoms  near  the  in  visual  Sweden.  film.  are  studies  most  reported  achieved  bark  in  the  physiological  Wastenson  in  physio-  months.  where  and  the  spruce  previsual  changes  early  several  trees,  in  infestation  spectral region  They  as  the  unsuccessful  recognizes  that  is  portion  mountain  beetle  c a r r i e d out  spruce  Langley  anatomical  no  was  features  states  damage  be  However,  Arnberg  visible  1:20,000.  real  would  used.  and/or  readily detectable  for  infested  (L.) ] i n f e s t e d  such  1978;  noted  morphological  physiological stress  infested  but  pine  several  of  literature  for  tion,  in  Their  1:10,000 and  are  i n d i v i d u a l leaves,  occur  typographus  be  been  when  rapid  spectrum.  mountain  been  of  cause which  the  may  have  that  infrared.  film  by  has  properties  sensing  of  detection  alone  changes  changes  change  There  pests  after  reflectance  at  TABLE  II:  Structure  Structure of pine needles (Pinus ponderosae a f t e r mountain pine b e e t l e a t t a c k . (After:  affected  canal  Normal  Resin  2.  Vascular  3.  Stomata  Intact  4.  Cytoplasm  Fills walls  5.  Cell  Normally  bundles  walls  Yellow needle infested pine  needle  1.  Open Most with  L a w s . ) b e f o r e a n d 10 H e l l e r 1968).  cells filled cytoplasm  out to  thin  cell  from  Collapsed  or  Cytoplasm  absent  Broken, erated,  Thicker  broken  shrunken, closed  Shrunken from often absent by  months  cell  degen-  walls,  comparison  21  0.68 by  um  and  5 to  a  10% d e c r e a s e  spectrophotometry  attack  measurement  Generally, than  hardwoods,  with  fewer  conifers since  stomata  reflect  their  and  the  trees  have  more  contained  reflected  infrared  will  be  near  could  infrared  studies  broadleaved  et  j a .  there  is a  beetle of  decrease  Early  in  damage reports  response  detection  Aerochrome  may  be  which  usefulness  of  near  of  to of  revealed days  after  have  2443) is a  colour-infrared and  subjected  method  to  by In  conflicting  Hamilton  in  difficult  to  greater  in  success  broadleaved  et  to  in  most  moisture  a_l. 1 9 7 0 ;  stress  Olson  Generally, from  partly  to  bark a  closing  colour-infrared  which  vegetation  response  to  various  regarding  detection  photographed  animal  achieved  transparencies.  opinions  the  (1969)  simulated  in  successfully  positive  film  more  compact  changes  large-scale  quantitatively.  presented  Thus,  area  stress.  been  of  surface  1971).  due  radiation  more  reflectance be  has  analysis  analysis  defined  Myers  physiological stress  are  related  Woolley  may  in  reflectance  were  infrared  Infrared,  damage, M u r t h a  conifers  45  been  using  1970;  This  and has  infrared  species  conifers.  Microdensitometric  tion  near  microdensitometric  (Kodak  needles  reduced  shadows.  studies  a l . 1967;  in  are  there  Knipling  Thomas e t  infested  stomata  using  in  e_t a l . 1 9 7 1 ;  1971;  was  near-infrared  subtle  why  reflectance  Changes  (Carlson  more  explain  vegetation. with  um  themselves  and  in  pine  less  leaves  structure  This  of  1.2  to  1968).  (Heller  detect.  0.75  at  the  of  vegeta-  4  species  damage u s i n g  both  22  colour  and  of  colour-infrared film  the  the  cyan  similar  colour-infrared film.  dye-layer  a  normal  foliage.  film  to  infrared  colour-infrared fir bark  beetle  by  dye-layers. sis  to  to  tree  has  of  three-year  a  of  recognized  analytical  techniques  difference  between  incipient  damage.  photographs on  the  ground.  according Damage was core  data  growth  were  to  by  external  the  that  to  need and  to  trees of  was and  on  the  analyzed McLean  in  define  1981).  colour  1:1,000 68%  of  scale Douglas-  infested  by  in  the  the  film  analy-  With  "normal"  microdensitometric  is  indeed  those  of  Murtha by  order  in  influences.  a  results  significant symptoms  of  colour-infrared  the  tree, was  (1972,  collection to  The  showing  1:1,200 s c a l e  ground  trees  using  and  by  elm  1981).  condition  defined  in  used  is  stressed  colour-infrared  Qualitative photointerpretation types  by  McLean  there  the  were  film.  density  densities  of  A  recorded  the  newly  of  levels.  dye-layer  using  Franco]  values  to  images  related  not  stress  (1983),  Douglas-fir  "healthy"  identified  (Murtha  cyan  measurement  due  show  Tree  damage  which  damage  dye-layer  (Mirb.)  (Murtha  of  damage  correctly classified  detection,  study  of  density  normal-colour  related  et_ a l .  dye-layer  variances  damage  been  Hall  densitometric  minimize  respect  developed  menziesii  Ratios  the  increased  measurements  increasing  increased in  (1978),  photographs  [Pseudotsuga  density  infrared reflectance  to  photographs.  an  information  et_ a l .  L.)  with  found  The  decreased  americana  not  film.  Lillesand  revealed  film  yielded  colour  response  (Ulmus  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  False-colour the  of  Optical  as  seen  carried  out  1978). of  i n d i c a t e any  increment loss  of  23  2.5  Colour-infrared  film  Colour-infrared  (Kodak  consists  of  The  yellow  the  magenta  and  the  dye-forming  responds and  to  (Fritz  percent the  colour  compensating  should  be  filter  (Fritz  used  The  method  incident  by  measured.  which Figure  6  reflectance.  specific  wavelength  2.6  Study  early  the  a  of  each  to  and  cyan.  (500-600  nm),  (600-700  nm),  near-infrared specifically  blue  layer to  Colour 12  as i t  near-infrared  different  Wratten  cyan  amount  i t (Fritz  extent a  film  and  infrared  film  (minus-blue)  of  Film  dye-layer  A  light  1967).  of  that  density  blue  filter  t o measure (Fritz  the  is  Microdensitometry i s  representation  responds  film  particular  d y e - l a y e r development  optical  regions.  d y e - l a y e r i n the  of  schematic  dye-layer; green  the  with  i t theoretically  to  can of  changes  can  be  i s used magenta  be  colour-  in  measured to and  at  measure red  to  1967).  objectives  Densitometric for  to  shows  spectral  measure  as  the  film  yellow  from  combinations.  reaction  upon  infrared  the  red  film  1967).  proportional  wavelength  to  obtained using  i n combination  green  dye-forming  wavelengths  filter  to  ( 1 9 8 0 ) more  each  2443)  y e l l o w , magenta  i s sensitive  of  change  Infrared,  is sensitive  Moore  reaction  dye-forming  inversely  a  1967).  differences  spectral  i s sensitive  layer  different  illustrated  layers:  layer  dye-forming  ( 7 0 0 - 8 0 0 nm), the  layer  dye-forming  to  Aerochrome  three dye-forming  cyan  defined  response  detection  analysis of  of  stressed  large-scale vegetation  colour-infrared has  yielded  film  signifi-  24  A. eor  1. Healthy  Spectral  Reflectance  Patterns.  2. Stressed foliage  green  80  OOr-  60  «o(-  40  3. Dead, r e d - b r o w n  °/R 0  20r  R  n-IR  B. R e l a t i v e  R  n-IR  R  n-IR  Amounts of Dyes Formed After Reversal Development. DYE FORMED  R+ G-B  y//////////m  Yellow  VZZZZZZZZZZZZA  V////////////, W//////M  7////////////,  R*B-G B + G - R \ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2 C.  Colour  B + R « Magenta  FIGURE 6:  Rendition on Photographic  Magenta Cyan  V///////////ZA Image.  Less Red = Dark magenta  R + G = Yellow  Response o f c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d f i l m t o r e f l e c t a n c e changes i n c o n i f e r o u s f o l i a g e . ( A f t e r : Murtha 1978) ( i n t h e r e a l s i t u a t i o n t h e cyan d y e - l a y e r i s on t o p ( F r i t z 1967)).  25  cant and  results Hamilton  scale  (Hall  e_t a l . 1 9 8 3 ;  1969;  Murtha  photographs  proposition. types, ed  at  for  He  scale  is  know  need  to  effectively  in  reported was  could  a  35%  decreased  is  that not  The  still  from  detection  of  use an  be  Murtha of  damage  accurately loss  1:1,000 t o scale bark  large-  uncertain  incipient  information  p r e c i s e l y which  early  e_t a l _ . 1 9 7 8 ;  1981).  detection,  stands,  more  the  McLean  (1983) r e p o r t e d  i n Douglas-fir  photographic a  early  Murtha  1:4,000.  and  Lillesand  interpret-  when  the  1:4,000.  can  be  beetle  used  There most  attacked  trees. The effect  of  scales  for  primary using  important in  The  used  question. beetle large be  damage  reliably  image.  and  should the  pine  in that  strain  detected  and  1:3,000 and  to  infested  the  early pine  to  detection stands,  symptoms  on  interpreted  of  the  lies  detection  type  mountain scale  the  pine.  It  between  in  pine  should  i n d i v i d u a l tree from  of  interpretation.  damage  of  the  for  the  air-photo  lodgepole  threshold  accuracy  determine  1:4,000  beetle  appropriate  lodgepole  was  photographs  where  of  study  aerial  reasonable be  case  this  1:2,000,  determine  scale  In  enough  mountain  to  reduction scale  1:1,000,  of  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  green-foliaged is  objective  be  crowns  photographic  may  26  3.  THE  STUDY  3.1  Selection In  Region, a  July, B.C.  AREA of 1981,  Forest  indicative marked  of  onto  a  visited  the that  ation  active.  the  Criteria infestation  were  of  pitch  tubes,  i.e.  bark  beetle. pitch of  Boles  tubes  bark  stages.  of  were  and  of  beetle  watershed  in  red-brown  trees  i n f e s t a t i o n were  ground caused  the  checks by  MPB  air,  were and  the  that  and  areas were  carried  mountain  for  located  accessible  from  i n d i c a t i v e of  lodgepole  pine  trees,  attack  bole  of  emergence  under  checked  presence  aircraft  the  pine  out  to  infest-  beetle  follows:  the  peripheries  were  small  Kamloops  representing  and  signs  galleries  trees  as  dead,  identified  was  as  of  Subsequently,  as  damage  a  Tranquille  beetle  Sample  foliage  kill,  The  trees  selected  red-brown 1980  the  Coordinator,  provided  Pockets  pine  ground.  ascertain was  over  1 : 5 0 , 0 0 0 map.  damaged  Management  Forests,  District.  mountain  site  Pest  of  flight  containing on  study  the  Ministry  reconnaissance  Kamloops  the  of  for  trees  were  removed  to  holes,  tree:  brown  frass,  presence  of  breeding  attacked  (1980)  groups  of  infestation  bark. previously  evidence newly  inspected  boring  on  dust.  of  expansion  infested for In  confirm  ( 1 9 8 1 ) by  signs some  the  of  the  mountain  of  pine  i n f e s t a t i o n , such  cases,  30  cm  presence  of  beetle  2  sections life  as  27  3.2  Description A  was  suitable  selected  area  of  32  level. the  and  had  an  study  outwash  terraces  sands  presenting  generally  a  less  than  flora, the  ground  The  two  most  lodgepole  pine,  which  logging.  The  1982,  pine  dominated  by  communis  L.  is  of  E d w a r d , R., Forest Kamloops, B.C.  tend to  pine  of  760  the  to  to  study  The  shrub  uva-ursi  is  The  on  the  more  moist  draining,  very  thin  are is  a  relatively  rich  rubescens  Douglas-fir covered  after  37%  by  layer,  by  Buckl.)  and  volume age  where  Spreng.  and maturing  fires  average  (L.)  Branch,  and  slight  of of  the the  present  and  Min.  of  is  Juniperis  Pursh.  Protection  of  sites.  established  The  sea  conditions.  horizon  site  comprises  total  terraces  rapidly  site  by  7)  rapidly-draining,  to  be  a  above  be  drier  species  m  tend  xeric  comm.^).  years.  covered  (Calamagrostis  tree  became  It  scars  thickness.  of  (Figure  current  characterized  the  depressa  Old  Valley  sequential  well-  organic  grass  Arctostaphylos var.  in  two  which  which  the  cm  pers. 85  are  mesic  are  lodgepole  lodgepole  of  common  Much  on  gravels.  flora  pine.  (Edward  soils  plots  lodgepole  elevation  The  pine  dominates  stand  average  depressions  draws,  Tranquille  criteria.  located  1.0  while  the  was  range  study  or  in  gravels  the  depressions, ground  of  area  above  and  form  ridges  Throughout  site  River.  outwash  thus  site the  Tranquille  small  study  study  met  fluvial  and  the  that  ha  The  of  Forests,  28  FIGURE  7:  T o p o g r a p h i c map of t h e T r a n q u i l l e R i v e r a r e a mountain p i n e b e e t l e study s i t e marked.  with  29  1  1: 50,000 N.T.S. 92- 1/15 120°37'W, 50°50'N  30  4.  METHODS  4.1  Marking Two at  402  long  on  the  an  and  by  lished  the  on  was  was  equipped  from  two  lines  were  1:4,000.  A  for aerial  transect  sheet.  their  the  two  carried  out  on  Vinten  high on  to  were  Markers  the  each  about  marked  were  reflectivity,  were  colour-infrared  photography  Infrared  flown  at  used  August  were  a  mm  estab-  and  1981.  The  Photography  t i p camera (Williams  76  total  stereo-pairs  mm,  used  system 1978).  set at  to The  each F/2.  i n combination  with  (green-attenuating) f i l t e r .  different  scales  50  was  a CC20M  obtained at of  wing  length  film  four  18th,  comprised  r e c o n n a i s s a n c e cameras,  focal  2443  which  Resource  photographs  70  lens,  transects,  Integrated  of  492  (minus-blue) was  by  which  a Leitz  transect  graphs  to  of  B.C.,  Aerochrome 12  white  parallel  T r a n s e c t s were  each  t h e <air a n d  stereo-pairs  with  Wratten  due  completed  Vancouver,  used  cm  of  ran  ground.  site,  mm  Ends  160  and  photography  system  study  both  x  Aerial  70  Each  215  which  E.110°-W.290°.  apart.  photography  obtain  a  a  established, of  Aerial  photography  Kodak  m  Thus,  the  study  Ltd.,  were  spaces  visible  photographs.  4.2  201  i n open  clearly  site  orientation  ground  placed  study  transects  other m  the  1:1,000, was  altitudes  1:2,000,  and  photo-  1:3,000  o b t a i n e d of  the  and 16  plots. A  second  more  southerly  mate  scale  of  s e t of  aerial  transect 1:2,000.  on  photographs  September  was  22nd,  o b t a i n e d of  1982,  at  an  the  approxi-  31  4.3  Photo-interpretation Each  one  study  1:2,000 p h o t o g r a p h i c f r a m e plot  photographs a  on t h e g r o u n d .  was  mylar  stereo-pair trees  the 1:2,000 which  species  this  they yet  represent  procedure: frame  of  each  plots;  a n d damage  the mylar  types  overlay,  (according  s t e r e o s c o p e on a  light  to Table  table  for a  o f 1:1,000;  o f l o d g e p o l e p i n e by  photographs  were c h o s e n  damage  type  was  as t h e b a s e l i n e  1:3,000 a n d 1:4,000 p h o t o g r a p h s  f o r the following  at  to  o f t h e 1:2,000  to the right  and numbered on  a 2x p o c k e t  t h e 1:1,000,  t h e most  —  by  scale  number  scale  compared —  of the study  using  viewing  the following  attached  were i d e n t i f i e d  recognized III),  was  chosen  Interpretation  achieved using  overlay  was  complete  recorded. against  would  be  reasons:  coverage  of t h e study  site  was o b t a i n e d  scale  a r e more easily  compact  than  interpreted  t h e 1:1,000 s c a l e  f o r use i n the f i e l d  photos when  and  ground-  checking Using plot of  boundaries, each  photographs  scale At  each  scale, using  plot  was  at other scales.  photographs,  overlay in  t h e 1:2,000 p h o t o g r a p h s  each  more  than  tree  was  a different  order to reduce  bias  then  as i n d i c a t o r s marked  onto  In t h e case  one frame identified  of t h e study  mylar  overlays  o f t h e 1:1,000  r e p r e s e n t e d each and marked  numerical designation  i n interpretation  on t h e mylar  at each  o f damage  plot.  scale,  types.  TABLE  III:  Damage t y p e s u s e d t o q u a l i t a t i v e l y large scale colour-infrared aerial Murtha and McLean 1981).  Damage T y p e HH IHOa  Healthy; Foliage  free  Foliage  Foliage older  IIIOb/IIE  stress  has l i g h t e r  than  comparable  magenta  tone  than  comparable  foliage  has d a r k e r magenta  f o l i a g e , branches present  Foliage  has l i g h t e r  older  tone  foliage  foliage  of  IIIG  from  has d a r k e r magenta  unaffected IIIOa/IIE  c o n d i t i o n s as s e e n on ( A f t e r : M u r t h a 1978;  Description  unaffected IHOb  describe tree photographs.  clearly  magenta  f o l i a g e , branches  foliage  present  Foliage  i s dead,  colour-infrared  tone,  red-brown  premature visible,  tone, clearly  loss of current  premature visible,  loss current  (appears y e l l o w on  photos)  CO  to  33  The was  the  interpretation  same  Trees  were  ently  of  other  scale.  be  total  i n that  of  the  appeared  a  infrared  photographs  that  there the  set, additional  been  successfully  and  of  was  same  and  For  detected  at  scale  on  or  still  of  detail  by of  this each  scales.  interpreted used  to  i f the the  that  visibly  and  ( I I I G ) on tree  green,  infrared  those  tree  s e t of  the  matched  verify  same  1981  yellow  colour  not  been  different  provided  the  were  each  carry-over, i . e .  results  (IIIB)  scale  independ-  interpreted  image  example,  while  damage  were  ( I I I O B ) on  mauve  type  p r o c e s s had  tree  each  i n d e p e n d e n t l y of  each  visually  photos  hue  no  at  photographs.  damage  and  trees  e v i d e n c e was  incipient  crown colour the  had  using  film.  Densitometry Information  relating  i n the  film  case  of  the  colour  infrared  magenta  and  cyan.  The  i s inversely  incident  on  the  form  to  graphic  film  each  recollection  were  magenta  1982  4.4  497  previous year.  lighter  of  of  1981  obtained  evidence  to  results  of  photographs  sample  1:2,000 s c a l e  photographs  reported  details  1982  a  according  f o r photographs  photo-interpretation  Since a  the  The against  the  minimal  recalling  f o r the  Interpretation  i t can  was  used  1:2,000 s c a l e  until  completed.  tree  that  interpreted  the  compared  author,  as  procedure  of  film,  amount  when  object  various  proportional  film  an  of  quantities  these dye  to the  i t was  i s r e c o r d e d on dyes.  dye-layers  formed amount  exposed  of  at of  a  each  In  the  are yellow, point  reflected  (Scarpace  photo-  1978;  on  the  light  34  Scarpace which  and F r i e d e r i c h s 1978).  a measurement  dye-layer may  may  of the dye-layer  be p e r f o r m e d ,  thus  density  i s a method of each  the reflected  by  film  incident  light  be c h a r a c t e r i z e d . A  used  Macbeth  TR-524 T r a n s m i s s i o n  i n the transmission  tungsten-halogen positive reaches  this  transmittance  crown  8.  these  was made  measurements  tree  each  crown.  account  different  made  taken  directly.  colour  as t h e d e n s i t y  density  f o r each Each filter  wavelengths  dye-layer (Figure 9).  lodgepole  Thus,  crown.  A s f a r a s was  on t h e " s u n n y "  each  Spectral  value.  was made  since  were  a n d t h e mean o f  measurement  were  of the s e n s i t i v i t i e s  of the  density  tree  values  In  a r e shown i n  f o r each  T h e "raw" d e n s i t y  that  (Wr. 9 3 ) , r e d (Wr.  filters  f o r each  a  lodgepole  respectively.  and r e c o r d e d .  times  of  made  the overlap  dye-layers,  filter  of a l l dye-layers  three  were  and t o t a l  a  display  the density  (Wr. 9 4 ) , g r e e n  of the three  were  measurements  possible  a blue  Measurements  measurement  dye-layers  was  through  of l i g h t  digital  image  from  aperture,  dye-layer(s)  tree  (Wr. 1 0 6 ) g e l a t i n  i n the study  of l i g h t  d e n s i t i e s of photo-images  and cyan  curves  Densitometer  a s t h e amount  A quartz  F o r each  by s e l e c t i n g  and v i s u a l  diameter  of the f i l m  measured.  magenta  measured  Figure  v i a a 1 mm  the dye-layer  Reflectance  Transmission  i s recorded  the density  were  yellow,  92)  mode.  a photo-electric cell.  way  crowns  lamp,  transparency  indicates  12  Densitometry  side  modified  a total  of  of the  t o take  into  of the three  h a s some r e s p o n s e  to light  at  1  WAVELENGTH ( x ) FIGURE 8:  Spectrophotometric transmittance curves o f the blue (Wr.94), green (Wr.93) and red (Wr.92) g e l a t i n f i l t e r s (Scarpace 1978).  CO tn  1.0 /  92 \  / magenta 1  / 52 \  / yellow \  0.5  0.0  31  cyan  [J N  O - 0.5 O  - 1.0  III  <  GREEN u.v. 400 5Q0 PERCENT RESPONSE OF EACH LAYER B  L  U  E  GREEN RED INFRARED  100 12 12  \  600  \  RED  88 36  WAVELENGTH [nanometers] FIGURE  9:  Spectral response W r a t t e n 12 f i l t e r  700  I.R.  800  52  I.R.  900 = 100% of 52 = 100% of 92 = 100% of 31  Total area under curves: 175  c u r v e s f o r Kodak A e r o c h r o m e I n f r a r e d 2443 f i l m u s i n g a a n d a CC20 M a g e n t a c o l o u r c o m p e n s a t i n g f i l t e r ( M o o r e .1980).  37  Moore  ( 1 9 8 0 ) r e p o r t e d on  colour-infrared percent region  response  film  given  density  the  exposed  can  be  presented  a  upon  modified  to  each  called  a  12  which  of  indicated  each  spectral  The  data  for a  data,  the  filter  dye-layer  account  layer.  the  colour-  CC20 M a g e n t a  into  dye-forming  number  to  and  these take  large  data  layer  Wratten  Based  of  of  combinations.  with  sensitivity  hereafter  and  dye-forming  i n F i g u r e 9.  values  spectral tions,  of  for various f i l t e r  infrared are  emulsions  studies  the  These  "Moore T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s " a r e  range  of  modifica-  as  follows:  F i l t e r on .. . 1JG n s x "com© x Q T/ n  „ , Dye-layer  . Percent response  Blue  Yellow  100%  green  light  Green  Magenta  12%  green  light,  plus  88%  red  light  Red  Cyan  12%  green  light,  p l u s 36%  red  light  plus  Thus  the  green red  total  light  light  film  (TG)  (TR)  near-infrared  =  1.0  light  multiplied  by  value  (of the  added  to  light,  the  the  0.52;  (yellow) +  blue  calculate  0.12  (magenta)  +  0.12  (cyan)  0.88  (magenta) +  0.36  (cyan)  0.52  (cyan)  the  density  value  f o r red  light,  magenta cyan  light  (TIR)  to  red-filter  near-infrared  to:  =  Accordingly, red , the  response  52%  .. .. film  in  (of  value  density  response  the  the  d y e - l a y e r ) was  density  filter  film  cyan  green  value  (of  by  the  near-infra-  dye-layer)  filter  multiplied  multiplied  to  by  0.36; yellow  was  density 0.88 for  and green  dye-layer)  38  was  added  the  cyan  4.5  June  t o t h e magenta density  value  verification  Field  verification  colour  To 1:4,000  contact  contact  lodgepole  "ground  prints  truth"  was  i n the f i e l d ,  of the study plots  of the study  pine  b y 0.12 a n d  0.12.  carried  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  orientation  of the study prints  by  multiplied  out i n  o f t h e 1981  photographs.  facilitate  location  or  1982, f o l l o w i n g  infrared  value  multiplied  Field  and J u l y ,  density  included  area  had been area  in this  was  marked  were  used  study.  a mosaic of used,  on w h i c h  (Plate  1).  the  1:2,000  to i d e n t i f y the  The f o l l o w i n g  data  were  recorded: species  of  condition  tree, of the t r e e  crown:  green,  of t h e bole  (evidence  fading,  brown,  yellow,  attack):  boring,  thinning, condition dust,  pitch  whether  tubes,  attack  exit  had been  holes,  of beetle galleries,  successful,  unsuccessful  or  partial, --  diameter height  (m), a n d  increment The  health  categories:  (dbh cms),  cores  status  taken  from  of the trees  a sample  were  of  recorded  trees. using  the  following  39  PLATE  1:  A m o s a i c o f 1:4000 c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d p r i n t s of the mountain pine b e e t l e s i t e , T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , 1981. (white l i n e s along which  contact study  indicate air-photo transects study p l o t s are l o c a t e d ) .  41  1.  Not  attacked  by m o u n t a i n  2.  Successfully  3.  Strip  4.  Unsuccessfully  pine  beetle  (pitch  out)  attacked  attack attacked  o 5.  Stressed Trees  to  some  agent  which  were  placed  be h e a l t h y  and  foliage  those  that  partially that  had  category such  since  was  resisted refers  green.  The  attack  to trees  infested  ground of photo  Accuracy  figures  data  i n the f i r s t no  evidence  category  were  of beetles  on  of mountain  by  response.  resinosis showed  by m o u n t a i n  similar  pine  the  were  The  strain  bole  were  beetle  refers  beetle  assumed  trees  pine  Strip-attack trees category  that  only  to  trees  fifth symptoms  although  damage  agent.  provided  for visual  from  beetle.  Successfully attacked  the baseline  interpretation  - two  bark  unsuccessful  as p e r c e n t a g e s .  per plot  than  evidence  environmental  accuracy  taken  was  positive  attacked.  some o t h e r  expressed  other  as o u t l i n e d above.  as those  The  there  s t i l l  showed  infestation  by  by  at each  s c a l e was  interpretation Approximately  healthy  against  were  four  trees  and  the  checked.  tabulated  core  two  which  and  samples  from  were  damaged  trees. 4.5.1 An  "Addo-X"  incremental in was  the study used  Laboratory tree  growth area.  a  ring  analyser  f o r a randomly Incremental  to establish  (1978) d e v e l o p e d  analysis of tree  used  selected  growth  the periodic  ratio  was  cores  to c l a s s i f y  number  over  growth  t o measure  of t r e e s  the l a s t  ratio  lodgepole  radial  10  (PGR). pine  with-  years Mahoney  stands  42  as  resistant  to  mountain  dividing  (less pine  than  1% m o r t a l i t y  beetle  infestation.  the last  5 year  increment.  If this  considered  resistant  susceptible the of  stand these  4.6  data  collected  of t h e t r e e  classification The  The  analysis  as observed  diameter  derived height  computer  statistics  categories  and i n f o u r  statistically  *  the  MIDAS: 1976).  c a l c u l a t e d by  t h e mean  5  year  the stand  the stand  total  i s  i s rated  The average radial  as  age of  increment  attack  and t h a t  were s t r a t i f i e d  form  was  (sample  damage  according  The b i o l o g i c a l  using  tree  used  to  t o damage  were h e i g h t  to obtain  size,  minimum,  f o r each  attack type  one-way  (m),  as c a l c u l a t e d .  histograms maximum,  variable  categories.  condition  by  the photographs.  Each  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e between  status,  obtained  and a c c o r d i n g  f o r each  deviation)  tested  data  ( d b h ) (cm) a n d t h e PGR  package  standard  from  0.9  1.0,  attack.  i n the f i e l d  cores,  population  (ANOVA).  than  of the f i e l d  as i n t e r p r e t e d  at breast  MIDAS*  each  than  beetle  i n the f i e l d ,  variables  descriptive  and  was  by t h e p r e v i o u s  greater  and i f l e s s pine  T h e PGR  cores.  The  status  was  calculated using  Statistical  analysis  ratio  t o mountain  was  increment  p e r annum), o r s u s c e p t i b l e  analysis  of the stand  mean a n d  i n four variable  each of  and  attack was  damage  class  variance  was  inferred  results.  Michigan  I n t e r a c t i v e Data  Analysis  System  (Fox &  Guire  43  4.6.1  Statistical For  densitometric  transparencies, alone. the  analysis  The  analysis  the trees  variables  of f i l m  were  derived  d e n s i t i e s of the three  cyan,  t o which  Moore  the r a t i o s  values:  TGR,  and TRIR  effects  values such  are used  Descriptive deviations, at  each  and  scale,  analysis between  of  variance  each  The  existed  within  classes. ed  purpose  variable on  each class time.  analysis  variable within at a time The  and  purpose  densitometric  within  the ground,  A one-way  of  yellow,  magenta  any  range,  were and  response of  total  film  external  f o r each  i f significant the d i f f e r e n t of variance  of the four  scales  was  also  and  one-way  variable  of  the the  four  differences damage was  perform-  categories,  as  scales. c a r r i e d out f o r  f o r one p a r t i c u l a r damage  p a r t i c u l a r attack  to determine  A  from  a t each  the attack  standard  variable  package.  done  of  of v a r i a n c e  mean,  f o r each  interpreted  was  of  f o r each  f o r one  values  as  analysis  each  type  scale  total  performed  values  the four  was  size,  to determine  densitometric  t o damage  Ratios  computed  This  S i m i l a r l y , a one-way  f o r each  identified  was  infrared  irregularities.  classes  photographs.  three  statistical  (ANOVA) was  o f t h e damage  colour-infrared scales.  t h e MIDAS  colour  a t each  to minimize  (sample  h i s t o g r a m s ) were  effects  been a p p l i e d , ( v i z :  computed.  film  statistics  using  had  of these  and  tree  dye-layers:  were  scale  according  f o r each  i n order  as, shading  and  the o r i g i n a l  transformations  4.4), and  response  of  grouped  film  Section  TGIR  response  category  the e f f e c t  the c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d  of scale  at a on t h e  transparencies.  44  5.  RESULTS  5.1  Biological The  AND  DISCUSSION  data  results  performed  of  one-way  for height,  dbh  category  are presented  that  successfully  the  having found pine  the by  largest  Cole  having  beetle  found,  and  a  than  Although  no  they  indicated increasing  were  had  the  growth  PGR  values  of  and  vigour  over  bark PGR  beetle value  showed  classes. IHOb  no  the  than  1.0,  last by  10  have  the  same  the  PGR  HH  of  among  last trees by  Tress  out" adult 1.0.  had  larger  results  lodgepole  PGR  than  I V ) , which experienced  mountain  and  were  a PGR  of  pine  f o r other  largest  of  the  PGR.  while  had  growth  resisted  had  results  any  1.0,  reasons,  have  beetles  less  beetle  decline in  which  were  the  having  a  pine  values  years  ANOVA  between the  had  10  indicated  existed  values  .43  stress  which  trees  those  stand.  (Table  those  than  are  that  i n that  the  years.  greater  indicates  with  trend  attacked  "pitching  differences  However,  trees  over  damage  s u s c e p t i b l e to mountain  differences  symptoms  than  marginally  that  indicated  category  vigour  IV  trees  corresponds  this  showed  attack  more  pine  trees within  successfully  less  result  and  Table  +  1.0.  which  V.  lodgepole  (ANOVA)  attack  1.21  than  those  variance  of  and  a PGR  susceptible to attack  and  and  interesting  less  Trees  IV  trees within  significant an  of  f o r each  (1980) which  smaller  trees  that  This  dbh  indicated  non-attacked  PGR  attacked  Amman  attack  and  i n Tables  dbh.  larger  analysis  a of  mean the  damage HH  and  IIIOa/IIE  PGR  45  TABLE  IV.  R e s u l t s o f ANOVA f o r f i e l d d a t a o f t r e e c l a s s i f i e d according to attack status.  Heigh|  Attack* N  Status  x  dbh  (m)  x  + a a *  Non.  69  22.5  + 3.9  a  Sue.  64  22.9  + 3.3  a  P.O.  14  21.7  + 3.4  13  19.9  + 3.4  Not  MPB  (The s t r i p a t t a c k c a t e g o r y 2 t r e e s was t o o s m a l l )  a b  b  was  populations  PGR  (cm)  + a  x  N  + 4.3  b  14  1.21  + .43  a  24.6  + 4.9  a  17  .98  + .35  a  22.7  + 3.7  1.01  + .27  a  21.2  + 3.8  + .13  a  a b  .98  4  b  disregarded  6  since  t h e sample  columns f o l l o w e d by a d i f f e r e n t l e t t e r a r e d i f f e r e n t , S c h e f f e ' s T e s t (p < .05)  ^Attack status ground.  refers  to condition  of t r e e s  as seen  *PGR = P e r i o d i c g r o w t h r a t i o . Ratio of current t o p a s t 5 - y e a r i n c r e m e n t (Mahoney 1978). 3 +  o = mean + s t a n d a r d  + a  21.7  •Totals within significantly  x  2  deviation.  s i z e of  on t h e  5-year  increment  46  TABLE  V.  R e s u l t s o f ANOVA f o r f i e l d d a t a o f t r e e c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o damage c l a s s .  Height  Damage* N  Class  x  dbh  (m)  +_ a  x  + a  68  22.5  + 4.0  a  21.7  + 4.2  IHOb  43  21.9  + 3.2  a  23.0  + 4.5  IIIOa/IIE  13  24.1  + 2.8  a  24.9  + 4.1  a  IIIOb/IIE  36  22.2  + 3.4  a  24.1  + 5.4  a  was  disregarded  PGR  (cm)  HH  (The 1110a c a t e g o r y small).  since  Damage c l a s s r e f e r s t o c o n d i t i o n o f t r e e s 1:2,000 s c a l e p h o t o g r a p h s .  b  a b  +  a = mean  + standard  deviation.  2  + a  N  x  14  1.22  + .41  a  12  1.05 + . 3 7  a  5  .85  +  .32  a  10  .98  +  .22  a  t h e sample  size  as i n t e r p r e t e d  PGR = P e r i o d i c g r o w t h r a t i o . Ratio of current t o p a s t 5 - y e a r i n c r e m e n t (Mahoney 1 9 7 8 ) . x  populations  5-year  was t o o  from  increment  47  and  IIIOb/IIE  trees size  were of  not  this  hypothesis mountain  group.  pine V  as  Table  indicates  of  variance  of  the  (Mahoney  of  by  in  damage  smaller  i n diameter  the  trees.  Trees  than 1110b  the  healthy  group The  latitude  and  trees, any  results  of  the  (50°50') and  indicated  that  this  terms  of  Amman  1980;  5.2  Qualitative  PGR  lodgepole  1978;  to  than  mountain Safranyik  interpretation  of  sample  pine  damage  and  to  those  1981). status,  One-way the  HH  class  have  analysis  trees  IIIOb/IIE  were  trees a  and  larger  between  dbh  the  significant.  analysis, m  are  in height  that  the  classes.  McLean  difference  dbh  pine  small  Mahoney's  IIIOb/IIE  1110b  the  (762  the  status.  i s not  and  altitude  susceptibility Mahoney  group  to  showed  i n the  however,  other  and  diameter class  IHOa  lodgepole  difference  significantly IIIOa/IIE  data  (Murtha  significant  to  with of  1.0.  1978).  IIIOa/IIE stress  than  due  agree  biological  difference dbh  analysis  susceptibility  1110b,  no  smaller  results  attack  symptoms  significant  in this  the  relates  early  values  These  beetle  showing  and  PGR  included  classified  V  had  regarding  Table Trees  trees  coupled  a . s . l . ) of  stand  i s at  pine  the  high  beetle  et_ a J .  the  with  study risk  attack  the site,  in  (Cole  and  1974).  colour  infrared  photo-  graphs Unfortunately photo thus  lines sample  were sizes  with  changes  incompletely are  in altitude,  covered  irregular  which  and were  data  some were  of  the  air-  omitted,  considered  when  48  discussing early  the r e s u l t s .  symptoms  interpreted by  Murtha  (HH, ies  of  stress  f o r damage  (1972,  on  types,  using  (Table  III).  1978)  IHOb,  IIIOa/IIE,  of t r e e  health  as  showed  wildlife, some  some  showed  that by  (Table  VI).  The  showed  that  other  similar  strain  damaged  by  stressed strain  The  IIIOb/IIE.  pine  were  as t h e y matrix  and  category  At  1:1,000,  correctly classified seven  (22%) as  was  developed  types  showed  been  were 5  i n some  some  slightly  a s damage  reason data,  trees  to  having  those  of the t r e e s different  types  IHOb,  classified  t o be  by  b a s e s ) and  the ground  symptoms  trees  Ground-  apparent  with  used  categor-  damaged  at tree  Likewise,  confirmed  used  occurred  was  ones  as  not  healthy  attacked  to histogram  i n each  derived  attack  f o r each  t h e number  category  scale  t o show  of  and a  each cross  damage  type  (Figure 10).  26 o f  classified a s HH,  had  resulted  Generally,  types  to represent  visually  o r damage  later  qualitatively  damage  scars  classified  showing  the photographs.  compared  beetle  those  beetle.  tabulation attack  when  beetle.  pine  MIDAS p a c k a g e  type  f o r no  of s t r e s s  pine  and were  the photos  mountain  damage  forms  Five  trees  (burn  manifestations  symptoms  on  results,  mountain  and  fire  and  were  IIIOb/IIE)  of these  of s t r e s s  by m o u n t a i n  IIIOa/IIE (HH)  some  trees  t h e damage  i n t e r p r e t e d on  ground  signs  healthy  the photos  IHOa,  checking  by  Only  two  t h e 29  a s HH.  (90%) non-attacked  Two  (6%) of the a t t a c k e d  (6%) as I H O a ,  IIIOa/IIE  and  nine  trees  twelve  (28%) as  (38%) as IIIOb/IIE.  were  trees  were  IHOb, Three  of  49  TABLE  VI.  Number agents Valley  o f l o d g e p o l e p i n e s t r e s s e d by e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s t h e y o c c u r r e d by damage t y p e i n t h e T r a n q u i l l e s t u d y s i t e , K a m l o o p s , B.C., 1 9 8 1 .  Cause  of Stress Mountain Pine Beetle  Wildlife  Groundfire  Unknown  HH  -  -  -  27  1110a  -  -  -  10  IllOb  3  7  3  109  IIIOa/IIE  -  -  -  53  IIIOb/IIE  5  13  6  68  TOTAL  8  20  9  267  Damage  50  GROUN D  DATA.  1  2  -  12  1 1  moa  mob WOly  z  Z  2 9  Ol  ZS  -  3  -  31  -  -  3  1  3  16  7  2  1  -  11  9  -  3  5  18  32  2  8  8  79  z  P.O.  2  £  H IB  STRIP  26  6 al  ATT  HH  NON  Damage\  STRIP  \Attack  ATT  1:2000  \Atteck  NON  1:1000  58  4  1  6  TJJOa  6  3  -  -  -  TJJOb  3  35  -  1  4  43  1  10  2  2  -  1 5  7  15  1  5  9  37  75  67  4  14  13  173  si —  Damage\ HH  ElOa/  mob/ /jlE  1- CO O a. z a  -  69 9  o UJ  x a  1  -  2  3  -  25  -  -  j IHOa  mOa/  As-  m o b /  z:  —  6  12  2  1  3  12  -  4  3  6  53  -  J 2 8  -  j  1  1  32  DamageV  5  2 | 28 -  ! i 1 6  HH  a  43  4  1  4  o  z 52  IHOa  3  2  -  -  -  5  mob  3  33  -  1  4  41  1  10  2  2  -  15  7  1 5  4  6  32  IHOa/ SUE  4 ' 23  /HE  6 J100  Z  i I  STRIP  1  i  | mob  FIGURE 10:  26  \Attack  I  ATT.  o  STRIP  HH  Damage ,  1:4000  ATT.  O l-  \Attack  'NON  1:3000 'NON  tr a or ui i-  5 7  64  —  3  11  10  145  C r o s s t a b u l a t i o n o f damage c l a s s i f i c a t i o n v s . mountain p i n e b e e t l e a t t a c k s t a t u s o f l o d g e p o l e p i n e f o r each o f f o u r s c a l e s c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d photographs o f t h e T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y study s i t e , 1981.  51  the  eight  were  (38%) t r e e s  classified  showing  signs  attacked  stress, were  a s HH,  were  damage  classified The  than  data  that  trees  attacked  IHOb  other  trees  were  IIIOa/IIE,  and 3  remaining damage. while  three  stressed preted  as At  preted (2%) was tain and  by  agents  IHOb  was  Of  t h e MPB.  a s HH  (67%).  beetle,  of 3  (38%)  IIIOb/IIE. photographs  Only  a s HH,  symptoms  4  i s larger  (77%) of t h e (6%) of  the  HH newly-  10  (15%) as  IHOa. trees  than  A  little  were as  under  showing  as  symptoms was  pine  incipient as  A l l the  beetle  attacked  were  trees  HH,  trees inter-  The  interpreted  were  trees,  strip-attacked  the photographs. were  the  (56%).  successfully  trees  of  and  classified  the non-attacked  One  (43%) o f  a s HH  stressed.  mountain  a s HH.  half  classified  IIIOb/IIE  from  damaged  pine  as  (22%) as I I I O b / I I E ,  (81%) of  classified  beetle  IIIOb/IIE  mountain  interpreted  t h e 53  strip  (52%) were  other  26  (100%)  as  35  (44%) and  1:3,000,  interpreted  showing  the strip-attacked  (75%) were  "pitch out"  the photographs  Fifty-eight  interpreted  (25%) of  interpreted pine  15  by  while  (pitch-out)  a s HH.  tree  by  (4%) as  57% were One  two  (62%) as  classified  as I H O b ,  resistant  The  trees  by  and 5  62% were  from  those  scale.  not a t t a c k e d  classified  the  Of  attack  s e t f o r t h e 1:2,000 s c a l e  f o r any  were  damage.  not a t t a c k e d as  resisted  interpreted  type.  although  had  the remaining  of i n c i p i e n t  trees  IIIOa/IIE  which  inter-  only  tree  1  (33%)  s i x non-mounas I H O b  (33%)  52  At Of  43  the s u c c e s s f u l l y  IHOb, as  1:4,000,  15  (23%) as  1110a.  "pitch were One  attacked  trees  IIIOb/IIE,  10  (36%) of  o u t " were  interpreted  2  classified a s damage  beetle  (67%) were stressed  as  IIIOb/IIE  were  ( 6 0 % ) damage  damage  beetle  attack,  beetle  attacked  attacked The condensed trees  by  types  trees,  trees  ground  data  to produce  as IIIOa/IIE. as  trees  rated  7  (64%)  IIIOb/IIE. the  that  analysis  the IHOb  of  and  i n d i c a t o r s of  stressed  a s HH  pine  (40%) and  consistent  include  by  a s HH,  the visual  i t appears  may  attack  Non-mountain  IHOb  Throughout  (3%)  and  classed  as  and 2  the remaining  trees  were  type  disregarded.  The  forest  trees  and  those  terms  of b e e t l e types  the  damage  two  categories: and  stressed  non-mountain pine  are given  damage  and p h o t o - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  a s HH;  and  HH  resisted  IIIOa/IIE  was  HH.  but not  generally  not  MPB.  attacked  cation  they and  and  as  classified  IIIOa/IIE,  had  IHOb,  a r e t h e most  although  classified  was  that  healthy  c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d photographs  IIIOb/IIE  classified  (52%) were  classified  types.  were  (16%) as  types  interpreted  trees  33  the trees  (33%) of the s t r i p - a t t a c k e d  other  the  Four  (75%) of the t r e e s  The  beetle  results  of  healthy  data  were  i . e . non-attacked  i . e . attacked, damage. this  The  strip1110a  condensed  damage  classifi-  i n Table VII. manager  needs t o d i s t i n g u i s h between  newly-attacked attack,  indicated type  were  by  the IHOb, trees  mountain  pine  IIIOa/IIE  stressed  non-attacked  by  bark  trees.  and  beetle.  In  IIIOb/IIE  beetle The  healthy  and most  percent  of  TABLE  VII.  Accuracy of p h o t o - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of healthy^ and s t r e s s e d " t r e e s a t each of t h e 4 s c a l e s using the o r i g i n a l c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d p o s i t i v e transparencies of a lodgepole p i n e s t a n d i n t h e T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , K a m l o o p s , B.C., 1 9 8 1 . 5  Photo-i n t e r p r e t a t i o n HEALTHY Ground* Count  Scale  2  No. Correct  3  Accuracy  STRESSED  trees  % Accuracy  3  Ground Count  No. Correct  trees  % Accuracy  4 Overal1 Accuracy  1:1,000  29  26  90%  42  40  95%  93%  1:2,000  75  58  77%  84  79  94%  86%  1:3,000  32  26  81%  62  60  97%  91%  1:4,000  57  43  75%  77  72  94%  86%  ^Ground  count  = total  trees  number  on  as determined  on  t h e ground  3  Stressed  4  0 v e r a l l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a c c u r a c y was o b t a i n e d by t a k i n g w e i g h t e d means o f t h e H E A L T H Y and STRESSED t r e e s c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d and e x p r e s s i n g t h e r e s u l t as a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l number o f t r e e s i n b o t h categories.  classified  a s HH  category  Healthy  are those  classified  i n each  2  trees  are those  of t r e e s  photos  as I H O b ,  IIIOa/IIE,  IIIOb/IIE  accuracy which been  figures  were  by  some  not  i s some  attacked scale.  As  similar  tends  scale as  1:1,000,  83%  at  at  the  decrease  were  mountain  achieved  found  pine  trees to  have  beetle  attacked  changes.  interpretation  healthy  trees. of  trees  Murtha  at  of  the  overall  1:3,000,  are  (1983)  reported increased  healthy  83%  non-  wrongly  accuracy  and  is  decreased  misclassification  an  trees  However,  with  s e p a r a t i o n of  with  91%  scale  and  i n accuracy  more  however,  1:2,000,  the  a  the  reasonable  larger  small  colour  at  and of  89%  at  1:4,000  trees  i s very  of  1981  sample  of  most  with the  compared  changes  process  1982  s e p a r a t i o n was was  achieved  considerably  slower  colour-infrared  with  1982  trees  i n one  year  (see  over  photographs  1981  that  attacked  obvious  of  scales.  b e e t l e underwent  between  accuracy  interpretation  qualitatively  foliage  alone  that  by  frequency  scale,  Comparison A  ed  p o r t i o n of  VIII).  1:4,000,  pine  than  non-attacked  affected  to  The  was  Although  were  other  decreases,  results.  trees  5.2.1  s t r e s s e d , but  stressed/damaged  attacked  than  being  the  indication  decreasing  (Table  of  greatly  trees  classified  at  corrected for that  VIII).  apparently  with  as  agent  Interpretation  there  then  identified  damaged  (Table  were  one  Plates  to  determine  newly-attacked (Table  year 2 and  d e t e c t i o n studies are  photos  ago 3)  carried  IX). and and out  photographs  by  The those  for  mountain difference newly-infest  this  i n the  the  reason late  summer  TABLE  VIII.  Accuracy of p h o t o - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of n o n - a t t a c k e d ^ and attacked" trees at each o f t h e 4 s c a l e s u s i n g t h e o r i g i n a l c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d p o s i t i v e transparencies of a lodgepole pine stand i n the T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , K a m l o o p s , B.C., 1981. 3  Photo-i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Healthy  NON-ATTACKED  Count  ATTACKED  trees  %  No. Correct  Scale  2  Accuracy  Accuracy 3  Ground Count  No. Correct  trees 4 Overall Accuracy  % Accuracy  1:1,000  29  26  90%  42  37  88%  89%  1:2,000  75  58  77%  85  74  87%  83%  1:3,000  32  26  81%  62  60  97%  91%  1:4,000  57  43  75%  78  69  88%  83%  ^Ground 2  count  Non-attacked  = total trees  number  were  of t r e e s  those  that  i n each  category  were d e s c r i b e d  as determined  as h e a l t h y  from  •^Attacked t r e e s were t h o s e t h a t showed s i g n s o f b e e t l e a c t i v i t y a s : I H O a , I H O b , I I I O a / I I E a n d I I I O b / I I E on t h e p h o t o s 4  and  on  the ground  t h e ground photo-interpreted  0 v e r a l l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a c c u r a c y was o b t a i n e d by t a k i n g w e i g h t e d m e a n s o f t h e NONATTACKED a n d ATTACKED t r e e s c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d , a n d e x p r e s s i n g t h e r e s u l t as a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l number o f t r e e s i n b o t h c a t e g o r i e s .  TABLE  Tree Number  1  IX.  A c o m p a r i s o n o f 1981 d a m a g e - t y p e c o l o u r s w i t h t h e 1982 d a m a g e - t y p e c o l o u r s a s t h e y a p p e a r on c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d photographs of a lodgepole pine stand i n the T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , 1981.  Damage T y p e 1981 HH  Colour magenta  1982 HH  Colour magenta  2  IIIOa/IIE  dark  magenta  IIIG  yellow  3  IIIOb/IIE  dark  magenta  IIIG  yellow  4  IHOb  light  magenta  IIIG  yellow  5  IHOb  light  magenta  IIIG  yellow  6  IHOb  light  magenta  IIIG  yellow  7  HH  magenta  HH  magenta  8  IHOb  light  magenta  IIIG  yellow  9  IHOb  light  magenta  IIIG  yellow  10  IIIOa/IIE  dark  11  IHOb  light  magenta magenta  IIIOb/IIE IIIG  light yellow  magenta  57  PLATES 2 and 3:  C o l o u r - i n f r a r e d s t e r e o - p a i r s (1:2000) of lodgepole pine n e w l y - i n f e s t e d with mountain pine b e e t l e i n 1981 compared with photographs of the same t r e e s i n 1982. (Reference should be made to Table IX).  1981  1982  1981  1982  60  early will  fall  of  the  year  have  found  new  The  small  sample  trees  interpreted  characteristic  host  as  of  visibly  changed  the  foliage  had  These Tree  on 8  the  was  symptoms beetle, crown  did  colour  been  as  i t did  appear  a  photographs  mountain  pine  5.3  beetle,  applied.  Film  indicates (Fritz density  a  low  1967).  be  rather  used  to  pine the  infested  by  colour  tree  not  data  pertaining to  which  of  ratios  infer  the  Moore  densities  density  than  to  value  for  infrared are  absolute  three  year.  the  density  The  colour  attacked  of  by  the  dye-layer  inversely  light  in  pine  transformations  the  1981.  damage  one  each  cyan from  i n d i c a t i v e of  differences  in  stress.  for  are  as  IIIG).  beetle  on  response obtained  seen  type  over  was  later,  mountain  film were  9  beetle,  year  same  (IIIOb/IIE)  This  dye-layer  Dye-layer  beetles  the  was  (damage  i t showed  change  of  pine  and  of  ratios  high  colour  mountain  newly  8  One  of  reflectance  patterns may  a  year.  symptoms  statistics  their  adult  symptoms  show  Descriptive  and  that  did  analysis  e.g.  by  that  1982.  but  densities  time  mountain  photographs  trees  in  variables  ratios  in  Statistical  reflectance,  red-brown  visibly  densitometric  been  a  l i g h t e r magenta  infrared  damage  following  attacked  not  which  indicates  subtle  the  to  the  by  i n f e s t a t i o n by  exception  1981  but  showing  changed  had  an  in  comparison  colour-infrared  trees  10  attack  trees.  recent  had  yellow  after  had  related  to  dye-layer the  subject  relative  values.  reflectance  Dye-layer patterns  61  (Hall  e_t a _ l . 1 9 8 3 ) .  Appendix  1  i n the  ANOVA damage  The  form  results by  scale  measurements  of  the  application yellow The to  value  ratios  between  to which was  At  film  plotted  1:1,000,  no  any  of  the  film  Two  of  the  response  differences film  of  ly  higher  than  in  t h e HH  and  t o TIR,  elevated  reflectance  light,  whereas  ratio,  which  between  to  HH  response either  side  values  the  the  t h e TGIR  of  in  of  reduced  the  1110a  cyan,  TIR. (refer  found mean  baseline  and  the  damage  of  the  of  showed  found  damage  the  TG  are  classes.  significanttrees  h i g h e r TG  value  indicated to  s m a l l e r TG  significant IHOb  TIR  of  relative a  between  to  Images a  11).  significant  reflectance, light  type  (Figure  were  trees.  and  by  the  near-infrared  i s no  density  modified  were  baseline  having  The  using  ratios  groups  each  letters  indicated  near-infrared  of  these  differences  I I I O b / I I E group,  ratios  the  drawn  the  IIIOb/IIE  There  the  IIIOa/IIE trees  i n terms  a  and  the  for  modified  f o r each  The  and  f o r the  green.  as  however,  f o r HH  suggested  been  of  f o r each  values.  of  presented  [Note:  differences  values  significant  which,  are  values  X.  TR,  were  trees  I I I O a / I I E damage  relative  relative  significant  ratios,  those  magenta,  combinations  the  response  values  i n Table  histograms  i n response  response  the  by  classes, value  given  response  transformation, thus,  TG,  Where  film  d y e - l a y e r s have  Moore  4.4)].  damage  differed  are  denoted  statistics  histograms.  total  film  becomes  response  extent  the  are  Methods  film  of  of  of  class  descriptive  green to  TIR  reflectance difference trees  and  the  TABLE X. ANOVA results of film response values for each damage class as interpreted from CIR transparencies of a lodgepole pine stand in the Tranquille Valley, 1981. Damage Class  (N)  Scale 1:1,  Total Film Response TG TR TIR  Response Ratio TGR TGIR TRIR  000  HH  a  5.12+.44  a  1.20+.07  a  4.97+.08  a b  4.15+.22  .31+.07  a  1.17+.05  a  4.82+.54  a b  4.10+.38  a  .33+.07  a  1.21+.07  a  5.19+1.13  a  .34+.10  a  1.19+.05  a  4.56+.75  .37+.12  a  1.15+.07  a  4.46+1.06  •47+.12  b  a  1.37+.33  a  .32+.10  1.66+.33  a  1.37+.20  a  .33+.06  (16)  1.49+.28  a  1.27+.22  a  (11)  1.65+.29  a  1.35+.19  (18)  1.51+.34  a  1.27+.25  1.54+.25  a  1.34+.21  1.81+.31  b  1.54+.22  C  (43)  1.50+.30  a  1.29+.21  a  (15)  1.71+.37  b  (37)  1.55+.32  IHOa IllOb IIIOa/IIE IIIOb/IIE Scale 1:2, (  3)  4.35+.43  1.18+.05  1.62+.44  (31)  a  a  a  b  a  t t D  a b  4.26+.77  a  3.84+.61  b  3.85+.81  a  3.37+.55  a  3.73+.73  a  000  (69)  HH  IHOa IHOb IIIOa/IIE IIIOb/IIE Scale 1:3, (  9)  oh 1.17+.08  3.97+.82  .se+.n  1.16+.09  4.35+1.03  l^+.SO  .41+.11°*  I.IS+.OS"*  4.26+.54  a  3.62+.51  a  1.30+.25  .35+.73  a  1.20+.07  b  4.46+.49  a  3.72+.41  a  a D  813  130  a b  a  a  a  a  a  ,000  HH  IHOa IHOb IIIOa/IIE IIIOb/IIE Scale 1:4  (28)  1.67+.37  a  1.41+.29  a  .36+.10  a  1.18+.05  a  4.67+.54  a  3.97+.42  a  (  1.69+.23  a  1.37+.16  a  .36+.05  a  1.23+.09  b  4.64+.48  a  3.77+.33  a  (28)  1.53+.29  a  1.30+.24  a  .35+.08  a  1.18+.06  a  4.47+.52  a  3.79+.41  a  (16)  1.69+.24  a  1.39+.21  a  .37+.07  a  1.22+.04  b  4.64+.56  a  3.80+.45  a  (23)  1.51+.27  a  1.25+.21  a  .34+.06  a  1.21+.05  b  4.51+.37  a  3.72+.32  a  (52)  1.79+.34  a  1.52+.27  a  .40+.09  a  1.18+.04  a  4.51+.40  a  S.SS+.ST -  (  •1.80+.22  a  1.48+.15  a  .40+.04  a  1.22+.03  b  4.52+.19  a  (41)  1.72+.33  a  1.47+.29  a  •40+.09  a  1.17+.04  a  4.30+.38  a  (15)  1.94+.34  a  1.63+.26  a  .46+.09  a  (32)  1.79+.30  a  1.49+.24  a  .40+.08  a  5)  ,000  HH  IHOa IHOb IIIOa/IIE IIIOb/IIE  5)  nh 1.19+.03 1.20+.03  b  4.29+.41  a  4.47+.43  a  8  3 . 7 1 + . ^ 3.67+.30  a  3.60+.33  a  3.73+. 3 ^  Values folowed by different letter are significantly different, Scheffe's Test (p < 0.05)  63  •3r  +  inooo  CO  HH  CD  .1  •o 0 c o a  M  a >  IR  .1  HH -  .1  .2  .2  .3 -  .3  .4 .4  GREEN •3r  s_> + .1  1:2000 HH -  .1  .5  .5 .6  .6 RED .2 + .1  HH]  .1  HH -  - .IL  HHLH  1:3000  n  N.IR  •  EI  .1  +  -TBT  /R  .1  r-i HH  m  % 1:4000  "S HHI -  FIGURE  n  .1  11: F i l m r e s p o n s e d e v i a t i o n ( f r d ) h i s t o grams o f s t r e s s e d v s . h e a l t h y lodgepole pine, T r a n q u i l l e Valley,1981.  f"~l IHOa  tU mo* 11 lIIOallE HObDE  64  remainder. greater  than  relative trees  that  increase  that  significant  of b o t h  higher  reflectance The  differences  of the f i l m  values  response  the I H O a  than  a reduced  a n d I I I O a / I I E damage f o r images  lower  than  differences damage  result light  compared  At  suggested  i s high  indicated  the ratios  a relative  to red light  and I H O b  relative  damage  The r a t i o that  reduction  trees,  as signifi-  No  signifi-  v a l u e s of  f o r the IIIOb/IIE  trees  and I H O b  in reflectance type,  where f i l m  significant  on e x a m i n a t i o n  o f t h e TG  significant  i n the  were  trees.  o f t h e HH  damage  values,  by t r e e s  response  a  was  trees. of  as  record  of  to the red l i g h t . no  classes  suggested  i n these  i n t h e I I I O b / I I E damage  t h e 1:3,000 s c a l e ,  between  response.  than  to the healthy  light  the f i l m  (TG)  were  The TIR v a l u e s ,  of the I H O a  The TGIR r a t i o  higher  green  o f t h e TR  of r e d l i g h t  between  t h e damage  Total  and IIIOb/IIE t r e e s ,  the TIR value  types.  between  the trees  categories.  o f t h e HH  existed  by  HH  photographs  which  on e x a m i n a t i o n  reflectance  from  and I I I O a / I I E groups  light  found  existed  groups,  a  category.  variables.  f o r other  of green  same was  significantly  found  light  o f t h e 1:2,000 s c a l e  recorded  green  of near-infrared  analysis  indicating  green  suggested  response  classes.  This  which  Film  reduced  cantly  significantly  i n the IIIOb/IIE  significantly  other  in reflectance  trees,  was  to trees  response  cant  of the I I I O b / I I E  trees  compared  f o r each  IHOa  o f t h e HH  when  revealed types  The TRIR r a t i o  response  differences  differences  were  of the t o t a l  t o t h e TR l a y between  film  response, t h e HH a n d  65  IHOb and  trees  and t h e r e s t  IIIOb/IIE).  significantly relative groups  The lower  increase  groups.  indicated  any  At  response  were  similar  scale  and of  t h e TG  variables to those  ratio  t o TR  There ratio  groups.  The  tree  IHOa The  from  significant using  smaller no  T h e TGR than  a n d TR  is significantly tree  cases  of t o t a l  film  Histograms values  found  response  and  between  responses  variables was  and I H O b  and t r e e s  that trees  IIIOb/IIE the  i n other  o f t h e HH  than  types  o f t h e 1:3,000  were  o f HH  smaller  of t h e  o f t h e damage  differences,  analysis  film damage and  the r a t i o s f o r  of variance  t h e d i f f e r e n t damage  mentioned,  types.  images.  r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way  those  ratios  of v a r i a n c e  of the I H O a  trees  and  damage  differences  difference  was  i n these  response  the analysis  that  values  IIIOa/IIE,  analysis  ratio  IIIOa/IIE,  indicating a  trees  between  significant  o f t h e TG  and I I I O b / I I E  from  from  any of t h e f i l m  significant  within  trees  and r a t i o s f o r each  of the IIIOa/IIE  images  the trees  ratio  o f one-way  (IHOa,  response  o r TRIR  differences  to reveal  ratio  that  terms  t h e TGIR  response.  was  response  IHOb  No  and I H O b  i n the IHOa,  obtained  classes  significantly  trees.  the  results  types  t o TR  reflectance  to trees  significant  damage  the only  was  f o r t h e HH  photographs.  between  o f t h e TG  Neither  1:4,000,  film  ratio  i n green  as compared  IIIOb/IIE  o f t h e damage  d i d not d i f f e r  indicate  categories, significantly  apart in  response.  (Figure  of trees  11) i n d i c a t e  within  how  the various  mean damage  film  response  classes  or  differed  66  from  t h e mean  those some  cases  values  Figures  types  drawn  represent  were found  for a particular  variable  only  between  at a  particu-  scale. At  1:1,000, a n a l y s i s  responses, ratio (Table  indicated  X).  This  damage  TIR  responses  red  reflectance  infers  categories.  types  photographs  response found  from  with  ance,  values  (Figure  greater  green  Analysis each  reflectance  TG,  TR,  than  patterns: than  IHOb  results  near-infra-  IIIOb/IIE  t h e 1:2,000  by t h e TG,  scale  f o r the TR,  response  and TIR  than  had lower  indicting  a  were t h e HH  reflect-  TG,  TR, a n d  relatively  reflectances.  ratios  revealed  a l l o f t h e damage  the r a t i o  to  and  from  images  trees  response  of  o f t h e TR t o  r e d and n e a r - i n f r a r e d  tree  types  i n each  and I I I O a / I I E images  r e d and n e a r - i n f r a r e d o f t h e TGR  values  response  and TIR f i l m  t h e HH  to infrared  tree.  IHOa  green,  trees  reflectance  significant differences  11).  o f t h e damage  greater  t o t h e HH  The I H O b  values  film  were r e c o r d e d  reduced  respectively.  elevated  ratios  that  response  in ratio  i n the IHOa,  response  classes  indicating  response  within  respect of f i l m  damage  to green  response  o f t h e HH  in film  a decreased  trees  indicate  t o have  trees,  a decrease  t o TIR  o f t h e TGIR  i n the context  The change  suggested  Histograms  different  types,  o f t h e TG  reduction  r e l a t i v e to response  the  damage  of t h e r a t i o  an o v e r a l l  f o r a l l damage  reflectance  TIR  trees.  where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  o f t h e damage  lar  o f HH  of t h e t r e e the  following  categories  f o r the healthy  images  trees  indicated i . e . the  TGR  67  TG  film  response,  response. ance red  of green light.  clearly  and  implies  light  the  histograms  these  The  followed  i . e . the relative  trees  types  have  by,the  IIIOa/IIE  within  each  o f t h e damage  this  reflectof the  most  appears  trees  ratio.  of green  t o be c o n s t a n t ratio  o f TG  types  to the healthy  a t 1:4,000 s c a l e ,  except  that  than  t h e HH  light  scale.  density, group  have t h e trees  trees  (HH)  f o r each  the IHOb  i s  at this  reflected less  t o be s i m i l a r  green  group  light  of r e f l e c t a n c e ,  apparently  At  and r e d  t o TR  and t h e I I I O b / I I E  In terms  11).  and t h e I H O b  appear  more  film  t h e 1:3,000  (Figure  patterns  reflects  the  point  f o r both  group  reflectance  t o r e d , as compared  reflectance  groups  class,  i n appearance  the highest  response  relative  types  f o r t h e HH  film  The  t o t h e TR  to the r e f l e c t a n c e  illustrate  o f t h e damage  lowest  light  trees  relative  damage  low r e l a t i v e  ratio  t w o damage  IHOa  i n each  are similar  t h e TG/TR  same,  i s higher  X).  1:4,000 s c a l e  1:3,000,  was  case  that  The I I I O b / I I E  (Table  The  by  This  i n each  group  green  trees. of t h e  of  trees  and t h e o t h e r  damage  types. It grams,  may  that  different (Figure light  than  from  the differences  damage  11).  classes  This  decreased At  class  be o b s e r v e d  t h e HH  a significantly trees  that  decreased  t h e 1:1,000 s c a l e ,  showed  in film  which  response  become r e d u c e d  indicates  with  the configuration  film  with  of these  ratios  of the  reduction  response  histo-  i n scale  to r e f l e c t e d  scale.  trees lower  suggests  a  within  the IIIOb/IIE  damage  ratio  o f TG a n d T I R  response,  reduction  i n near  infrared  68  reflectance response that  of  recorded,  ratio the  response light.  to  and  within  the  were  IIIOb/IIE  IHOa  and  those  of  of  to  the  taken  between  the  attack  between  the  response  do  not the  between  larger  TIR  values  values  were  significantly  in  the  changes  that  early  near  had by  occurred the  time  in the  the  IHOa  of  the  HH  the  larger  there the  as  of  spectral  infrared,  scale,  those  images  inferred  of  to  X).  signifi-  types,  compared  (Table  red  1:2,000  response  trees  than  to  show  damage  TRIR  film  to  film  the  one-way  categories  film  so  large  most  of  of  the  (Figure trees  The  that  within  XI)  values  than  changes was  in  evidence  visible  photographs  variance  portion were  their  between  little  differ-  ratios  for  deviation  significant  about  differences  did  each  the not  categories.  indicate the  of  showed  and  standard  attack 12)  analysis  (Table  response  categories.  Histograms values  of  attack  generally  ratio  decreased  At  values.  larger  TR  ( 5 0 0 - 7 0 0 nm)  results  ence  exist  that  ratios.  The  August.  of  was  case  groups  found  and  IHOb  occurred  spectrum  each  the  one  relative  damage  response  tree  and  suggest  The  of  light  were  TG  reflectance.  indicating a  significantly  HH  trees  in  significantly  response  trees.  Although  here  is  trees  other  film  IIIOa/IIE the  stressed  HH  differences  by  trees  green  trees,  different film  indicated  to  near-infrared  significant  type  the  IIIOb/IIE  Trees  cantly  of  relative  how  various  mean attack  film  response  categories  mean  TABLE XI. ANOVA results of film response values for each attack category. Atack Total Film Response Response Ratio Category (N) TG TR TIR TGR TGIR TRIR Scale 1:1,0,00 NON (29) 1.67+.41 1.39+.30 .33+.09 1.19+.05 5.11+.46 4.30+.45 o (32) 1.52+.28 1.27+.23 .32+.08 1.20+.10 4.79+.59 4.01+.50 P.TO ( 8) 1.31+.13 1.14+.12 • 28+.06 1.15+.03 4.73+.66 4.14+. 60^ A T.. STRIP ( 2) 1.98+.49. 1.53+.27 .31+.0l 1.29+.09 6.50+1.90 5.01+l.l NOT MPB ( 8) 1.60+.48 1.35+.36 •36+.14 1.18+.05 4.66+.91 3.95+. 73^ Scale 1:2,0,00 NON (75) 1.55+.26 1.34+. 20 .37+.ll 1.16+.07 4.49+1.03 3.85+.79 ATT. (67) 1.61+.37 1.37+.29 .39+.ll 1.18+.ll 4.29+.80 3.65+.60 P.O. (14) 1.42+.16 i.26+.V7 •36+.ll 1.13+.07 4.18+.93 3.67+.69 STRIP ( 4) 1.74+.39 1.53+.31 .38+.10 1.14+.05 4.69+.60 4.13+.48 NOT MPB (13) 1.45+.20 1.18+.15 .32+.06 1.23+.07 4.59+.67 3.72+.46 Scale 1:3,0,00 NON. (32) 1.63+.34 1.38+.27 ,35+.08 1.18+.05 4.66+.43 3.95+.34 ATT. (53) 1.61+.27 1.33+.22 •36+.07 1.21+.10 4.58+.55 3.79+.45 P.O. ( 6) 1.38+.14 1.12+.14 •30+.03 1.24+.07 4.62+.18 3.75+.24 STRIP ( 3) 1.76+.28 1.50+.23 ,38+.07 1.17+.02 4.58+.16 3.91+.!^ NON MPB ( 6) 1.34+.39 1.16+.36 • 33+.12 1.18+.05 4.20+.54 3.57+.41 Scale 1:4,0,00 NON. (57) 1.81+.36 1.52+.28 .41+.09 1.19+.04 4.48+.40 S^S+.STATT. (64) 1.77+.33 1.50+.28 .41+.09 1.18+.05 4.36+.40 3.69+.34 P.O. (11) 1.66+.17 1.41+.14 .38+.05 1.18+.03 4.45+.49 3.77+.42 STRIP ( 3) 2.00+.28 1.70+.23 .46+.09 1.18+.04 4.40+.37 3.73+.25 NON MPB (10) 1.73+.24 1.43+.21 •39+.05 1.21+.03 4.48+.45 3.70+.41 1  b  a b  3  4  5  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  b  a  a  b  a  a  a b  a  a  a  a  1x1  et  Bi>  b c d  a  a  a b  a  a  C  a  a  b  b  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  C  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  b  a  a  a  b  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a b  a  a  a  a  a  a  b  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  8  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  Values folowed by different letter are significantly different, Scheffe's Test (p < 05). 1 NON = healthy trees not attacked by mountain pine beetle M ( PB) ATT = trees successfully attacked by MPB P.O. = trees which had resisted attack by "pitch out" STRIP = trees which had been partially attacked by MPB NOT MPB = stressed trees not attacked by MPB  2  3 4 5  70  1.4 1.2 1.0  1:1000 .8  .8  .6  .6  .4  .4  > o +.2  +.2  + .2  att. co non a TJ  non. att.  c o  GREEN  .4f  •a 0)  CO  "W  -.2  .4  .4  I  non att.  I  -.2  .4 .6  1:3000  1:2000  REO  RED  2r  •2r  + .1  + .1 T3  £  non att.  n.  *D  £  non. att.  - .1  - .1  .2  .2  TJ  I  .3  FIGURE  12:  Film response deviation ( f r d ) histograms of stressed lodgepole p i n e v s . l o d g e p o l e p i n e nona t t a c k e d by mountain p i n e beetle, T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , 1981.  ["1  attacked  ffl  strip attacked  HH  pitch out  WL not MPB  71  differ pine  from  those  beetle,  represent found  and  only  between  variable At  at  trees are  a  1:1,000,  values  were  found  have  to  trees  that  was  significant tree  attacked  had  and  "pitch  out"  category.  trees  attacked  group,  was  strip-attacked the  other  film  was  to  compared  to  response  ratio  attacked  trees,  terms  total  (Table the  XI).  TGIR  ratios  non-attacked  The  the  film  was  TGIR  TGIR  film  ratio  for  film  light,  for  trees  attacked TIR  group  was  was  a particular  attack  in  trees  and  trees  beetles, out"  of  the the  12).  non-  This  result the  of  trees  that  than  suggests  an  trees  a l l other yield  category. larger  for  been a l l of  increased when the  the  strip-  different in  attack  categories  similar results The  non-  the  for  Apparently still  the  had  ratios  non-attacked trees.  of  which  There  "pitch  ratio  than  that  trees.  for  TG  between  response  result  significantly  and  within  for  ratios  the  trees  significantly  from  response  each  were  for  smaller  being  response  TRIR  drawn  found  (Figure  larger  green  this  for  values  greater  This  to  mountain  differences  response  recorded  categories.  TG  Figures  "pitch  response  significantly  of  and  categories  light  successfully  The  to  significantly  and  attack  response  of  green  by  were  attacking  i n TG  strip-attacked  attacked  non-attacked  compared  more  stressed.  differences  out"  reduction  that  attacked  categories  strip-attacked  infers  been  scale.  "pitched  as  not  significant  attack  between  been  images  where  significant  response  out"  the  particular  have  otherwise  cases  of  film  a  not  those some  which  TR/TIR  than  the  ratio ratio  to for for  72  attacked  trees,  infrared  reflected  light.  The  different TRIR  result  which  light  was  strip-attacked  from  ratio  the  values  gories.  The  increase  in  film  layers  dye  a  recorded  trees,  non-attacked than  higher the  trees  film  amount  relative  to  the  found  only  TR  XI).  Trees  were  the  stressed  only  non-attacked  group  more  that,  red  TR and  film  tively  that  smaller  had  response  were red  1:3,000, been  pine  decreased  record  of  trees  trees  that  and  those  for  red had  of  been  beetle  pine  different  from  images trees.  This  significantly pine  beetle  significantly that  had  had  that  trees. the  had  film,  for  strip-attacked.  higher  "pitched  This  result  out"  compara-  images  significantly  trees  by  and  higher  "pitched  strip-attacked  images  the  being  images tree  were  mountain  indicating a  of  the  recorded.  stressed,  stressed light,  trees  by  (Table  trees,  had  an  1:2,000 s c a l e  non-mountain  trees  cate-  categories  these  non-attacked  images  beetle  for  the  non-attacked  than  the  higher  attack  light  non-attacked  the  significantly  recorded  red  attack  the  otherwise record  of  red  i n d i c a t i v e of  significantly  for  than  more  significantly  light  for  than  film  not  is  than  response  strip-attacked  values  non-mountain  were  recorded  values  at  other  Strip-attacked  response  At which  was  to  amount  relatively  remaining  ratio  response  TR  than  compared  trees.  those  The  the  between  agents  which  lower  light  stressed  by  trees.  significantly infers  film  the  had  near-infrared  differences  the  by  group,  response  of  that  although  within  Significant in  indicated  trees. of  trees  TR  film  out"  and  suggests  non-attacked Images  of  trees  a  73  which  had been  different  successfully  from  other  a t t a c k e d were  a t t a c k groups,  not  i n terms  significantly o f TR  film  response. No  significant  categories film  on  indicate  that  terms  differ TRIR  of  trees  film  film  TRIR  higher  than  to  of green  tree is  images  no  record There  differences  with  These change  results  within and  other  ratios,  different  ratios  were  attack  a t 1:1,000. trees  most  d i d not  of  infrared  red reflectance  lodgepole  pine  reduction  in total  attack categories,  i n scale  of  response the  indicate  i n the red portion  of  film with  tree TGIR  significantly  tree  of  and  These relative  f o r the attacked  reduced  a t any  TGIR  the  reflectance  i s lower  of s i g n i f i c a n t l y  film  The  Both  were  XI  categories  but they  f o r the attacked trees.  the record  evidence  results  i n Table  and a t t a c k e d  i t i s f o r the non-attacked  that  given  f o r non-attacked  and  between  decrease  values  (Table XI).  strip-attacked,  trees  of the  ratios  apparent  suggests  been  any  trees.  for attacked i s an  which  that  than  further  and  using  the non-attacked  t h e same  infer  that  ratios  f o r the non-attacked  results  between a t t a c k  from  significantly  ratios  found  photographs,  12)  had  from  response  response  were  (Figure  different  were  or their  that  significantly  images and  variables  histograms  consistently in  t h e 1:4,000 s c a l e  response The  differences  images.  There  near-infrared  the smaller response decrease  to r e f l e c t e d  light  scales.  and in  ratio  scale,  decreases  photographs. that  t h e r e may  the spectrum,  be  some  spectral  as m a n i f e s t e d  by  74  TR  film  beetle tion  response, stressed  of  for  strip-attacked  trees.  non-attacked  However,  and  and  there  successfully  is  variables.  S i g n i f i c a n t l y lower  response  ratios,  the  trees,  suggest  near-infrared non-attacked There  that light  is  a  need  foliage  of  different  physical  that  find  an  increase  decrease  at  0.75 of  occur  the  each  of  damage  ANOVA,  a  analysis scale  on  class  showing  would  of  of  decrease trees  1.2  iri s i t u  changes  TRIR  the  these  film  newly  in  as  using  attacked amount  compared  of  to  um  in  recently  within  the  needles  attack.  no  early  from  the at  45  studies,  days  tree. 0.68  to  to  um  of  ponderosa he in  Heller  and  a  5-10%  spectrophotometric  and  how  In  addition  morphological  where  and  no  stress  (red)  attack.  elucidate  stress,  of  However,  by  physiological  out  response  after  that  Consequently  symptoms  (near-infrared)  needles  stressed  (1968) r e p o r t e d  beetle be  spectrophotometric  Heller  reflectance  carried  reflectance An  effect  be as  bark  reflectance  spectrophotometric  changes  occurred  there  did  should  species.  after  near-infrared  affect  images  these  further  reflectance  the  studies  for  changes  immediately  measurement  for  some  and  separa-  *  monitor  speculated  be  no  trees  TGIR  pine  trees.  to  pine,  may  recorded  studies  real  1:1,000 s c a l e  there  apparently  attacked  response  for  non-mountain  and  such  when changes  properties. of  variance  the and  film attack  was  carried  response  out  variables  category.  significant differences  The  to  determine  and  results  between  ratios of  the  values,  are  the of  to  75  tabulated  i n Tables  presented  graphically  Analysis scales TR  largest increase  response  values  TR  and  red light  film  significant  that  response  a decrease  Significantly  IIIOa/IIE response 1:1,000  trees value  was  trees,  a t the three of green,  photographs The  by e x a m i n a t i o n  i n TG a n d  a  and a t 1:4,000.  of  green  was  of the  a t 1:1,000 a n d 1:3,000  f o r these  reflectance  XII). TG,  f o r t h e 1:4,000  trees  (Table  higher  which  (Table  TIR  of the  film  images  XII).  r e d and n e a r - i n f r a r e d  IHOb  a t 1:4,000 t h a n a t  and TIR  scale  a  were r e c o r d e d f o r  In t h e case TR  IHOb  i n t h e TG  There  value  significantly  scales  of the  reflectance  values  No  f o r the f i l m  increase  response  response  larger  a n d t h e two  significant  a t 1:4,000.  infrared  and a  larger  images  Interpretation  lower  TR  trees  scales  i . e . recorded  (Table  of s c a l e  difference  a significant  i n recorded  at the smallest  effect  different  was  between  to those  higher  been  at  a t 1:2,000  i n t h e TIR f i l m  significantly  images  There  trees.  was  recorded  were r e c o r d e d  reduction  XII).  values,  a n d a t 1:3,000  f o r HH  significant  were found  there  have  13-16.  response  a t 1:4,000  values  ed  (Table  compared  results  t h e 1:4,000 s c a l e  i s significantly  increase  These  values  was  of the I H O a  a t 1:4,000  suggested  H E  between  images  indicated  XII).  there  differences  and  trees  response  i n t h e TIR f i l m  significant  group  that  values  scale  i n Figures  of f i l m  indicated  response  XII and XIII.  light  IHOb/  response  than f o r  This  indicated  recorded  a  by  scale.  of f i l m  of the response  response  patterns  i s determin-  ratios.  I t appears  that  the  TABLE XII. ANOVA results showing effects of scale change on film response values for each damage class interpreted from CIR photographs of lodgepole pine, Tranquille Valley, Scale  Total Film Response TG TR TIR  Response Ratio TGR TGIR TRIR  (N) Damage Class: HH 1:1,000 (31) 1.624+.444 1.368+.332 .321+.104 1:2,000 (69) 1.542+.254 1.342+210 .370+.119 1:3,000 (28) l.eso+.sOT i.42i+.295 .ses+.oge * 1:4,000 (52) 1.788+.343 1.516+.275 .401+.091 a  a  a  a  815  b  8 5  b  b  a  b  ab  b  1.180+.051 5.124+.443 4.353+.428 1.149+.066 4.458+1.057 3.854+.806 1.180+.046 4.683+.542 3.969+.426 i.i78+.040 4.509+.400 3.833+. see*  a  b  b  a  a  b  a  a  b  a  1  Damage Class: IHOa 1:1,000 ( 3) 1.656+.325 1.374+.200 .333+.061 1.200+.069 4.97+.084 4.150+.216 1:2,000 (9) 1.810+.308 1.543+.222 .473+.121 1.172+.084 3.97+.823 3.367+.555° 1:3,000 ( 5) 1.686+.234 1.370+.164 .364+.045 1.232+.093 4.64+.478 3.773+. 33a0' 1:4,000 ( 5) 1.804+.217 1.479+.150 .399+.044 1.218+.026 4.52+.187 a 3.708+.156" Damage Class: IHOb 1:1,000 (16) 1.491+.279 1.268+.217 .313+.069 1.173+.050 4.816+.536 4.101+.376 1:2,000 (43) 1.502+.308 1.291+.213 .SeS+.lCe'" 1.160+.091 4.347+1.039 3.718+.738 1:3,000 (28) 1.535+.285 1.304+.241 .348+.081 1.178+.056 4.468+.518 3.794+.41a4 b 1:4,000 (41) 1.712+.329 1.462+.287 .401+.088* 1.172+.037 4.307+.383 3.673+.302 Damage Class: IIIOa/IIE 1:1,000 (11) 1.650+.286 1.355+.186 .326+.067° 1.215+.068 5.192+1.28 4.258+.774 1:2,000 (15) 1.709+.366 1.445+.296 .408+.107be 1.182+.048 4.263+.544 3.617+.512 b' 1.221+. 039 4.636+. 559 3.799+. 4471:3,000 (16) 1.691+.236 1.388+.206 .370+. 07a2 1:4,000 (15) 1.949+.335 1.633+.262.458+. 086- 1.192+.035 4.285+.407 3.596+.330 Damage Class: IIIOb/IIE 1:1,000 (18) 1.515+.335 1.273+.253 .342+.103° 1.186+.046 4.558+.751 3.844+.607 1.200+.072 4.4458+.487 3.721+.406 1:2,000 (37) 1.555+.318 1.296+.250 .352+.073a 1.212+.049 4.510+.374 3.725+.323 1:3,000 (23) 1.513+.275 1.247+.210 .337+.063° 1:4,000 (32) 1.790+.302 1.490+.238 .403+.076 1.200+.032 4.469+.431 3.725+.366 a  a  b  a  8  a  8  a  8  a  a  8  tt  tt  a  a  a  b  b  a  8  a  8  a  8  a  cf  a  0  3  8  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  b  a  a  1  a  !  a  tt  a  a  b  b  a  a  a  a  a  s  a  a  a  8  a  a  a  a  8  a  a  8  a  a  a  a  a  a  b  1  b  a  a  Values folowed by a different letter are significantly different, Scheffe's Test (p < .05)  77  TABLE XIII. ANOVA results showing effects of scale change on total film response values f attack category of lodgepole pine "ground checked" in the Tranquille Valley, 198 Total Film Response TIR TG TR (N) Atack Categories: Non Atacked 1:1,000 (29) 1.665+.406 1.389+.304 .330+.092 1:2,000 (75) 1.552+.256 1.339+.198.369+.lll 1:3,000 (32) 1.645+.340 1.389+.271.355+.084° 1:4,000 (57) 1.813+.362 1.524+.280.409+.094 Atack Category: Successful Atack 1:1,000 (32) 1.522+.279 1.274+.226.323+.077° 1:2,000 (67) 1.608+.374 1.372+.294 .389+.115 1:3,000 (53) 1.609+.265 1.331+.223 .355+.070 1:4,000 (64) 1.775+.325 1.505+.280 .411+.086 Scale  a  a  8  a  a  a  a  b  b  a  a  c  1  a  a  c  a  a  8  b  b  t  Atack Category: "Pitch out" 1:1,000 ( 8)1.307+.133 1.142+.117.283+.065 1:2,000 (14) 1.418+.159 1.259+.173.361+.1131:3,000 ( 6)1.384+.138 1.124+.140.300+.031ab 1:4,000 (11) 1.664+.168 1.408+.141• 377+0 .52 Atack Category: Strip-Attacked 1:1,000 ( 2)1.980+.487 1.528+.270 .307+.015 1:2,000 ( 4)1.745+.387 1.530+.305 .376+.099 1:3,000 ( 3)1.756+.278 1.496+.230 .385+.073 1:4,000 ( 3)2.000+.280 1.697+.229 .459+.092 a  a  a  a  a  a  b  b  1  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  8  a  a  8  Atacked Category: NonM - PB damage 1 . 6 0 5 + .468 1.353+.360.361+.145 1:1,000 ( 8) 1:2,000 (13) 1.450+.198 1.175+.146.322+.060 1:3,000 ( 6)1.358+.391 1.159+.358.329+.120 .51 1:4,000 (10) 1.729+.241 1.430+.209•387+0 a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  Response Ratio TGR TGIR TRIR 1.193+.052 5.114+.463 1.159+.068 4.488+.106 1.182+.049 4.668+.430 1.187+.043 4.480+.398  4.297+.454 3.851+.789 3.951+.344 3.779+.369  1.197+.099 4.787+.587 1.175+.lll 4.289+.796 1.214+.103 4.585+.555 1.181+.051 4.355+.398  4.012+.504 3.645+.603 3.786+.447 3.690+.335  b  b  a  a  a  a  a  a  b a  a  a  a  b  a  a  a  b  a  a  b a  b a  a  1.145+.029 4.734+.656 4.139+.604 1.131+.071 4.183+.926 3.672+.691 1.236+.071° 4.621+.184 3.749+.243 1.181+.027 4.453+.487 3.773+.423 b a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  b c  a  a  1.288+.092 6.500+1.900 5.007+1.12 1.138+.047 4.694+.600 4.126+.'485 1.174+.021 4.585+.162 3.906+.171 1.179+.041 4.396+.367 3.726+.246 b  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  1.178+.054 4.659+.914 1.234+.066 4.591+.669 1.177+.052 4.201+.542 1.211+.027 4.477+.448  3.954+.733 3.716+.457 3.566+.414 3.703+.414  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  a  Values folowed by a different letter are significantly different, Scheffe's Test (p < .05)  78  FIGURE 13:  E f f e c t o f s c a l e on t o t a l response  of colour-infrared  film,  b y damage c l a s s o f l o d g e p o l e p i n e i n the T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , 1981.  2.0  2.0 r  HH  2.0  HTOa  HE Ob  GREEN  RED  ui 1.5  1.5  1.5  1.0  1.0  CO  z o a  10  Ui cc 1.0  <  .5  i-  i INFRARED  •Sr-  .5  O 1  2  _1  I 3  •  —1  1  4  2.0  2.0  u, 1.5  1.5  2  i  i  -I  i 4  3  2  SCALE  10  z o  a. in ui tt 1.0  < O  .5  'IR  I  —I  1  1 4  1 - 1:1000 2 - 112000  3 - 10OOO 4 . 1:4000  1.0  J  1 3  -J 2  J 3  4  SCALE  SCALE  79  FIGURE 14:  E f f e c t o f s c a l e on c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d f i l m response r a t i o s , by damage c l a s s o f l o d g e p o l e p i n e i n the T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , 1981.  FIGURE 15: . IUJKH  l  E f f e c t o f s c a l e on t o t a l response o f c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d f i l m to ^ e a i n f e s t e d w i t h mountain p i n e b e e t l e , o  d  g  e  p  o  l  e  p  Tranquille  i  n  e  i  n  a r  Valley,1981.  FIGURE 16:  E f f e c t o f s c a l e on c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d f i l m response r a t i o s f o r l o d g e p o l e p i n e i n an a r e a i n f e s t e d w i t h mountain p i n e b e e t l e , T r a n q u i l l e V a l l e y , 1981.  82  TGR  response  1:2,000  ratio  than  TIR  response  the  1:1,000  was  at the other measured, scale  than  more  infrared  were  no s i g n i f i c a n t  trees that  between  There and  light  f o r IHOb  was  no  ratios  at other  at this  response  ratios  images  scales. trees  recorded  scales  more  at the large in ratio  a n d T I R , a n d TR  less  higher  scale  (Table  values  patterns  of the c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d  Film scales  film and  response  three  values larger  response  light  a t 1:2,000  image  to affect film  The  was  film  IIIOa/IIE at  smaller  f o r IIIOa/IIE  no  significant  within  the film  f o r damage  ratio  response  measured was  suggested was  XII).  trees  There  and 1:4,000.  IHOb  TIR f i l m  There  that  the  four  response  type  IHOa  and  (Table X I I ) .  showed t h a t  response the  d i d not appear  ratio  and TIR o f t h e  was  at  f o r the I H O a  TRIR  (Table  f o r IIIOb/IIE  Scales  trees  XII).  trees  a t 1:1,000.  values  at less  infers  a t 1:1,000 t h a n  TIR response  scales.  IIIOb/IIE  more  HH  which  t h e 1:3,000  a t 1:1,000  are significantly  from  trees  than  although  than  scales  XII).  trees  significantly  of i n f r a r e d  a t 1:1,000  scales  was  i n ratio  (Table  f o r t h e HH  a n d TR,  f o r HH  reflectance  trees  f o r TG  Relatively  difference  t o TG  at the smaller  differences  scale  lower  There  s i g n i f i c a n c e between  recorded  tree  scales.  relative  was  the four  significantly  recorded  significantly  analysis there  within scales  revealed  of non-attacked  were  significantly  t h e 1:4,000 (Table that  XIII).  images  1:3,000 h a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  scale  lower  trees higher  images  TIR values  TG  a n d TR  and images a t  Measurement  of a t t a c k e d  at different  of t h e TIR  trees than  a t 1:1,000 images a t  83  1:2,000 a n d 1:4,000 successfully indicated higher  (Table  attacked  that  trees  recorded  at the smallest  significantly was  recorded  and  "pitch  less by  pine  beetle  the  response  that  response  reflected  These green,  found  stressed  f o r these  suggested  attack  that  r e d , and n e a r - i n f r a r e d for successfully scale  (Table  XIII).  between s c a l e s . types  was  light  attacked  f o r strip-attacked  trees  attack,  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  results  dye-layers,  were  f o r images o f  had r e s i s t e d  values  a t t h e 1:4,000  differences  mountain film  film  the film  The r e s u l t s  and t r e e s  scale.  out" trees,  significant  XIII).  No  and nonApparently,  not a f f e c t e d  by  scale. Analysis indicated, TGIR  i n the case  a n d TRIR  ratios  at  the three  at  the largest  relative reflected green the  smaller scale,  to green  The response  unusual  values  (Table  was  recorded,  light  was  light, There  found  scales  attacked  a t 1:2,000  suggests  reflected  red  than that,  light  and s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e l a t i v e to both film  from in  scales.  on e x a m i n a t i o n  influenced  trees.  t h e TGR,  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  a n d a t 1:4,000  o f t h e TIR  t h e TGIR  In both  a t 1:1,000 a n d a t 1:3,000 were values  that  by t h e c o l o u r - i n f r a r e d was  ratios  a t 1:1,000  This  recorded  at the smaller  result  response  trees,  XIII).  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  trees.  f o r the four  of f i l m  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  scales  light  ratios  successfully  ratio  were  and r e d r e f l e c t e d  response  of s c a l e  of the non-attacked  near-infrared  non-attacked  film  for  of t h e e f f e c t  cases,  film  a n d TRIR the ratio  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (Table  ratios  XIII).  than  Signifi-  84  cantly  higher  suggest  that  there  red  light  and  red light  the  TGR  was  recorded  by  the f i l m  recorded  that  some  1:3,000, and between  but  there  1:4,000. TRIR  response  significant  ratios  that  indicated  more  higher  of  at the largest  tain  relative  i n film  pine  beetle  It  appears  scale  change  tion)  (Figures  values less the  tend  for  sensing  that  light  i s being  vegetation  f o r trees scales.  was  by  data  film  1:1,000 result the  colour-  for this  group  differences  scales  were  f o r t h e non-moun-  XIII).  t h e TG,  i s sensitive to  TR,  scale  result  was  response  suggests recorded  suggests  at the a l t i t u d e s at smaller  acquisi-  and TIR  which  wavelengths  This  attenuated  damage  light  at  This  recorded  response  decreased  scale.  of t h e TGIR  i n a l t i t u d e of date  at the three  decreased  1:1,000 a n d  out" trees.  among  A t 1:4,000, with  1:3,000 and 1:4,000,  significant  film  1:1,000  for "pitch  (Table  by c h a n g e  13-16).  light  trees  the total  to increase  with  reflected  stressed  (effected  reflected film  patterns,  there  i n t h e TGIR a n d  t o r e f l e c t e d green  response  e f f e c t s on  were found  at the smaller  No  green  out" attacking  between  the r a t i o  scale.  of s c a l e  analysis  reflected red light  film  found,  that  near-infra-  r a t i o s between  difference  scales,  of  1:4,000  r e s u l t s , i n that  i n t h e TGR  differences  the four  infrared trees  "pitched  the strip-attack category,  significantly  infers  Analysis  1:2,000 a n d b o t h  significant  r a t i o s between In  was  No  no  at  t o t h e amounts o f  inconsistent  differences  and  was  relative  have  than  i n t h e amount  a t 1:4,000.  has produced  significant  a t 1:1,000  a reduction  r a t i o s of trees  beetles, were  TGIR a n d TRIR r a t i o s  scales.  that by  that required  85  6.  CONCLUSIONS Biological  was  at high  that  risk  i t was  tion.  photographs  i n terms  attack.  Trees  infrared  photographs  (1968,  1971, 1978),  scale,  comparison showed  interpreted scale  of s t r e s s  after  i t was  caused  by  infesta-  possible  mountain  on  on  pine the  beetle colour-  (1967),  indicated  bark  to  the ground.  et a l .  (1959) which  and  colour-infrared  stress  of C i e s l a  stand  activity,  beetle  of  not v i s i b l e  photo  of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 15% fewer  a t t h e 1:4,000  damaged.  from  that  decreased,  decreasing on  findings  pine  that  of i n c i p i e n t were  beetle  scales  indicated  and Langley  detection  pine  pine  beetle  This  Heller that  damage  was  achieved. A  or  signs  lodgepole  mountain  s i x weeks  which  c o n f l i c t s with  this  of four  site  just  showed  result  not  an a c t i v e  of the study trees  that  of mountain  interpretation  stressed  previsual  indicate  undergoing  Visual  detect  data  more  scale.  Having non-mountain  to  Murtha  trees  were  (1983)  reported  each  correctly  a t t h e 1:1,000  were  at  classified  scale. as  As  stressed with  a 35% i n f o r m a t i o n  when  scale  was  loss  decreased  1:4,000.  corrected pine was  f o r that  beetle  trees  1:1,000,  8 3 % a t 1:2,000,  effect  than  of D o u g l a s - f i r  attacked  Some  scale  pine  figures,  of m i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n c r e a s e d  interpretation  1:1,000  lodgepole  healthy  Frequency  accuracy  stressed,  achieved  of s c a l e  was  portion  with  of t h e t r e e s  separation  an o v e r a l l  9 1 % a t 1:3,000, experienced  on  which  of healthy accuracy  and 83% a t visual  were  and  of 89% a t 1:4,000.  interpretation  of  86  the  four  sets  of photographs.  newly-infested 83%.  trees  However, t h e time  this  scale  scales.  was  A  of time  accurately  interpret  those  film  data  was  affected  total  film  indicating There  was  response  might  how  that  There  by  accuracy of  as f o r the  an e x a m i n a t i o n  scale  light  may  pine  responses  was  be u s e d  of t h e  T G a n d TR  of t h e  increase i n  photographs,  of the dye-forming on  and t o  photo-  a significant  of scale  to  beetle.  t h e TG  layers.  a n d TR  a n d 1 : 3 , 0 0 0 , b u t t h e r e was  i n both  of  determine,  interpretation  scale  at  larger  of l o d g e p o l e p i n e  i n t h e 1:4,000  1:1,000  increase  crowns  film  a p p a r e n t l y no e f f e c t  significant  small a  quantitative  scale.  exposure  at scales  as long include  of  the photographs  a t t a c k e d by m o u n t a i n  of t h e t o t a l  by  an o v e r a l l  1:5,000 a n d 1:6,000 t o  individual  response  less  twice  required,  indicated  with  to interpret  at scales  recently  Examination graphic  taken  study  obtained  regardless  identify  achieved  approximately  subsequent  photographs  the  was  A t 1:4,000, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  response  film  a  a t t h e 1:4,000  scale. Film pine  beetle  trees.  cantly scale  for  to exhibit  lower images  decrease these  values  were seen  A t 1:1,000,  inferred  some  response  TGIR  of t r e e s  to d i f f e r  trees  a n d TRIR  i n t h e amount as compared  measurements  reflectance.  response trees,  ratios,  infers  of r e f l e c t e d  class  are  Signifi-  f o r t h e 1:1,000  that  t h e r e may  near-infrared  to non-attacked  mountain  of healthy  t h e I I I O b / I I E damage  infrared  film  of newly-attacked  trees  from  within  depressed  n e w l y - i n f e s t e d by  trees.  be  recorded  These  87  results  were  not  duplicated  total  film  response  cant,  tend  to  which  green-red  portion  already  have  Significant the  TG  of  been  at  attacked  and  response  variables.  changes the  of  In study  a  proved types in  the  tree  by  helpful (Murtha light  that  in  not  that,  but  crowns.  not  This  result  contrast  the  in and  film  early  the  colour  spectrum,  on  infers  of  discolour.  successfully  by  ground  that  lodgepole  properties  may  1:2,000  recognized  infested  the  found  at  the  detected  were  and  to  using  of  TR  trees  between found  and  the  were  response  part  TG  in  started  although  visible  visually  healthy  the  were  the  were  visual at  a  1978). the  guide  tool. to  This  pine  trees  the  results  of  provide author  recognition  Densitometric visual  the  interpretation  1:3,000 w o u l d  management as  of  TR  practical application,  photographs  valuable  the  signifi-  occur  that  categories  the  film. of  indicated  infrared with  terms  in  note  photographs,  made p o s s i b l e  attack  the  changes  had  of  where  in  indicating  foliage  trees  occur  between  colour-infrared  the  to  trees  the  discrimination is  to  newly-infested  observation  changes  significant differences  interesting  colour-infrared  are  Results  classes,  reflectance  among  non-attacked  appeared  there  1:1,000 and  however,  scales.  damage  spectrum,  and  differences  other  of  that  the  dead  1:3,000,  is  that  suggests  response  It  analysis  indicate  response,  at  of  analysis  interpretation  70  mm  the  this  colourforest  found  that  discrete is  of  manager a  damage  complicated  results,  key  and,  unnecessary.  88  Attacked  lodgepole  weeks  infestation  of  accuracy  stressed  generation  were  detected  by m o u n t a i n  a t 1:3,000.  otherwise next  pine  Pockets  trees,  pine  leave  the b l u e - s t a i n fungi  trees  (Safranyik  e t a l . 1974).  to  mountain  i s suggested  pine  beetle  attack.  a c t i o n would  populations  and t h e i n c i d e n c e  (Whitney In  The  since  appropriate  help  damage  removal  they  t r e e s , and the  f o r new of  these  otherwise t o be  detection  t o reduce  before  t h e wood of  six  a 91%  trees  appear  Early  mountain  predisposed  and  subsequent  pine  beetle  of devastating e p i p h y t o t i c s  e t a l . 1978). this  study, on  with  the o b j e c t i v e of d e t e r m i n i n g  effect  of scale  graphs  f o r the d e t e c t i o n of mountain  prior  to v i s i b l e  terms  of ease  the interpretation  foliage  colour  and a c c u r a c y  interpretation yielded  with  the infested  and b e f o r e  trees  beetle,  t h e r e f o r e be r e m o v e d  hosts  stressed  approximately  of newly-infested  could  of beetles  within  similar  o f 1:1,000, and u s e f u l  of colour pine  change,  of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 1:2,000 results.  infrared  beetle  i t was  a n d 1:3,000  the  attack  found  phototrees,  that i n  visual scale  photographs  89  7.  LITERATURE  CITED  Amman,  G. 1982. The mountain p i n e b e e t l e - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , b i o l o g y , causes of outbreaks and e n t o m o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h needs. I_n: P r o c . J o i n t C a n a d a / U S A W o r k s h o p o n M o u n t a i n Pine Beetle Related Problems i n Western North America. BC-X-230: 7-12.  Amman,  G. a n d B . H . B a k e r . 1972. Mountain p i n e b e e t l e i n f l u e n c e on l o d g e p o l e p i n e s t a n d s t r u c t u r e . J . F o r . 70: 204-209.  A r n b e r g , W. a n d L . W a s t e n s o n . 1973. Use of a e r i a l photographs f o r e a r l y d e t e c t i o n o f bark b e e t l e i n f e s t a t i o n s of spruce. R o y a l S w e d i s h A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s , A m b i o 2: 7 7 - 8 3 . B e r r y m a n , A.A. 1976. T h e o r e t i c a l b e e t l e dynamics i n lodgepole E n t o m o l . 5: 1225-1233.  e x p l a n a t i o n o f mountain pine forests. Environ.  pine  B e r r y m a n , A.A. 1982. M o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e o u t b r e a k s i n Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine f o r e s t s . J . F o r . 80: 410-419. B o r d e n , J . H . , J . E . C o n n , L.M. F r i s k i e , B . E . S c o t t , L . J . C h o n g , H.D. P i e r c e a n d A . C . O e h l s c h l a g e r . 1983. S e m i o - c h e m i c a l s f o r t h e mountain pine b e e t l e , Dendroctonus ponderosae (Coleoptera; S c o l y t i d a e ) , i n B r i t i s h Columbia: b a i t e d t r e e studies. Can. J . F o r . R e s . 1 3 ( 2 ) : 325-333. C a r l s o n , R . E . , D.N. Y a r g e r , a n d R.H. Shaw. 1971. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e s p e c t r a l p r o p e r t i e s of leaves with special e m p h a s i s on l e a f w a t e r s t a t u s . Agron. J . 63:486-498. C i e s l a , W.M. 1978. C o l o r v s . c o l o r i n f r a r e d photos f o r f o r e s t insect surveys. In_: P r o c . 6 t h B i e n n . W o r k s h o p o n A e r i a l Color Photography i n t h e P l a n t Sciences. Am. S o c . P h o t o gramm., a n d C o l o r a d o S t a t e U n i v . : 31-42. Cole,  W.E. a n d G . E . Amman. 1969. M o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e i n f e s t a tions i n r e l a t i o n to lodgepole pine diameters. U.S.D.A. F o r e s t Research Note INT-95. 7 p.  Cole,  W.E. a n d G. Amman. 1980. Mountain p i n e b e e t l e dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. P a r t 1: C o u r s e o f a n i n f e s t a tion. U.S.D.A. F o r e s t S e r v i c e G e n e r a l T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t . INT-89: 56 p p .  C o l w e l l , R.N. 1956. D e t e r m i n i n g the prevalence of c e r t a i n c e r e a l c r o p d i s e a s e s by means o f a e r i a l photograph. H i l g a r d i a 26: 223-286.  Dyer,  E.D.A. 1978. M o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e management small i n f e s t a t i o n s i n lodgepole pine. Unpubl. r e p o r t , P.F.R.C., V i c t o r i a , B.C.  trials file  in  Fleming, J . 1978. E x p l o i t i n g t h e v a r i a b i l i t y of Aerochrome Infrared film. P h o t o g r a m . Eng. a n d Remote S e n s . 44(5): 601-605. Fox,  D . J . and K.E. G u i r e . 1976. D o c u m e n t a t i o n f o r MIDAS. 3rd Ed. S t a t i s t i c a l R e s e a r c h L a b . , U n i v . o f M i c h i g a n : 203 pp.  Fritz,  N. 1967. Optimum methods f o r u s i n g i n f r a r e d - s e n s i t i v e colour films. Photogramm. E n g . 3 3 ( 6 ) : 1128-1138.  F u r n i s s , R . L . a n d V.M. C a r o l i n . 1977. Western Forest Insects, U.S.D.A. F . S . M i s c e l l a n e o u s P u b l i c a t i o n No. 1 3 3 9 : 6 5 4 p p . Gates,  D.M. 1970. P h y s i c a l and p h y s i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of plants. I_n: N a t . A c a d . S c i e n c e s "Remote S e n s i n g with S p e c i a l R e f e r e n c e t o A g r i c u l t u r e and F o r e s t r y " . NAS, Washington, D . C : 224-253.  G a u s m a n , H.W. 1974. Leaf r e f l e c t a n c e gram. Eng. 40: 183-191. G a u s m a n , H.W. 1977. Reflectance S e n s . E n v . 6: 1-9. Hall,  of  of n e a r - i n f r a r e d .  leaf  components.  P.M., J . A . M c L e a n , a n d P.A. M u r t h a . 1983. d e n s i t y a n a l y s i s i d e n t i f i e s new D o u g l a s - f i r Can. J . F r s t . Res. 1 3 ( 2 ) : 279-282.  Photo  Remote  Dye-layer beetle attack  H a r r i s , J.W.E. a n d A . F . D a w s o n . 1979. Evaluation of f o r e s t p e s t damage s u r v e y t e c h n i q u e s i n British Can. For. Serv. P a c i f i c Forest Research Centre. BC-X-198: 22 p p .  aerial Columbia. Report.  H a r r i s , J.W.E., A . F . D a w s o n a n d R.G. B r o w n . 1982. Evaluation o f m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e damage u s i n g a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y . F l a t h e a d R i v e r , B.C. 1 9 8 0 . Can. F o r . Serv., P a c F o r . Res. Centre. I n f o r m . R e p . B C - X - 2 2 8 : 10 p p . H e l l e r , R.C. 1968. P r e v i s u a l detection of ponderosa dying from bark b e e t l e a t t a c k . P r o c . 5 t h Symp. of E n v i r o n . : 387-434.  pines Rem. S e n s  H e l l e r , R.C. 1971. D e t e c t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of s t r e s s symptoms i n f o r e s t v e g e t a t i o n . P r o c . I n t . Wkshp. Earth Res. S u r v . S y u s t . V o l . I I : 108-122.  91  H e l l e r , R.C. 1978. Case a p p l i c a t i o n s of remote s e n s i n g f o r v e g e t a t i o n damage a s s e s s m e n t . I_n: Symp. P r o c . o n Rem. S e n s , f o r V e g e t a t i o n Damage A s s e s s m e n t . S e a t t l e , Wash.: 231-252. H o p p i n g , G.R. a n d G. B e a l . 1948. The r e l a t i o n of d i a m e t e r of l o d g e p o l e p i n e t o i n c i d e n c e o f a t t a c k by t h e b a r k b e e t l e (Dendroctonus monticolae Hopk.). F o r . C h r o n . 24: 141-145. K n i p l i n g , E.B. 1970. P h y s i c a l and p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e r e f l e c t a n c e o f v i s i b l e and n e a r - i n f r a r e d f r o m v e g e t a t i o n . R e m o t e S e n . E n v . 1: 1 5 5 - 1 5 9 . L a n g l e y , P.G. 1959. A e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y as an a i d i n i n s e c t c o n t r o l i n w e s t e r n p i n e and mixed c o n i f e r f o r e s t s . J. F o r . 57: 169-172. Levitt, J. 1972. R e s p o n s e s of p l a n t s t o stresses. A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New York,  environmental N.Y.: 697 pp.  L i l l e s a n d , T.M., P.D. M a n i o n , a n d B.B. Eav. 1978. Quantificat i o n of urban t r e e s t r e s s through microdensitometric a n a l y s i s o f a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y . SUNY, C o l l e g e o f E n v i r o n . S c i . a n d F o r . , S y r a c u s e , N.Y.: 57 pp. M a h o n e y , R.L. 1978. Lodgepole pine/mountain pine beetle r i s k c l a s s i f i c a t i o n methods and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n . I_n: T h e o r y and p r a c t i c e of m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e management i n lodgepole pine forests. Symp. P r o c : 106-113. M a n n i n g , G.H. 1982. Impact of t h e m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e on economy o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . P r o c . J o i n t Canada/USA Workshop on M o u n t a i n P i n e B e e t l e R e l a t e d P r o b l e m s i n Western North America: 22-23.  the  Moody,  B.H. 1981. The r o l e , i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s , and m a j o r p e s t p r o b l e m s o f t h e f o r e s t i n s e c t and disease survey. I_n: U s e s o f R e m o t e S e n s i n g i n F o r e s t P e s t Damage Appraisal. Sem. Proc: 43-50.  Moore,  R.E. 1980. photography. Mapping Br.,  F i l m - f i l t e r combinations for aerial color Can. E n e r g y M i n e s and R e s o u r c e s , Surveys and I . C . A . S . , O t t a w a , No. S M P - 1 2 6 3 E : 3 2 .  M u r t h a , P.A. 1972. A guide to f o r e s t damage i n C a n a d a . O t t a w a , O n t a r i o : 63 p .  air-photo Can. F o r .  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Serv. Publ. 1292.  92  M u r t h a , P.A. theory Remote  1978. Remote s e n s i n g and v e g e t a t i o n damage: a f o r d e t e c t i o n and a s s e s s m e n t . Photogram. Eng. and Sens. 44: 1147-1158.  M u r t h a , P.A. 1983. Some a i r - p h o t o s c a l e e f f e c t s o n D o u g l a s - f i r damage t y p e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . P h o t o g r a m . Eng. and Remote Sens. 4 9 ( 3 ) ; 327-335. M u r t h a , P.A. and L.S. H a m i l t o n . 1969. D e t e c t i o n of s i m u l a t e d damage on c o n i f e r s u s i n g n e a r - i n f r a r e d f i l m . J. For. 67(11): 827-829. M u r t h a , P.A. and J.A. McLean. 1981. Extravisual detection? D e f i n i n g the standard normal t r e e . Photogram. Eng. and Remote S e n s . 47(4): 515-522. Myers,  V . I . , M.D. H e i l m a n , R . J . P . L y o n , L.N. Namken, D. S i m o n e t t , R . J . Thomas, C.L. W i e g a n d , and J . T . W o o l e y . 1970. S o i l , w a t e r and p l a n t r e l a t i o n s . I_n: R e m o t e S e n s i n g w i t h S p e c i a l R e f e r e n c e t o A g r i c u l t u r e and Forstry. Nat. Acad. S c i . , Washington, D.C: 253-297.  O e s t e r , B. 1981. sylvestres. d ' o b j e t s en Olson,  S i g n a t u r e s s p e c t r a l e s d e s a i g u i l l e s de P i n s I S P . Symp. P r o c . S i g n a t u r e s s p e c t r a l e s teledetection. Avignon, S e p t . 1981: 191-199.  C.E., W.G. R o h d e , a n d J.M. Ward. 1971. Remote s e n s i n g o f c h a n g e s i n m o r p h o l o g y and p h y s i o l o g y o f t r e e s u n d e r stress. I_n: R e m o t e S e n s i n g A p p l i c a t i o n s i n F o r e s t r y . E a r t h R e s o u r c e s S u r v e y P r o g r a m , OSSA/NASA. A n n . Prog. Rept., S c h o o l Nat. R e s o u r c e s , U n i v . M i c h i g a n , Ann Arbor, Mich.: p. 75.  P i t m a n , G.B., J . P . V i t e , G.W. K n i z e r , and A . F . F e n t i m a n , J r . 1968. Bark b e e t l e a t t r a c t a n c e s : T r a n s - v e r b e n o l isolated from Dendroctonus. N a t u r e 218: 168-169. P i t m a n , G.B., M.W. S t o c k , a n d R.W. McKnight. 1978. Pheromone a p p l i c a t i o n i n m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e - l o d g e p o l e p i n e management: t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e . I r i : T h e o r y and p r a c t i c e o f m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e management i n l o d g e p o l e p i n e f o r e s t s . Symp. P r o c : 165-173. P u r i t c h , G.S. 1981. N o n v i s u a l remote by s t r e s s : A r e v i e w . For. Tech. F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e : 38 pp.  s e n s i n g of R e p t . 30.  trees affected Canadian  R a s m u s s e n , L.A. 1972. A t t r a c t i o n of mountain p i n e b e e t l e s to s m a l l - d i a m e t e r p i n e s b a i t e d w i t h T r a n s - v e r b e n o l and alpha pinene. J . Econ. Entomol. 63:1396-1399.  93  Reid,  Roe,  R.W., H.S. W h i t n e y , a n d J.W. Watson. 1967. Reactions l o d g e p o l e p i n e t o a t t a c k by D e n d r o c t o n u s p o n d e r o s a e H o p k i n s and b l u e s t a i n f u n g i . Can. J . B o t . 45: 1115-1126.  of  A . L . a n d G.D. Amman. 1970. The m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e i n lodgepole pine forests. USDA F o r . S e r v . R e s . Paper. INT-71, I n t e r m o u n t . F o r e s t and Range E x p e r i m e n t a l S t a t . O g d e n , U t a h : 23 pp.  S a f r a n y i k , L . , D.M. S h r i m p t o n , a n d H.S. Whitney. 1974. Management o f l o d g e p o l e p i n e t o r e d u c e l o s s e s f r o m t h e m o u n t a i n pine beetle. C a n . F o r . S e r v . T e c h . R e p o r t 1. E n v . Canada: 24 pp. Scarpace, F.L. 1978. P h o t o g r a m . Eng.  Sensitometry on and Remote S e n s .  multi-emulsion imagery. 44(1):1279-1292.  Scarpace, F . L . a n d G.A. Friederichs. 1978. A method of d e t e r m i n i n g s p e c t r a l a n a l y t i c a l dye d e n s i t i e s . Photogram. Eng. and Remote S e n s . 4 4 ( 1 ) : 1 2 9 3 - 1 3 0 1 . S h r i m p t o n , D.M. 1978. R e s i s t a n c e of l o d g e p o l e p i n e to mountain p i n e b e e t l e i n f e s t a t i o n , _In: T h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e o f m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e management i n l o d g e o l e p i n e forests. Symp. P r o c : 64-76. van  S i c k l e , G.A. 1982. The m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e s i t u a t i o n i n Canada. 1981. I_n: P r o c . J o i n t C a n a d a / U S A W o r k s h o p o n Mountain Pine B e e t l e Related Problems i n Western North A m e r i c a : 13-15.  S t e i n e r , D. a n d T . G u t e r m a n . 1966. R u s s i a n d a t a on r e f l e c t a n c e o f v e g e t a t i o n , s o i l and r o c k t y p e . G e o g . , U n i v . o f Z u r i c h , S w i t z . : 232 pp. T h o m a s , J.R., CL. Wiegand, and V . I . Myers. 1967. o f c o t t o n l e a v e s and i t s r e l a t i o n t o y i e l d . 551-554. W i l l i a m s , P.G. 1978. A w i n g - t i p camera photography. I_n: P r o c . Symp. Rem. Damage A s s e s s m e n t , S e a t t l e , W a s h . :  spectral Dept. of  Reflectance A g r o n . J . 59:  system f o r l a r g e - s c a l e Sens, f o r V e g e t a t i o n 127-133.  W h i t n e y , H.S., L . S a f r a n y i k , S . J . M u r a r o , a n d E.D.A. D y e r . 1978. In d e f e n s e of t h e c o n c e p t of d i r e c t c o n t r o l of m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e p o p u l a t i o n s i n l o d g e p o l e p i n e : some modern a p p r o a c h e s . I_n: T h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e o f m o u n t a i n p i n e b e e t l e management i n l o d g e p o l e p i n e f o r e s t s . Symp. Proc: 159-164.  94  Wood, C S . a n d G.A. v a n S i c k l e . 1983. F o r e s t and i n s e c t t i o n s , B.C. a n d Y u k o n . 1982. C.F.S., P.F.R.C. p u b l i c a t i o n B C - X - 2 3 9 : 31 p p . Woolley, J.T. leaves.  1971. Plant  Reflectance P h y s i o l . 47:  and t r a n s m i t t a n c e 656-662.  of  condi-  light  by  95  APPENDIX Histograms for  each  1:  of six film  of five  damage  response classes.  variables  <HISTOGRAM BYSTRATA OPTIONS=HIST%,TOT% VAR=TG,TR,TNIR,GR,GKIR,RNIR STRAT=DAMAG HISTOGRAM <1> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:1 MIDPOINT 1.0248 1.3706 1.7163 2.0621 2.4078 2.7536  HIST% 16.1 32.3 32.3 6.5 6.5 6.5  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 3.TG 5 10 10 2 2 2 31  +XXXXX +XXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXX +XX +XX +XX (INTERVAL 1WIDTH= .34576)  HISTOGRAM  <1> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .93760 1.2109 1.4842 1.7574 2.0307 2.3040  22.6 35.5 25.8 6.5 6.5 3.2  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 4.TR ( 1 7 11 8 2 2 1 31  +XXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXX +XX +XX +X (INTERVAL WIDTH= .27328)  HISTOGRAM  <!>' DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .19760 .27872 .35984 .44096 .52208 .60320  16.1 41.9 29.0 3.2 3.2 6.5  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR 5 13 9 1 1 2 31  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .81120  <1> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  6.5 16.1 22.6 29.0 22.6 3.2  COUNT FOR 6.GR 2 5 7 9 7 1 31  (EACH X= 1)  +XXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXX +x +x +XX  HISTOGRAM  1 .0775 1 .1187 1 . 1 599 1.2011 1 .2423 1 .2836  (EACH X= 1 )  (EACH X= 1)  +XX +XXXXX +XXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXX +X (INTERVAL WIDTH= .41215 -1)  HISTOGRAM  <1> DAMAGE:HH* SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.9940 4.4128 4.8316 5.2504 5.6691 6.0879  3.2 9.7 19.4 41 .9 22.6 3.2  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 7.GNIR 1  +X  3  +XXX  6  +XXXXXX  13 + xxxxxxxxxxxxx 7  +XXXXXXX  1 +x 31  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM  <1> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.2454 3.6695 4.0937 4.5179 4.9421 5.3663  3.2 6.5 38.7 35.5 12.9 3.2  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR 1 2 12 11 4  +X +XXXXXXXXXXXX  +XXXXXXXXXXX +XXXX  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  <2> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 3.TG 2 1 3  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  (EACH X  +X  <2> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:1  33.3 66.7  .4241.9)  +XX  HISTOGRAM  1.1712 1.5708  (EACH  1 +x 31  66.7 33.3  41878)  +XX  HISTOGRAM  1.3680 2.0088  (EACH  COUNT FOR 4.TR  (EACH X = 1)  1 +X  2 3  +XX  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .39960)  HISTOGRAM  <2> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .28080 .40040  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR  66.7 33.3  2 +XX 1 +X  TOTAL  3  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM  <2> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1 . 1 523 1.2788  COUNT FOR 6.GR  66.7 33.3  TOTAL  3  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 7.GNIR  3  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  (EACH X= 1)  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  <2> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:1  33.3 66.7  .12651)  1 +X 2 +XX  HISTOGRAM  3.9231 4.3544  (EACH X= 1)  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  <2> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:1  33.3 66.7  .11960)  2 +XX 1 +X  HISTOGRAM  4.8718 5.0177  (EACH X= 1)  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR  .14586)  (EACH X= 1)  1 +X 2 +XX 3  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .43127)  HISTOGRAM  <3>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .80840 1 .0943 1 .3802 1 .6661 1.9520  DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:1 COUNT FOR 3.TG 1 1 6 6 2  6.3 6.3 37.5 37.5 12.5  16  TOTAL  +X +X +XXXXXX +XXXXXX +XX (INTERVAL W I D T H =  HISTOGRAM  < 3 > DAMAGE:30B * SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .75440 .96580 1 .1772 1 .3886 1.6000  6.3 12.5 25.0 43.8 12.5  1 2 4 7 2 16  HISTOGRAM  <3>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  +X +XX +XXXX +XXXXXXX +XX (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .21140)  DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:1  12.5 25.0 50.0 6.3 6.3  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR 2 4 8 1 1 16  TOTAL  HISTOGRAM  <3>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1 .0716 1 .1197 1 .1678 1.2160 1.2641  6.3 18.8 37.5 31.3 6.3  TOTAL  .28590)  COUNT FOR 4.TR  TOTAL  .18720 .25740 .32760 .39780 .46800  (EACH X= 1 )  (EACH  +XX +XXXX +XXXXXXXX +X +X (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .70200  DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:1 COUNT FOR 6.< 1  3 6 5 1 16  +X +XXX +XXXXXX +XXXXX +x (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .48126  HISTOGRAM  <3>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.8997 4.4088 4.9180 5.4271 5.9362  DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:1 iCOUN' FOR 7.GNIR 1 5 6 3 1  6.3 31.3 37.5 18.8 6.3  TOTAL  16  HISTOGRAM  <3>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.4188 3.7381 4.0574 4.3767 4.6961  12, 18. 18, 37, 12,  +x  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .50913)  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR  (EACH X= 1)  +XX +XXX +XXX +XXXXXX +XX 16  HISTOGRAM  <4>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1 .3024 1 .6432 1.9840 2.3248  27.3 54.5 9.1 9.1  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .31931)  DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:1 COUNT FOR 3.TG 3 6 1 1 11  TOTAL  HISTOGRAM  <4>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  +X +XXXXX +XXXXXX +XXX  DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:1  TOTAL  1.0828 1.2948 1.5068 1.7188  (EACH X= 1)  1  (EACH X= l )  +XXX +XXXXXX +X +X (INTERVAL WIDTH= .34080)  DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:1  9.1 63.6 9.1 18.2  COUNT FOR 4.TR 1 7 1 2 11  (EACH X=  1)  +X +XXXXXXX +X +XX (INTERVAL WIDTH= .21200)  HISTOGRAM  <4> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .25480 .32067 .38653 .45240  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR  27.3 45.5 9.1 18.2  TOTAL  (EACH X= 1)  +XXX +XXXXX  +x  +XX 11  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM  <4> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1 . 1 173 1 . 1957 1 .2741 1 .3526  27.3 45.5 18.2 9.1  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 6.GR  (EACH X= 1)  +XXX +XXXXX +XX  1 11  +x  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM  <4> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:1  MIDPOINT  HIST%  4124 8894 3664 8435  18.2 54.5 18.2 9.1  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 7.GNIR  1 11  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  MIDPOINT  HIST%  TOTAL  (EACH X= 1)  +x  <4> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:1  9.1 54.5 27.3 9.1  .78439  +XX +XXXXXX +XX  HISTOGRAM  2.9555 3.9033 4.8511 5.7989  .65867  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR 1 6 3 1 11  1.4770)  (EACH X= 1)  +X +XXXXXX +XXX +X (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .94780)  HISTOGRAM  <5>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1 .0980 1 .4370 1 .7760 2.1150 2.4540  33.3 27.8 33.3 0. 5.6  DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:1 COUNT FOR 3.TG 6 5 6 0 1 18  TOTAL  HISTOGRAM  <5>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .97200 1.2298 1.4876 1.7454 2.0032  (INTERVAL  COUNT FOR 4.' 6 6 5 0 1  33.3 33.3 27.8 0. 5.6  18  HISTOGRAM  <5>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  +XXXXXX +XXXXXX +XXXXX + +x (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .25780)  DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:1  27.8 38.9 22.2 5.6 5.6  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR 5 7 4 1 1 18  TOTAL  HISTOGRAM  <5>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1 .1 188 1 .1580 1 .1971 1 .2363 1 .2754  22.2 27.8 27.8 16.7 5.6  TOTAL  +XXXXXX +XXXXX +XXXXXX + +X  DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:1  TOTAL  .23400 .32370 .41340 .50310 .59280  (EACH X= 1)  (EACH X= 1)  +XXXXX +XXXXXXX +XXXX +X +X (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .89700  DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:1 COUNT FOR 6.GR  (EACH X= 1)  +XXXX +XXXXX +XXXXX +XXX +x 18  (INTERVAL WIDTH=  .39142  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.5880 4.2374 4.8869 5.5364 6.1859 TOTAL  <5> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:1 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 22.2 4 +XXXX 33.3 6 +XXXXXX 22.2 4 +XXXX 16.7 3 +XXX 5.6 1 +X 18 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .64948)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 2.971 1 3.4767 3.9823 4.4880 4.9936 TOTAL  <5> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:1 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR 16.7 3 +XXX 33.3 6 +XXXXXX 22.2 4 +XXXX 22.2 4 +XXXX 5.6 1 +X 18 (INTERVAL  HISTOGRAM <6> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH 1 X) = 1 .00.72 1 .4 1 +X 1 1659 2 13 0. +X XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXX 1.3. 247 .1 2 17 6+ 1 .4834 17.4 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .6422 24.6 17 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .8009 14.5 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 1.9597 4.3 3 +XXX 2.1 184 2.9 2 +XX 2.2772 1 .4 1 +x TOTAL 69 (INTERVAL WIDTH= 15 .87! HISTOGRAM <6> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH 1 X) = .93440 4.3 3 +XXX 1.0656 11.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 1 .1968 18.8 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.3280 31 .9 22 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .4592 18.8 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .5904 5.8 4 +XXXX 1.7216 4.3 3 +XXX 1.8528 2.9 2 +XX 1.9840 1 .4 1 +x 69 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .13120) TOTAL  HISTOGRAM <6> DAMAGE:HH* SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) .18200 1.4 1 +X .24570 20.3 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX .30940 33.3 23 -(-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .37310 17.4 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX .43680 5.8 4 +XXXX .50050 8.7 6 +XXXXXX .56420 5.8 4 +XXXX .62790 4.3 3 +XXX .69160 2.9 2 +XX TOTAL 69 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .63700 -1) HISTOGRAM <6> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) .96503 1.4 1 +X 1.0045 1 .4 1 +X 1.0440 8.7 6 +XXXXXX 1.0834 11.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 1 .1229 20.3 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.1624 18.8 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .2018 24.6 17 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .2413 11.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 1 .2808 1 .4 1 +x TOTAL 69 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .39466 -1) HISTOGRAM <6> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 2.2254 7.2 5 +XXXXX 2.8162 11.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 3.4070 0. 0 + 3.9978 11.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 4.5885 34.8 24 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5. 1793 20.3 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.7701 11.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 6.3609 1 .4 1 +x 6.9516 1.4 1 +x TOTAL 69 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .59078) HISTOGRAM <6> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) 2.0756 5.8 4 +XXXX 2.5736 13.0 9 +XXXXXXXXX 3.0715 1 .4 1 +x 3.5695 14.5 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 4.0675 43.5 30 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.5654 14.5 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 5.0634 5.8 4 +XXXX 5.5614 0. 0+ 6.0593 1.4 1 +x TOTAL 69 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .49797)  HISTOGRAM <7> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) +XX 22. 1.3380 +XX 22, 1.6595 +XXXX 44. 1.9809 1 1 , +x 2.3024 9 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .32147) TOTAL HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .1348 .3733 .61 19 .8504 TOTAL  <7> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH X= 1) 11.1 +X 33.3 +XXX +XXXX 44.4 11.1 +x 9 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .23853)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .31720 .45413 .59107 ,72800 TOTAL  <7> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) 33.3 3 +XXX 44.4 4 +XXXX 11.1 1 +X 11.1 1 +X 9 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .13693)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0552 1 .1488 1.2423 1.3358 TOTAL  <7> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) 22.2 2 +XX +XXXX 44.4 4 22.2 2 +XX 11.1 1 +x 9 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .93525  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT ,5333 ,2760 ,0187 ,7614 TOTAL  <7> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 22.2 2 +XX 0+ 0. 44.4 4 +XXXX 33.3 3 9 + (X IX NX TERVAL WIDTH= .74270)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 2.4007 2.9595 3.5182 4.0769 TOTAL  <7> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) 22.2 2 +XX 0. 0+ 55.6 5 +XXXXX 22.2 2 +XX 9 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .55873)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .92280 1 1. .1 47 25 73 7 1.6802 1.9327 2.1851 2.4376 TOTAL  <8> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) 4.7 2 +XX 16 6. .3 +X XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 5 27 0 + 14.0 6 +XXXXXX 1 1.6 5 +XXXXX 4.7 2 +XX 2.3 1 +X 43 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .25247 <8> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH X= 1) 4.7 2 +XX 11.6 5 +XXXXX 2 0+ +X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 33 0. .3 2 1 13 XX XXXX 11.6 5 +XXXXX 14.0 6 +XXXXXX 4.7 2 +XX 43 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .14553)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .85480 1.0003 1 1. .1 24 95 19 4 1.4369 1.5825 1.7280 TOTAL  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .19240 .26433 .33627 .40820 .48013 .55207 .62400 TOTAL  <8> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) 4.7 2+XX 27.9 12+XXXXXXXXXXXX 27.9 12+XXXXXXXXXXXX 16.3 7+XXXXXXX 9.3 4+XXXX 11.6 5+ XXXXX 2.3 1+x 43 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .99176 1.0634 1.1351 1.2068 1 .2785 1 .3502 1.4218 TOTAL  <8> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) 9.3 4+XXXX 14.0 6+XXXXXX 39.5 17+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18.6 8+XXXXXXXX 14.0 6+ XXXXXX 2.3 1++xx 2.3 1 43 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 2.3643 3.0717 3.7792 4.4866 5.1941 5.9015 6.6090 TOTAL  <8> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 16.3 7+ XXXXXXX 2.3 1+x 11.6 5+XXXXX 37.2 16+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23.3 10+XXXXXXXXXX 7.0 3+ XXX 2.3 1+x 43 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 2.3687 2.8825 3.3964 3.9103 4.4242 4.9380 5.4519 TOTAL  <8> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) 7 +XXXXXXX 16.3 2 +XX 4.7 +XXXXXXXX 18.6 18 4 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 32.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 18.6 7.0 3 +XXX 2.3 1 +x 43 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .51388)  HISTOGRAM <9> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) +XX 1.0484 13.3 +XXXXXX 1.4683 40.0 +XXXX 26.7 1.8881 +XXX 2.3080 20.0 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .41987) TOTAL HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .91720 1.2576 1.5980 1.9384 TOTAL  <9> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH X= 1) 13.3 2 +XX 33.3 5 +XXXXX 40.0 6 +XXXXXX 13.3 2 +XX 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .34040)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .24440 .36747 .49053 .61360 TOTAL  <9> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) +XX 13.3 +XXXXXXX 46.7 +XXXXX 33.3 6.7 +X 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .12307)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0714 1.1445 1.2176 1 .2907  <9> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) 6.7 1 +X 53.3 8 +XXXXXXXX 33.3 5 +XXXXX 6.7 1 +X 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .73113  TOTAL  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.3757 4.0988 4.8220 5.5452 TOTAL  <9> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 13.3 2 +XX 60.0 9 +XXXXXXXXX 20.0 3 +XXX 6.7 1 +X 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .72317)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 2.9432 3.5337 4.1241 4.7146 TOTAL  <9> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) +XXXX 26.7 +XXXXXXX 46.7 +XXX 20.0 6.7 1 +x  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1732 1 .4006 1.6280 1.8554 2.0828 2.3102 2.5376 TOTAL  15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .59045)  <10> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:2 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) 16.2 6 +XXXXXX 32.4 12 + XXXXXXXXXXXX 32.4 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 10.8 4 +XXXX 0. 0 + 2.7 1 +X 5.4 2 +XX 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .22740) HISTOGRAM <10> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:2 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH X= 1) .93160 2.7 1 +X 1.1337 45.9 17 + XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.3357 32.4 12 + XXXXXXXXXXXX 1.5378 10.8 4 +XXXX 1.7399 2.7 1 +X 1 .9419 2.7 1 +X 2.1440 2.7 1 +X TOTAL 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .20207)  HISTOGRAM  <10> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:2  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .24440 .29553 .34667 .39780 .44893 .50007 .55120  10.8 29.7 24.3 21.6 5.4 5.4 2.7  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR 4 11 9 8 2 2 1 37  (EACH X= 1)  +XXXX +XXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXX +XX +XX  +x  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .51133  HISTOGRAM  <10> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:2  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1.0401 1.0916 1.1431 1.1946 1.2462 1.2977 1.3492  2.7 8.1 24.3 35.1 21 .6 2.7 5.4  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 6.GR 1 3 9 13 8 1 2 37  (EACH  +X +XXX +XXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXX +x +XX (INTERVAL WIDTH= .51517  HISTOGRAM  <10> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:2  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.6435 3.9223 4.2011 4.4800 4.7588 5.0376 5.3164  8.1 16.2 13.5 27.0 18.9 5.4 10.8  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 7.GNIR 3 6 5 10 7 2 4 37  +XXX +XXXXXX +XXXXX +XXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXX +XX +XXXX (INTERVAL 1  HISTOGRAM  <10> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:2  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.0413 3.2814 .5214 .7615 .0015 .2416 4.4816 TOTAL  2 16 21 21 16 16.2 5.4  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR 1 6 8 8 6 6 2 37  .27882)  (EACH X= l )  +X +XXXXXX +XXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXX +XXXXXX +XXXXXX +XX (INTERVAL WIDTH= .24005)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .95400 1.3411 1.7282 2.1154 2.5025 2.8896 TOTAL  <11> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X 6.9 2 +XX 24.1 7 +XXXXXXX 58.6 17 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 6.9 2 +XX 0. 0 + 3.4 1 +x 29 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .81680 1 .1390 1.4611 1.7833 2.1054 2.4276 TOTAL  <11> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH 3.4 1+X 31.0 9+XXXXXXXXX 44.8 13+XXXXXXXXXXXXX 17.2 5+ XXXXX 0. 0++x 3.4 1 29 (INTERVAL WIDTH  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .23920 .33592 .43264 .52936 .62608 .72280 TOTAL  <11> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EA XC =H 1) 17.2 5 +XXXXX 58.6 17 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 20.7 6 +XXXXXX 0. 0 + 0. 0 + 3.4 1 +x 29 (INTERVAL WIDTH= 96 .720  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0777 1.1140 1.1502 1.1865 1.2227 1.2590 TOTAL  <11> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR(EACH X= 1) 3.4 1 +X 13.8 4 +XXXX 27.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 24.1 7 +XXXXXXX 17.2 5 +XXXXX 13.8 4 +XXXX 29 (INTERVAL  ;  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.9823 ' 4.4255 4.8686 5.3118 5.7550 6.1981 TOTAL  <11> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR 13.8 4 +XXXX 34.5 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 34.5 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 6.9 2 +XX 6.9 2 +XX 3.4 1 +X 29 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .44316)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.2405 3.5770 3.9135 4.2500 4.5866 4.9231 TOTAL  <11> DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH 6.9 2 +XX 13.8 4 +XXXX 48.3 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 17.2 5 +XXXXX 10.3 3 +XXX 3.4 1 +X 29 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .33652)  HISTOGRAM <12> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:3 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) 1 .4932 60.0 3 +XXX 1.7266 0. 0 + 1.9600 40.0 2 +XX TOTAL 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .23340)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1384 1.3382 1.5380 TOTAL  <12> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH X= 1) 20.0 1 +X 40.0 2 +XX 40.0 2 +XX 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .19980)  HISTOGRAM  <12> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:3  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .32240 .38220 .44200  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR  40.0 40.0 20.0  2 +XX 2 +XX 1 +X 5  TOTAL  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .59800 -1)  HISTOGRAM  <12> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:3  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1.1092 1.2218 1.3345  40.0 20.0 40.0  TOTAL  (EACH X= l )  COUNT FOR 6.GR  (EACH X= 1)  2 +XX 1 +X 2 +XX 5  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .11268)  HISTOGRAM  <12> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:3  MIDPOINT  HIST%  4.2229 4.8309 5.4389  60.0 20.0 20.0  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 7.GNIR 3 +XXX 1 +X 1 +X 5  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .60803)  HISTOGRAM  <12> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:3  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.4796 3.8654 4.2511 TOTAL  60.0 20.0 20.0  (EACH X= 1)  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR  (EACH X= l )  3 +XXX 1 +X 1 +X 5  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .38575)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0232 1 .2470 1.4709 1.6947 1 .9186 2.1424 TOTAL  <13> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH 3.6 1 +X 25.0 7 +XXXXXXX 39.3 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 14.3 4 +XXXX 7.1 2 +XX 10.7 3 +XXX 28 (INTERVAL WIDTH••  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .92640 1.1034 1.2805 1.4575 1.6346 1.8116 TOTAL  <13> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNTFOR 4.TR (EACH 7.1 2+XX 28.6 8+XXXXXXXX 39.3 11+XXXXXXXXXXX 7.1 2+XX 7.1 2+XX 10.7 3+XXX 28 (INTERVAL WIDTH  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .25480 .31720 .37960 .44200 .50440 .56680 TOTAL  <13> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EA XC =H 1) 21.4 6 +XXXXXX 35.7 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 25.0 7 +XXXXXXX 7.1 2 +XX 7.1 2 +XX 3.6 1 +x 28 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.62400  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0918 1 .1 18 36 81 9 1. 1 .2333 1 .2805 1 .3276 TOTAL  <13> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:! HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR 10.7 3 +XXX 2 8. .1 6 8 +X XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 32 9+ 21 .4 6 +XXXXXX 3.6 1 +x 3.6 1 +x 28 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .47177  1  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.5646 3.9511 4.3376 4.7241 5.1105 5.4970 TOTAL  <13> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EA XC =H 1) 7.1 2 +XX 28.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 10.7 3 +XXX 35.7 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 10.7 3 +XXX 7.1 2 +XX 28 (INTERVAL WIDTH=,3. 8649)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.1454 3.4658 3.7862 4.1066 4.4270 4.7475 TOTAL  <13> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EAXC =H 1) 14.3 4 +XXXX 28.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 21.4 6 +XXXXXX 25.0 7 +XXXXXXX 3.6 1 +X 7.1 2 +XX 28 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.32042)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.2588 1.4520 1.6452 1.8384 2.031 6 TOTAL  <14> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH= X1) 12.5 2 +XX 18.8 3 +XXX 25.0 4 +XXXX 25.0 4 +XXXX 18.8 3 +XXX 16 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.19320)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0060 1.1734 1.3408 1.5082 1.6756 TOTAL  <14> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH= X1) 12.5 2 +XX 18.8 3 +XXX 25.0 4 +XXXX 25.0 4 +XXXX 18.8 3 +XXX 16 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.16740)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .28080 .33410 .38740 .44070 .49400 TOTAL  <14> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) 37.5 6 +XXXXXX 12.5 2 +XX 18.8 +XXX 25.0 3 4 6.3 1 +x+XXXX 16 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .53300 -1)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT ,1653 ,2039 ,2425 .281 1 .3197 TOTAL  <14> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) 18.8 50.0 3 +XXX 18.8 8 +XXXXXXXX 6.3 3 +XXX 6.3 1 1 ++xx 16 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .38591 -1)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 4.0124 4.4620 4.9117 5.3613 5.8110 TOTAL  <14> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH 25.0 4 +XXXX 43.8 7 +XXXXXXX 12.5 2 +XX 6.3 1 +X 12.5 2 +XX 16 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .44964)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.2989 3.6266 3.9543 4.2820 4.6097 TOTAL  <14> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR 25.0 4 +XXXX 43.8 7 +XXXXXXX 6.3 1 +x 6.3 1 +x 18.8 3 +XXX 16 (INTERVAL  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .97800 1.2844 1.5908 1.8972 2.2036 TOTAL  <15> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) 4.3 1 +X 30.4 7 +XXXXXXX 43.5 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 17.4 4 +XXXX 4.3 1 +X 23 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .30640)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .78320 1.0270 1.2708 1 .5146 1.7584 TOTAL  <15> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:3 HIST% 1 +x 4.3 6 +XXXXXX 26. 1 12 + XXXXXXXXXXX 52.2 3 +X X X 13.0 1 +x X 4.3 23 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .24380)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .22880 .28860 .34840 .40820 .46800 TOTAL  <15> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EA XC =H 1) 4.3 1 +X 56.5 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 8.7 2 +XX 21 .7 5 +XXXXX 8.7 2 +XX 23 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.59800  HISTOGRAM <15> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:3 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH 1 . 1447 17.4 4 +XXXX 1 . 1928 56.5 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.2408 13.0 3 +XXX 1.2889 . 4.3 1 +X 1.3370 8.7 2 +XX 23 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .48084 TOTAL  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.7836 4.1024 4.4211 4.7399 5.0587 TOTAL  <15> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR(EACH X= 1) 8.7 2 +XX 17.4 4 +XXXX 26.1 6 +XXXXXX 26.1 6 +XXXXXX 21 .7 5 +XXXXX 23 (INTERVAL .31877)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.2421 3.5200 3.7979 4.0759 4.3538 TOTAL  <15> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:3 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) 13.0 3 +XXX 30.4 7 +XXXXXXX 34.8 8 +XXXXXXXX 8.7 2 +XX 13.0 3 +XXX 23 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .27795)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1 .2124 1.4714 1 .7303 1 .9893 2.2483 2.5073 2.7662 3.0252 TOTAL HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1 .0916 1.2891 1.4867 1.6842 1.8818 2.0793 2.2769 2.4744 TOTAL  <16> DAMAGEH :H*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT' FOR 3.TG (EACH 7.7 4+XXXX 23.1 12+XXXXXXXXXXXX 28.8 15+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 26.9 14+XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 9.6 5+ XXXXX 1 .9 1++x 0. 0 1.9 1+x 52 (INTERVAL WIDTH* <16> DAMAGEH :H*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH 9.6 5+XXXXX 26.9 14+XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 26.9 14+XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23.1 12+XXXXXXXXXXXX 9.6 5+ XXXXX 1.9 1++x 0. 0 1 .9 1+x 52 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .19754)  HISTOGRAM  <16>  DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:4  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .23920 .31794 .39669 .47543 .55417 .63291 .71 1 66 .79040  5.8 28.8 30.8 28.8 3.8 0. 0. 1.9  COUNT FOR 5.TNIR  3 +XXX 15 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 16 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 15 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2 +XX 0 + 0 + 1 +X 52  TOTAL HISTOGRAM  <16>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  1.0809 1.1083 1.1357 1.1631 1 .1905 1.2179 1.2454 1.2728  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .78743 -1)  DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:4  1 .9 7.7 15.4 21.2 26.9 19.2 5.8 1.9  TOTAL HISTOGRAM  <16> I  MIDPOINT  HIST%  3.5201 3.7745 4.0289 4.2833 4.5377 4.7921 5.0464 5.3008  1.9 3.8 11.5 21.2 25.0 17.3 13.5 5.8  1 +x 4 +XXXX 8 +XXXXXXXX 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 3 +XXX 1 +x 52 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .27407 -1)  1 2 6 11 13 9 7 3 52  TOTAL  +X +XX +XXXXXX + XXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXX +XXX (INTERVAL WIDTH= . 25438)  HISTOGRAM  <16> :DAMAGE:HH*SCALE:4  MIDPOINT  HIST%  2.9890 3.2188 3.4486 3.6784 3.9082 4.1380 4.3678 4.5976 TOTAL  (EACH X= l )  1.9 9.6 7.7 25.0 30.8 11.5 9.6 3.8  COUNT FOR 8.RNIR 1 5 4 13 16 6 5 2 52  (EACH X= 1)  +X +XXXXX +XXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXX +XXXXX +XX (INTERVAL WIDTH= .22980)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.5420 1.8256 2.1092 TOTAL  <17> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH X= 1) +XX 40.0 2 +XX 40.0 2 20.0 1 +x 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .28360)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.2796 1 .4792 1.6788 TOTAL  <17> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH X= 1) 20.0 1 +X 60.0 3 +XXX 20.0 1 +X 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .19960)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .34840 .39520 .44200 TOTAL  <17> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) 40.0 2 +XX 20.0 1 +X 40.0 2 +XX 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .46800  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1852 1.2208 1.2564  <17> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) 20.0 1 +X 60.0 3 +XXX 20.0 1 +X 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .35563  TOTAL  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 4.3526 4.5623 4.7719 TOTAL  <17> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 60.0 3 +XXX 20.0 1 +X 20.0 1 +X 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .20969)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.5531 3.7414 3.9298 TOTAL  <17> DAMAGE:30A*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) 40.0 2 +XX 40.0 2 +XX 20.0 1 +X 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .18833)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1 .2600 1 .4821 1 .7043 1.9264 2.1485 2.3707 2.5928 TOTAL  <18> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH 1 X) = 14.6 6 +XXXXXX 26.8 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 17.1 7 +XXXXXXX 29.3 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 4.9 2 +XX 2.4 1 +X 4.9 2 +XX 41 (INTERVAL WIDTH= 22 .213) HISTOGRAM <18> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:4 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH 1 X) = 1.0444 9.8 4 +XXXX 1 .2553 29.3 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 1.4661 31.7 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.6770 14.6 6 +XXXXXX 1.8879 9.8 4 +XXXX 2.0987 2.4 1 +X 2.3096 2.4 1 +X TOTAL 41 (INTERVAL WIDTH= 21 .087)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .27560 .34927 .42293 .49660 .57027 .64393 .71760 TOTAL  <18> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EA XC =H 1) 14.6 6 +XXXXXX 34. 1 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 26.8 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 17.1 7 +XXXXXXX 4.9 2 +XX 0. 0+ 2.4 1 +x 41 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.73667 HISTOGRAM <18> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:4 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH= X1) 1 .0718 2.4 1 +X 1 .1022 2.4 1 +X 1 . 1327 19.5 8 +XXXXXXXX 1 .1632 26.8 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 1.1936 39.0 16 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.2241 4.9 2 +XX 1.2546 4.9 2 +XX TOTAL 41 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .30462 -1 HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.5673 • 3.8226 4.0780 4.3333 4.5886 4.8439 5.0993 TOTAL HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.0897 3.2952 3.5007 3.7062 3.9116 4.1171 4.3226 TOTAL  <18> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EA XC =H 1) 9.8 4 +XXXX 2.4 1 +X 31.7 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 24.4 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 14.6 6 +XXXXXX 9.8 4 +XXXX 7.3 3 +XXX 41 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.25532) <18> DAMAGE:30B*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EA XC =H 1) 7.3 3 +XXX 9.8 4 +XXXX 17.1 7 +XXXXXXX 36.6 15 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 14.6 6 +XXXXXX 9.8 4 +XXXX 4.9 2 +XX 41 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.20547)  HISTOGRAM <19> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:4 MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG(EACH X= 1) 1.3368 6.7 1 +X 1.7459 46.7 7 +XXXXXXX 2.1549 40.0 6 +XXXXXX 2.5640 6.7 1 +X TOTAL 15 (INTERVALWIDTH= .40907) HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1312 1.4461 1.7611 2.0760 TOTAL  <19> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 4.TR (EACH 1 X) = 6.7 1 +X 46.7 7 +XXXXXXX 26.7 4 +XXXX 20.0 3 +XXX 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .31493)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .31200 .39347 .47493 .55640 TOTAL  <19> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) +XX 13.3 33.3 +XXXXX 20.0 +XXX 33.3 +XXXXX 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .81467  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1359 1.1805 1.2252 1.2699 TOTAL  <19> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR (EACH X= 1) 13.3 2 +XX 53.3 8 +XXXXXXXX 26.7 4 +XXXX 6.7 1 +X 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .44668  TOTAL  <19> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EACH X= 1) 20.0 3 +XXX 53.3 13.3 8 +XXXXXXXX 13.3 2 +XX 2 +XX 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .46971)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.1754 3.5699 3.9645 4.3590 TOTAL  <19> DAMAGE:30A2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EACH X= 1) 20.0 3 +XXX 53.3 8 +XXXXXXXX 20.0 3 +XXX 6.7 1 +X 15 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .39452)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1924 1.4270 1 .6617 1.8963 2.1310 2.3656 TOTAL  <20> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 3.TG (EACH 1 X) = 3.1 1 +X 15.6 5 +XXXXX 37.5 12 + XXXXXXXXXXXX 15.6 5 +XXXXX 18.8 6 +XXXXXX 9.4 3 +XXX 32 (INTERVAL WIDTH= 23 .464)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0516 1.2254 1.3993 1.5731 1 .7470 1.9208 TOTAL  <20> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNTFOR 4.TR (EACH 3.1 1+X 15.6 5+XXXXX 34.4 1 1 +XXXXXXXXXXX 18.8 6+XXXXXX 15.6 5+XXXXX 12.5 4+XXXX 32 (INTERVAL WIDTH'  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.7505 4.2203 4.6900 5.1597  1  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .28600 .35152 .41704 .48256 .54808 .61360 TOTAL  <20> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:4 HIST% CO >UN'FOR 5.TNIR (EACH X= 1) XXXX 12.5 4+ + XXXXXXX 25.0 8+X X XXXXXXXXXX 34.4 1 1 + X 21 .9 7+xXXXXXX 3.1 1+x 3.1 1 32 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .65520 -  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.1303 1.1542 1.1782 1.2022. 1.2261 1 .2501 TOTAL  <20> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 6.GR 9.4 3 +XXX 3.1 1 +X 18.8 6 +XXXXXX 31 .3 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 28.1 9 +XXXXXXXXX 9.4 3 +XXX 32 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .23959 -  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.6872 4.0272 4.3672 4.7071 5.0471 5.3871 TOTAL  <20> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 7.GNIR (EA XC =H 1) 9.4 3 +XXX 21 .9 7 +XXXXXXX 25.0 8 +XXXXXXXX 25.0 8 +XXXXXXXX 12.5 4 +XXXX 6.3 2 +XX 32 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.33996)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 3.0879 3.3663 3.6447 3.9231 4.2015 4.4799 TOTAL  <20> DAMAGE:30B2E*SCALE:4 HIST% COUNT FOR 8.RNIR (EA XC =H 1) 6.3 2 +XX 25.0 8 +XXXXXXXX 28.1 9 +XXXXXXXXX 25.0 8 +XXXXXXXX 6.3 2 +XX 9.4 3 +XXX 32 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.27839)  <FINISH>  APPENDIX Histograms for  each  of  of  2:  six film  five  attack  response  variables  categories.  <HISTOGRAM BYSTRATA OPTIONS=HIST%,TOT% VAR=TG,TR,TIR,GR,GIR,RIR STRAT=ATTACK> HISTOGRAM <1> ATTACK:NON MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 19.TG (EACH X= 1) .95400 1.5 3+XXX 1.1019 2.5 5+XXXXX 1.2499 11.1 22+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.3978 16.2 32+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.5458 15.7 31+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.6937 19.7 39+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.8417 .14.1 28+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.9896 7.6 15+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2.1375 5.6 11+XXXXXXXXXXX 2.2855 3.0 6+ XXXXXX 2.4334 .5 1+x 2.5814 1.0 2+ XX 2.7293 .5 1++xx 2.8773 .5 1+x 3.0252 .5 1 TOTAL 198 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .14794)  HISTOGRAM <1> ATTACK:NON MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 20.TR (EACH X= 1) X .5 1 + .81680 +XXXX 2.0 14 .93520 8 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .0536 19.1 . 22 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 . 1720 21 . 42+X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .2904 19. 39+XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.4088 17. 1.5272 4+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . 3 1 .6456 7 4 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 6, 1 1.7640 , 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 1 .8824 2 +XXXXX 1, 2.0008 1. +XX 2.1 192 0 , +XX 2.2376 2.3560 . 5 +x 2.4744 1 .0 +XX 1 9 8 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .11840) TOTAL  HISTOGRAM  <1> ATTACK:NON  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .18200 .22546 .26891 .31237 .35583 .39929 .44274 .48620 .52966 .57311 .61657 .66003 .70349 .74694 .79040  1.0 5.6 14. 20. 20. 1 1 . 1 1 . 4. 6. 2, 1 , 1 , 0,  COUNT FOR 21.TIR  2 +XX 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 28 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 0 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 41 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 22 + XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 9 +XXXXXXXXX 12 •xxxxxxxxxxxx 4 +XXXX 2 +XX 1 +x 2 +XX 0 + 1 +x 198  TOTAL  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .43457 -1)  HISTOGRAM  <1> ATTACK:NON  MIDPOINT  HIST%  93636 96047 98458 .0087 .0328 .0569 .0810 .1051 .1292 .1533 .1775 .2016 .2257 .2498 .2739 TOTAL  .5 3.5 3.0 11.1 1 1 . 14, 15, 12, 9.1 9.6 7.1 .5 1.0 0.  (EACH X= 1)  COUNT FOR 31.GR  (EACH X= 1)  1 +X 7 +XXXXXXX 6 +XXXXXX 22 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2 9 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 31 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2 4 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 19 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1 +x 2 +XX 0 + 1 +x 198  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .24109 -1)  HISTOGRAM <1> ATTACK:NON MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 32.GIR (EACH X= 1) 2.0 4 +XXXX ,93269 2.5 5 +XXXXX ,0885 10. 2 +XX ,2443 ,4002 0. 0 + ,5560 10. 2 +XX ,7118 9.1 18 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ,8677 18.7 3 7 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .0235 19.2 3 8 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ,1793 21 2. 4 2 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ,3351 1 1 1 • 22 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ,4910 12.1 24 + xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .6468 .5 1 +x .8026 .5 1 +x .9585 5 1 +x . 1 143 . .5 1 +x 198 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .15583) TOTAL  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .81739 .98554 1 . 1537 1.3218 1.4900 1.6581 1.8263 1.9944 2.1626 2.3307 2.4988 2.6670 2.8351 3.0033 3.1714 TOTAL  <1> ATTACK:NON HIST% COUNT FOR 33.RIR (EACH X= 1) .5 1 +X 3.5 7 +XXXXXXX 1 .5 3 +XXX 1.0 2 +XX 6.1 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 12.1 24 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23.2 46 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 24.2 48 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 12.6 25 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 10.6 21 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2.5 5 +XXXXX .5 1 +X 1.0 2 +XX 0. 0 + .5 1 +X 198 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .16815)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .88000 1.0023 1.1247 1.2470 1.3694 1.4917 1.6141 1.7364 1.8587 1.9811 2.1034 2.2258 2.3481 2.4705 2.5928 TOTAL  <2> ATTACK:SUC HIST% COUNT FOR 19.TG (EACH X= 1) .9 2+XX .9 2+XX 3.2 7+XXXXXXX 8.6 19+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 14.4 32+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18.5 41+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 14.0 31+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 9.0 20+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9.9 22+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7.7 17+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5.9 13+XXXXXXXXXXXXX 3.2 7+XXXXXXX 1 .4 3+XXX 1 .4 3+XXX 1 .4 3+XXX 222 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .12234)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .47800 .60883 .73966 .87049 1 .0013 1 .1321 1.2630 1.3938 1.5246 1.6555 1.7863 1.9171 2.0479 2.1788 2.3096 TOTAL  <2> ATTACK:SI HIST% COUNT .5 1 0. 0 .5 1 1 .8 4 7.2 16 14.9 33 22.5 50 16.7 37 14.9 33 9.5 21 5.4 12 3.6 8 1 .8 4 .5 1 .5 1 222 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .13083)  HISTOGRAM  <2> ATTACK:SUC  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .18200 .22100 .26000 .29900 .33800 .37700 .41600 .45500 .49400 .53300 .57200 .61100 .65000 .68900 .72800  .9 3.2 7.7 20.7 19.4 10.4 10.4 1 1 .7 5.9 6.3 .5 2.3 0. 0. .9  TOTAL  COUNT FOR 21.TIR 2 7 17 46 43 23 23 26 13 14 1 5 0 0 2 222  +XX +XXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX -•-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX +X +XXXXX  + +  +XX  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .39000 -1)  HISTOGRAM  <2> ATTACK:SUC  MIDPOINT  HIST%  .95122 1 .0243 • 1.0975 1 .1706 1.2437 1 .3169 1.3900 1.4631 1.5362 1.6094 1.6825 1.7556 1.8287 1.9019 1.9750 TOTAL  4.1 30.2 43.7 16.2 3.6 0. .5 0. .5 0. 0. .5 0. .5 .5  COUNT FOR 31.GR 9 67 97 36 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 222  (EACH X= 1)  (EACH X= 1)  +XXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXJ +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXX  + +x + +x + + +x + +x  (INTERVAL WIDTH= .73127 -1)  =Hi,aiM ivAaaj.Ni) zzz  (SZLOI'  XX+ Z XXXXXXXXX+ 6  xxxxx+ g  XXXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX + XXXXXXX+ XXXX+ X+ XXXXX+ XXXX+ (I  =X H3Y3)  ($££21*  21 ZZ 61 9Z ts zz ZZ L i I 5  I"  z'z  *te»* -i  2oee1 6222" I 99 I t * I £800*I  iNIOdQIH  OnS'MDViXV <2>  WYHOOiLSIH  =rUCIIM 1YAH3I.NI)  IYJIOJ.  222  xxxxxxxx+ 8  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ 22 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ l £ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ LZ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ Zi XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +Sfr XXXXXXXXXXXX+ 21 XXXXXX+ 9 + 0 X+ L XXXX+ XXX+ £ =X HDY3)  fr'S fr'Ol 9*8 L'll 0*£2 fr'frl 6*6 Z'Z 8•t 9" Z'Z 8•L %J.SIH  a i H ' E E HOi J.NC1CO  X+ I XXXXX+ S XXXX+ t  (I  20LS/2 620*'2 Z.562'2 fr88l 'Z I 180*2 8EL-6- I S998* I £69Z.* I 02S9*I  6'  HIO*2£ aOJ ANtlCO  S" Z'Z 8* t  9*e  6*6 O'M L'Si '6t £"02 i'9 L'Z "0 S" 8* I $'I %iSIH  o  0£08 '2 LSL9 '2 £ 8 * 3 "2 u t "2 '2 ££62 •2 £991 06£0'2 9116*1 ZVSL'l 69S9M 962S' I 220*'* I * I SLtl'l 2020"t .LNIOdQIW  DnS'MOVlilY <Z> WYaOOiSIH  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1 .1704 1.3023 1.4341 1 .5660 1.6979 1 .8297 1.9616 TOTAL  <3> ATTACK:UNSUC HIST% COUNT FOR 19.TG (EA XC =H 1) +XXXX 10.3 14 3 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 33.3 7 XXXXXXX 17.9 6 + XXXXXX 15.4 6 + +XXXXXX 15.4 2 + X 5.1 1 +X X 2.6 39 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.13187) HISTOGRAM <3> ATTACK:UNSUC MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 20.TR (EA XC =H 1) 8 + X X X X X X X X 0.5 1.0060 2 +XXXXXX 15.4 16 1.1211 2 0 +XXXXXXXXXX .6 6 1.2361 15 +XXXXXX .4 1.3512 15 -t. 5.4 6 +XXXXXX 1.4663 2.6 1 +x 1.5813 5.1 1.6964 2( +I XX TOTAL 39 NTERVAL WIDTH=.11507) 6  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .23400 .29553 .35707 .41860 .48013 .54167 .60320 TOTAL  <3> ATTACK:UNSUC HIST% COUNT FOR 21.TIR (EACH 12.8 5 +XXXXX 41 .0 16 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 17.9 7 +XXXXXXX 20.5 8 +XXXXXXXX 0. 0+ 5.1 2 +XX 2.6 1 +X 39 (INTERVAL WIDTH= HISTOGRAM <3> ATTACK:UNSUC MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 31.GR (EACH .93578 2.6 1 +X .99044 17.9 7 +XXXXXXX 1.0451 35.9 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1.0998 28.2 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 1.1544 10.3 4 +XXXX 1.2091 0. 0+ 1.2637 5.1 2 +XX TOTAL 39 . (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.0303 1.2680 1.5057 1.7434 1.9811 2.2188 2.4565 TOTAL  <3> ATTACK:UNSUC HIST% COUNT FOR 32.GIR (EACH 5.1. 2 +XX 2.6 1 +X 5.1 2 +XX 15.4 6 +XXXXXX 35.9 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 30.8 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 5.1 2 +XX 39 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 0000 2500 5000 ,7500 ,0000 ,2500 ,5000  <3> ATTACK:UNSUC HIST% COUNT FOR 33.RIR (EACH X= 1) 5.1 2+XX 5.1 2+XX 10.3 4+XXXX 30.8 12+XXXXXXXXXXX? 28.2 1 1 +XXXXXXXXXXA 17.9 7+XXXXXXX 2.6 1+x 39 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .25000)  TOTAL HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.2820 1.6296 1.9772 2.3248 TOTAL  <4> ATTACK:STRIP HIST% COUNT FOR 19.TG (EACH X= 1) 16.7 +XX 16.7 +XX +XXXXXX 50.0 +XX 16.7 12 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .34760)  HISTOGRAM <4> ATTACK:STRIP MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 20.TR (EACH X= 1) +XX 1 . 1272 16.7 5.0 +XXX 1 .3991 2 1.7 +XXXXX 1.6709 4 +XX 1.9428 16.7 12 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .27187) TOTAL  135  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .28080 .37267 .46453 .55640 TOTAL  <4> ATTACK:STRIP HIST% COUNT FOR 21.TIR (EACH X= 1) +XXXX 33.3 33.-3 +XXXX 16.7 +XX 16.7 +XX 12 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .91867 -1)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .95000 1.0306 1.1112 1.1919 TOTAL  <4> ATTACK:STRIP HIST% COUNT FOR 31..GR (EACH X= 1) +X 8.3 41 .7 +XXXXX 41 .7 +XXXXX +X 8.3 12 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .80620 -1)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.8283 2.4177 3.0071 3.5965 TOTAL  <4> ATTACK:STRIP HIST% COUNT FOR 32.GIR (EACH X= 1) 66.7 8 +XXXXXXXX 25.0 3 +XXX 0. 0 + 8.3 1 +X 12 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .58940)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.6542 2.1087 2.5631 3.0175 TOTAL  <4> ATTACK:STRIP HIST% COUNT FOR 33.RIR (EACH X= 1) 33.3 4 +XXXX 50.0 6 +XXXXXX 8.3 1 +x 8.3 1 +x 12 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .45445)  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .80840 1.0827 1.3569 1.6312 1.9055 2.1797 2.4540 TOTAL  <5> ATTACK:NOTMPB HIST% COUNT FOR 19.TG (EACH X= 1) 2.7 1+X 10.8 4+XXXX 29.7 1 1 +XXXXXXXXXXX 35.1 13+XXXXXXXXXXXXX 16.2 6+x +XXXXXX 2.7 1+x 2.7 1 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  HISTOGRAM <5> ATTACK:NOTMPB MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 20.TR (EACH X= 1) .75440 5.4 2+XX .96253 16.2 6+XXXXXX 1.1707 27.0 10+XXXXXXXXXX 1 .3788 29.7 1 1 +XXXXXXXXXXX 1.5869 '13.5 5+XXXXX 1.7951 5.4 2+ XX 2.0032 2.7 1+x TOTAL 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH= HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .18720 .25480 .32240 .39000 .45760 .52520 .59280 TOTAL  <5> ATTACK:NOTMPB HIST% COUNT FOR 21.TIR (EACH X= 1) 2.7 1+X 21 .6 8+XXXXXXXX 40.5 15+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18.9 7+XXXXXXX 8.1 3+x +XXX 2.7 1 5.4 2+XX 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH'  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT .95775 1.0151 1 .0725 1.1298 1.1872 1.2445 1.3019 TOTAL  <5> ATTACK:NOTMPB HIST% COUNT FOR 31.GR (EACH X= 1) 2.7 1+X 5.4 2+XX 27.0 10+XXXXXXXXXX 37.8 14+XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 18.9 7+XXXXXXX 5.4 2+ XX 2.7 1+x 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH= .57357  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.5596 1.7650 1.9703 2.1756 2.3810 2.5863 2.7917 TOTAL HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT 1.3465 1.5457 1.7449 1.9441 2.1433 2.3425 2.5417 TOTAL <FINISH>  <5> ATTACK:NOTMPB HIST% COUNT FOR 32.GIR (EACH 16.2 6 +XXXXXX 21.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 24.3 9 +XXXXXXXXX 16.2 6 +XXXXXX 16.2 6 +XXXXXX 0. 0 + 5.4 2 +XX 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH=.20534) <5> ATTACK:NOTMPB HIST% COUNT FOR 33.RIR (EACH 10.8 4 +XXXX 29.7 11 +XXXXXXXXXXX 21.6 8 +XXXXXXXX 10.8 4 +XXXX 18.9 7 +XXXXXXX 5.4 2 +XX 2.7 1 +X 37 (INTERVAL WIDTH=  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095675/manifest

Comment

Related Items