UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Influence of spacing and artificial pruning on the production of clearwood of Douglas-fir Reeb, Dominique 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A6 R43.pdf [ 19.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096037.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096037-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096037-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096037-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096037-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096037-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096037-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096037-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096037.ris

Full Text

INFLUENCE OF SPACING AND ARTIFICIAL PRUNING ON THE PRODUCTION CLEARWOOD OF DOUGLAS-FIR by DOMINIQUE REEB B.A.Sc, Universite Laval A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department Of Forestry We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1984 © Dominique Reeb, 1984 In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Forestry The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: June 21, 1984 i i Abstract Supervisor: Dr. J. Harry G. Smith Analysis of markets for Douglas-fir has shown that clearwood w i l l probably command high values in the future. To evaluate the demand for high quality wood a review of spacing and a r t i f i c i a l pruning techniques was made. Their effects on wood qual i t y were also studied. Results of research conducted at the U.B.C. Research Forest and at Wind River, U.S.A. in the G i f f o r d Pinchot National Forest are presented in order to define some relationships among spacing, branch morphology, tree growth and natural pruning. Times required to prune branches by various techniques were analysed.. Results were incorporated in a simulation model PRUNE to estimate the volumes and costs of clearwood produced by various pruning methods. It now appears that early pruning of widely spaced Douglas-f i r w i l l show the highest return on investment. New data are needed, however, to determine any extra costs of stand tending and to quantify the savings in establishment costs associated with wide spacings. In order to define optimum strategies for Coastal Douglas-fir, analyses should be made of the sensivity of benefits from pruning to various cost and premium structures for i i i s i t e s l i k e l y to be managed intensively. iv Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables v i i i L i s t of Figures x Acknowledgement x i i Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter II DOUGLAS-FIR: THE SPECIES 3 1 . DOUGLAS-FIR WOOD 3 2. FUNGUS AND PESTS ON LIVING TREES: 5 Chapter III VOLUME HARVESTED AND TRENDS 7 1 . AREA: 7 2. VOLUME CUT IN B.C.: 8 3 . TRENDS : 15 4. STUMPAGE TRENDS (1963-1980): 16 5. LUMBER PRODUCTION: 18 6. LUMBER EXPORTS: 18 Chapter IV CLEARWOOD OF DOUGLAS-FIR 22 1. DEFINITION: 22 2. GRADES: 22 3. CLEARWOOD PRODUCTION: 23 4. MARKETS FOR CLEAR: 24 Chapter V PRICE TRENDS 27 1 . LOG PRICES: 27 2. LUMBER PRICES: 28 3. CONCLUSIONS: 29 V Chapter VI INFLUENCE OF INITIAL SPACING ON TREE GROWTH 37 1. DOUGLAS-FIR SPACING TRIALS IN NORTH AMERICA 37 2. SPACING TRIALS IN EUROPE 41 3. COMPARISON OF SPACING TRIALS 44 4. EFFECTS OF WIDE SPACING ON WOOD QUALITY 45 5. ECONOMICS OF SPACING 48 6. CONCLUSIONS 49 Chapter VII INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON BRANCH DIAMETER AND BRANCH AGE ..51 1. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SPACING TRIALS 51 2. MEASUREMENTS 53 3. ANALYSIS OF DATA 57 3.1 Analysis Of A l l Branch Measurements 57 3.2 A l l Branches. Live And Dead 57 3.3 Correlation Coefficients 64 3.4 Multiple Linear Regression Of Some Variables Of Interest 76 3.5 Regression On Live Branches Only 76 3.6 Regression On Dead Branches Only 77 4. REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON THE TWO LARGEST BRANCHES PER WHORL 77 4.1 Regression On Live Branches 77 4.2 Regression On Dead Branches 77 4.3 Conclusion 78 5. RESULTS OF THE WIND RIVER SPACING TRIALS AND COMPARISON 78 6. INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON DIB 81 7. INFLUENCE OF SITE 83 8. INFLUENCE OF LIVE WHORL DIAMETER ON DIB 85 9. PREDICTION OF DIB 85 10. BRANCH AGE DATA ANALYSIS 89 11. INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON BRANCH AGE 91 12. INFLUENCE OF SITE 92 v i 13. BRANCH AGE AND DIB 92 14. PREDICTION OF BRANCH AGE 92 15. IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS 98 Chapter VIII PRUNING 100 1. LIVE CROWN PRUNING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 101 1 .1 Wood Quality 101 1 .2 Tree Growth 1 03 2. EFFECT OF SPACING ON PRUNING INTENSITY 109 2.1 Discussion And Conclusions 111 3. WHEN SHOULD TREES BE PRUNED? 113 4. NUMBER OF TREES TO PRUNE 115 5. THINNING AND/OR FERTILIZATION AFTER PRUNING 117 6. CLEARWOOD RECOVERY IN PRUNED TREES 119 7. HEALING OF BRANCH BUTT AND ITS RELATED HAZARD 120 8. PRUNING AND STAND HEALTH 124 9. PRUNING TECHNIQUES 125 9. 1 How To Prune 125 10. PRUNING TOOLS 125 10.1 Hand Tools 125 10.2 Mechanical Tools 132 11. PRUNING TIME 135 12. PRUNING COSTS 137 Chapter IX SIMULATION MODEL: PRUNE 138 1. PURPOSE OF THE MODEL 138 2. MAIN PROGRAM 139 3. SUBROUTINE DISTRI 139 4. SUBROUTINE PRUNE 140 5. SUBROUTINE CORE 142 6. SUBROUTINE VOLUME 1 42 v i i 7. SUBROUTINE HEIGHT 144 8. SUBROUTINE BRANCH 144 9. SUBROUTINE ECONO 145 10. OUTPUT 147 Chapter X ECONOMICS OF SPACING AND PRUNING 152 1. DISCOUNTED REVENUE 154 2. COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS 154 Chapter XI CONCLUSION 159 REFERENCES 161 APPENDIX A - LOG GRADES. SOURCE:COFI 171 APPENDIX B - LISTING OF MODEL PRUNE ....174 APPENDIX C - OUTPUT OF MODEL PRUNE 191 APPENDIX D - UNPRUNED AND PRUNED STANDS VALUE AT AGE OF HARVEST. 245 APPENDIX E - COSTS OF TENDING IN RELATION TO SPACING. ...254 APPENDIX F - SCIENTIFIC NAMES, AUTHORITIES AND COMMON NAMES 255 v i i i L i s t of Tables 1. Percentage of t o t a l cut by species. A l l Province 10 2. Timber cut in B. C 13 3. Douglas-fir as a' percentage of t o t a l cut on the Coast and in the Interior 14 4. Douglas-fir as a percentage of seedling inventory ....16 5. Trends in r e l a t i v e values of Douglas-fir logs. Smith (1983 c) 28 6. Monthly averages of reported prices Douglas-fir, k i l n dried. 1x6, C&BTR, FG F i n i s h 33 7. Monthly averages of reported prices Douglas-fir, k i l n dried. 2x6, #2&BTR, Random 8/20 feet 34 8. Ratio: 1x6, C&BTR / 2x6, #2&BTR 35 9. Correlation matrix. Variables independant of tree age 63 10. Correlation matrix. Rectangularity t r i a l 67 11. Correlation matrix. Nelder plot 68 12. Correlation matrix. 49-trees plots 69 13. Correlation matrix. A l l data 70 14. Correlation matrix. Branch age data 90 15. Sample output of the model PRUNE 149 16. Vancouver Log Market Grades and Prices ($/m 3). A p r i l 18, 1984 152 17. Percentage log grade d i s t r i b u t i o n by cubic volume recovered for four stands of Douglas-fir. Dobie (1966) 1 53 18. Discounted prices at 5% rate of interest 154 19. Revenue per hectare generated by pruning 155 20. Discounted cost of pruning and pruning regime 156 21. Log grades and values at harvest age. 1.8 m i n i t i a l ix spacing. SI 50 246 22. Log grades and values at harvest age. 2.7 m i n i t i a l spacing. Si 50 247 23. Log grades and values at harvest age. 3.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 50 248 24. Log grades and values at harvest age. 4.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 50 249 25. Log grades and values at harvest age. 1.8 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40 250 26. Log grades and values at harvest age. 2.7 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40 251 27. Log grades and values at harvest age. 3.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40 252 28. Log grades and values at harvest age. 4.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40 253 X L i s t of Figures 1. Douglas-fir d i s t r i b u t i o n in B.C 4 2. Percentage of t o t a l cut by species 9 3. Douglas-fir cut in B. C 11 4. Douglas-fir as a percentage of t o t a l cut on the Coast and in the Interior 12 5. Average stumpage prices, by species, from TFL cutting permits . 17 6. Douglas-fir lumber exports as a percentage of production 19 7. Douglas-fir exports. D i s t r i b u t i o n by destination 20 8. Monthly averages of reported prices Douglas-fir, k i l n dried. 1x6, C&BTR, FG F i n i s h . Source: Random Lengths .30 9. Monthly averages of reported prices Douglas-fir, k i l n dried. 2x6, #2&BTR, Random 8/20 feet. Source: Random Lengths 31 10. Ratio: 1x6, C&BTR / 2x6, #2&BTR. Source: Random Lengths 32 11. Scatter plot of DIB over DOB 58 12. Scatter plot and regression l i n e of DIB over L 59 13. Scatter plot of DIB over CW 60 14. Scatter plot of DIB over DW 61 15. Scatter plot of DIB over NB 62 16. Scatter plot of residuals. DIB and a l l s i g n i f i c a n t variables 66 17. Influence of spacing on DBH 71 18. Influence of spacing on crown width 72 19. Influence of spacing on height to l i v e crown 73 20. Influence of spacing on H/DBH 74 21. Branch length and branch diameter in three d i f f e r e n t xi locations 79 22. Influence of spacing on branch diameter 82 23. Influence of spacing on branch diameter. Regression li n e s 84 24. Scatter plot and regression l i n e of DIB over DW 86 25. Scatter plot of residuals. DIB and S 87 26. Influence of spacing on branch age ...93 27. Influence of branch diameter on branch age 94 28. Scatter plot of residuals. BRAGE and S, BRWH, DIB, AGE 96 29. Phases in branch l i f e and their importance for pruning. Brown (1962) 110 30. Pruning/thinning t r i a l in Comox. Pruned hemlock stand. 118 31. a. Pruning wound, b. Healing of pruning scar after 2.5 months 122 32. Pruning techniques 126 33. Pruning saws 127 34. Pruning shears 128 35. Pruning tools on poles ....129 36. Cutting action of pruning shears 130 37. The KS 31 Tree Monkey 133 38. a. Pneumatic shears, b. Pruning chain saw. c. Chain saw 1 34 Ac knowledqement I would l i k e to thank Dr. J. H. G. Smith for his guidance during t h i s work, his assistance in acquiring the information needed, and his encouragement and support throughout my entire graduate program. I wish to thank the members of my comittee, Dr. D. Haley and Dr. J. V. Thirgood for reviewing this thesis. The funding, for the research and the fieldwork, provided by the Canadian Forest Service i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. F i n a l l y I would l i k e to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. S. Omule, B. Wallis, A. Wheatley and D. Aitken during my f i e l d t r i p on Vancouver island. 1 I. INTRODUCTION With the removal of the old growth forest, log quality w i l l decrease and w i l l strongly af f e c t future clearwood supply. After a short description of Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga  menziesi i (Mirb.) Franco) the f i r s t part of thi s thesis describes the current s i t u a t i o n in terms of volume harvested, stumpage prices, lumber production and exports to determine whether or not clear wood w i l l be in demand in the future. Substitute products and their impact on demand are also i d e n t i f i e d . The various tools available to the forester such as spacing and a r t i f i c i a l pruning in order to improve economically the quality of second growth forests are then revieved. To evaluate log quality and the economics of pruning, research results are used to examine the influence of spacing on branch diameter. A simulation model was b u i l t , incorporating a l l the b i o l o g i c a l and economic parameters related to pruning, in order 2 to analyse and evaluate a wide range of spacing and pruning regimes. 3 II . DOUGLAS-FIR: THE SPECIES Douglas-fir is native to Western North America. Two forms are recognized. The Coast form, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, which i s the most important, grows on the islands and mainland of the West Coast (See Figure 1 ) . The Interior form i s d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the Rocky Mountains and i s sometimes known as the blue Douglas-fir. It has been c l a s s i f i e d as Pseudotsuga menz i e s i i var. qlauca (Beiss.). Douglas-fir i s one of the most valuable trees in North America, p a r t i c u l a r l y the coastal variety which w i l l receive most attention in th i s paper. 1 . DOUGLAS-FIR WOOD Appearance: The sapwood i s l i g h t in color and narrow, usually less than 5 cm wide. Heartwood ranges from yellowish to reddish brown. Earlywood and latewood have a pronounced difference in color, the latewood having darker, more sharply defined c e l l s . The difference in color and texture results in a d i s t i n c t i v e 4 Douglas-fir \Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco]; the dashed line separates the coastal (var. menziesii) and the interior or blue [var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco] varieties. Figure Douglas-fir d i s t r i b u t i o n in B.C. 5 grain pattern when a log is f l a t sawn or rotary peeled for veneer. Strength: Douglas-fir is the strongest commercial softwood in Canada. It i s used extensively for structural purposes. Its hardness makes i t suitable for use where wear i s an important factor. Processing: The wood dries e a s i l y and quickly because the heartwood generally has a moisture content below 40%. Wood of Douglas-fir from the Interior is d i f f i c u l t to impregnate with creosote. Douglas-fir from the Coast i s e a s i l y treated. The wood is e a s i l y glued. Douglas-fir i s moderately resistant to decay and thus can be used untreated in many situations (Mullins and McKnight, 1981). 2. FUNGUS AND PESTS ON LIVING TREES: Douglas-fir i s a remarkably healthy tree and does not suffer from insect pests or fungus diseases as much as i t s associated tree species. As a r e s u l t , i t frequently reaches an age of 400 or 500 years, and very much older trees have been recorded (Canadian lumber Grading Manual,1977). However, forestry a c t i v i t i e s may change t h i s situation i f extensive plantations are established on improper s i t e s . The two more important damaging agencies are a root rot ( Phellinus w e i r i i ), and Douglas-fir beetles ( Dendroctonus pseudotsugae ) (Forestry Handbook, 1983). Phellinus w e i r i i i s considered to be a major threat to second growth Douglas-fir, however careful management can 6 minimize t h i s danger. Sites already infected should be avoided. Further management proposals were given by Wallis (1976). Intensive management of Douglas-fir can be done without great r i s k s in terms of fungus and insect attacks. Douglas-fir is c e r t a i n l y one of the "safest" species to manage. 7 I I I . VOLUME HARVESTED AND TRENDS In 1971 Manning and G r i n n e l l (1971) observed that Douglas-f i r was the most heavily exploited species in Canada at an annual rate of 3.88% of the mature volume compared to s l i g h t l y more than one percent for Hemlock, the second most heavily cut species. This rate has now decreased but Douglas-fir i s s t i l l overcut. Access, wood quality and markets are the main factors which contribute to this high u t i l i z a t i o n . The six Douglas-fir type groups ( f i r , f i r - p u l p species, fir-spruce, fir-yellow pine, f i r - l a r c h , fir-cedar) in the Province as a whole, comprise 14% of a l l commercial forests. On the Coast they make up 27% of commercial forests, and in the Interior 12% (B.C.F.S.,1957). 1. AREA; Douglas-fir type groups cover an area of 6.69 m i l l i o n hectares in B r i t i s h Columbia and offer a huge potential for management of the province's most valuable species. This substantial area of forest types which are mostly immature, and containing at least 20% of Douglas-fir suggests two f a c t s . F i r s t l y , Douglas-fir i s d e f i n i t e l y not headed for extinction, as i t i s sometimes assumed. Secondly, the tremendous management potential of forest land on which Douglas-fir forest can be 8 grown indicates that in the future there w i l l undoubtedly be a much greater area of predominantly Douglas-fir forest than now exist (B.C.F.S., 1957). Douglas-fir has been widely planted in the past, but this situation has changed recently as a wider variety of species are planted. Since 1957 no Provincial summary of type areas has been published. In 1957 of 6,690,546 ha of Douglas-fir forests, 13.8% was on good s i t e , 44.2% on medium s i t e , 35.4% on poor s i t e and 6.4% on low s i t e . About 46% were pure Douglas-fir stands. The Coast has 24.3% of the t o t a l area and the Interior 75.7%. As the best s i t e s are on the Coast, intensive management i s c e r t a i n l y more prof i t a b l e in t h i s region. Total volume of Douglas-fir for the province i s 530 m i l l i o n cubic metres and represents 6.6% of the t o t a l volume in B r i t i s h Columbia (B.C.F.S., 1975). 2. VOLUME CUT IN B.C.: Douglas-fir cuts as a percentage of the t o t a l have decreased considerably (Figure 2, Table 1). In 1940 i t made up 50% of the t o t a l cut and by 1981 only 11.2%! This i s the result of very intensive exploitation in the l a s t 50 years. Even today Douglas-fir i s overcut, as i t represents only 6.6% of the t o t a l mature volume. About the same volume of Douglas-fir i s cut in the Interior and on the Coast (Figure 3, Table 2). Harvests of Douglas-fir as a percentage of the t o t a l cut have decreased less on the Coast than in the Interior (Figure 4, Table 3). These figures do not seem to be very encouraging for the future C to i ti n> t-i n n> 3 r t Q) l O o (T 0) n c r t tr •< cn TJ (X» o w rt) in PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CUT BY SPECIES o o Of 3 0 - i 25H 20 H 15 H io H I 9 6 0 X ' 1965 —I 1 — 1970 1975 YEAR 1 9 8 0 1985 Legend A D O U G L A S X HEMLOCK • S P R U C E H CEDAR H B A L S A M X L 0 D G E P 0 L E \D 1 0 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CUT BY SPECIES. ALL PROVINCE | YEAR DOUGLAS | HEMLOCK | SPRUCE | CEOAR | BALSAM |L0DGEP0LE| | 1963 27.3 | 22.9 | 18.6 I 12.6 | 9.4 1 s.o | | 1964 26.S | 22.0 | 19.6 I 13-5 | 9.4 1 5. 1 | I 1965 27.4 | 22.3 | 20.7 I 13-3 1 10.2 1 5.3 | | 1966 | 24.0 | 22.9 | 20.2 | 13.0 | 10.5 1 5.6 | | 1967 | 21.7 | 24.4 | 20.0 1 12-9 | 11.3 1 6.1 | | 1968 | 21.8 | 24. 1 | 19.8 1 13-4 | 10.9 I 6.6 | | 1969 | 20.0 | 22.4 | 22.2 1 13-0 | 11.1 I 7.5 | | 1970 | 18.0 | 22.2 | 21.4 1 13.1 | 12.5 I 9.6 | I 1971 | 17.1 | 22.0 | 22.3 I 12.3 | 12.7 I 10.6 | | 1972 | 16.4 | 19.7 | 24.0 I 11-7 I 12.5 I 12.6 | | 1973 | 14.0 | 21.4 | 21.8 I 12.5 | 13.7 I 12.9 | I 1974 | 13. S | 21. 1 | 21.3 I 12-3 | 13.2 i 14.0 | 1 1975 | 14. 1 | 19.9 | 22.0 1 12.0 | 12.6 1 15.7 | | 1976 | 13.2 | 21.5 | 20.8 I 11-7 I 13.4 1 16.2 | 1 1977 | 12. 1 | 18.9 | 22.8 I n o | 13.4 1 IB.9 | | 1978 | 11.9 | 19.0 | 22. 1 I 11-9 I 13.6 1 18.3 | | 1979 | 11.2 | 17.9 | 23.3 I 12.3 | 13.2 I 19.4 | | 1980 | 11.6 | 19.8 | 21.3 | 11.3 | 13.4 1 19-2 [ | 1981 | 11.1 | 17.7 | 23.9 I 11-3 I 12.6 I 20.6 | SOURCE: B . C . F . S . ANNUAL REPORTS. Table 1 - Percentage of t o t a l cut by species. A l l Province DOUGLAS-FIR CUT IN B.C. 7-i 6H 4 H 3 H H 1960 Legend A C O A S T X INTERIOR T T 1965 1970 1975 YEAR 1980 1985 DOUGLAS-FIR AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CUT ON THE COAST AND IN THE INTERIOR \ \ Legend A C O A S T X INTERIOR l l 1 ~I 1 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEAR 1 3 TIMBER CUT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA VOLUME IN CUBIC METERS YEAR | DOUGLAS I DOUGLAS I DOUGLAS I TOTAL ALL I j COAST j INTERIOR | TOTAL | SPECIES | | 1963 5554406 5830637 I 11385043 | 41722704 | | 1964 5827210 5570224 11397417 | 42888559 | | 1965 5787412 j 4965302 10752713 | 43412919 | | 1966 | 6079395 | 4833485 10912879 | 45375973 | | 1967 | 5437395 | 4227954 | 9665345 | 44531032 | I 1968 | 6004341 | 4531392 | 1O535730 | 48208153 | | 1969 | 6034292 | 4692988 | 10727279 | 53520317 | | 1970 | 5296292 | 4555036 | 6851328 | 54725941 | | 1971 | 5177211 | 4510534 | 9687756 56551041 | | 1972 | 4613199 | 4554479 | 8167678 55607121 | | 1973 | 5389135 | 4471241 | 9860376 70136809 | I 1974 1 4238148 | 3895427 | 8133575 60085855 | 1 1975 | 3484495 | 3609611 | 7094106 | 50077453 | I 1976 | 4808263 | 4424476 | 9232738 | 69520977 | I 1977 | 4165949 | 4315867 | 8481815 | 69969876 | | 1978 | 4593740 | 441^651 | 90O5391 | 75164717 | | 1979 | 4358175 | 4170090 | 8528265 | 76194079 | | 1980 | 4469294 | 4205719 | 8675013 | 74654276 |~ | 1981 | 3201109 | 3694763 | 6895872 | 61817574 | SOURCE: B . C . F . S . ANNUAL REPORTS. Table 2 - Timber cut in B. C. 1 4 DOUGLAS-FIR AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CUT ON THE COAST AND IN THE INTERIOR | YEAR COAST |INTERIOR| | 1963 34 1 31 I | 1964 25 I 29 | | 1965 24 I 26 | | 1966 | 24 I 25 | | 1967 | 21 I 22 | | 1968 | 22 I 22 | | 1969 | 21 I 18 I | 1970 | 18 I 18 | 1 1971 | 18 1 IS 1 | 1972 | 19 1 15 | | 1973 | 16 I 12 | I 1 9 7 4 I 15 I 12 | I 1975 | 16 | 13 | | 1976 | 15 | 12 | 1 1977 | 15 I 10 I | 1978 | 14 I 10 I | 1979 | 14 | 9 | | 1980 | 15 I io | | 1981 | 14 1 io | SOURCE: B . C . F . S . ANNUAL REPORTS. Table 3 - Douglas-fir as a percentage of t o t a l cut on the Coast and in the Interior 15 of Douglas-fir. In fact, many have argued that the old growth Douglas-fir w i l l be completely logged in a very short time. In the 1957 forest inventory, the Forest Service (B.C.F.S.,1957) even advanced an estimate of 8 years! There i s no way to predict accurately how long the old growth forest w i l l remain, as the forest companies are already starting to cut some second growth Douglas-fir stands in order to preserve some of their old growth. Some companies expect to be able to harvest old growth stands for another 50 to 70 years (St. John, Campbell, 1983). The present cut of 6,895,872 m3 in 1981 which represents 1.3% of the t o t a l volume (530 m i l l i o n s m3) (Forest inventory 1975) can be supported for more than 70 years. 3. TRENDS; Ker et a l . (1960) estimated that Douglas-fir's share of t o t a l cut, in the Vancouver Forest Region, w i l l drop to 10% by 2007 and w i l l start to increase again in 2017 to reach a percentage of 45% in 2027 with the harvest of immature stands. The decreasing trend has been proven by experience and the future increase forcasted i s also well supported by the age class d i s t r i b u t i o n . Harvesting and planting have considerably increased the proportion of young immature forests. Douglas-fir was widely used in plantations and represented 90% of a l l plantations between 1938 and 1958 . Since then t h i s rate has decreased due to d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of harvested species. By 1980 the t o t a l area planted on the Coast was 521,270 ha. We can make some current assumptions by looking at the seedling inventory (B.C.F.S. Annual Report) to estimate Douglas-fir as a 16 percentage of a l l plantations: Table 4 - Douglas-fir as a percentage of seedling inventory 1 978 1 979 1980 Province 23.3% 19.4% 18.1% Coast 65.0% 52.2% 48.4% By 1960 only 82,609 ha had been planted compared to over half a m i l l i o n today, so most plantations are f a i r l y young and w i l l not be harvested for perhaps 40 or 50 years. If we assume that an average of 60% of a l l the plantations on the Coast have been planted with Douglas-fir, t h i s give an area of about 320,000 ha, while the t o t a l area of productive forest of the type group F i r is 350,501 ha (B.C.F.S.,1957). This shows the importance of these plantations. These figures confirm the prediction of Ker et a l . (1960). Douglas-fir w i l l c e r t a i n l y play a major role in future harvests, even i f i t now gives the impression of a species on the decline. 4. STUMPAGE TRENDS (1963-1980): Douglas-fir i s a valuable species today and has always received one of the highest stumpage values (Figure 5) (Reeb 1983 a). However, before 1965 the premium for Douglas-fir stumpage was much higher than i t i s today, and stumpage prices were about double those of other species (Haley, 1964). As other species become more widely accepted, prices for Douglas-f i r tend to diminish. Unless pruned, i t i s l i k e l y that in the AVERAGE STUM PAGE PRICES, BY SPECIES, FROM TREE FARM LICENCE CUTTING PERMITS. 1960 1965 1970 YEAR 1975 1980 Legend A A L L X D O U G L A S D CEDAR _ B S P R U C E B HEMLOCK * BALSAM^ • L O D G E P O L E 18 near future Douglas-fir prices w i l l decrease to the same le v e l as hemlock prices because of the thickness of i t s branches in second growth stands. Due to large knots i t s wood strength w i l l be affected and i t may lose i t s superiority over other species. 5. LUMBER PRODUCTION: Douglas-fir was the most commonly produced species of lumber in B r i t i s h Columbia u n t i l 1966 when the spruce-pine-fir (SPF) group became the most important. Douglas-fir i s now at the same le v e l as Cedar (Reeb, 1983 b). While t o t a l production increased Douglas-fir production decreased; species d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n and declining supply are the causes of thi s trend. Looking at the coastal industry Douglas-fir i s now less important, in volume, than hemlock and cedar. In the Interior, Douglas-fir i s the second most used species, but far behind the SPF group. Since 1965 the Interior lumber industry has steadily increased i t s production while the Coastal industry followed a downward trend. Douglas-fir production was responsible for 75% of t h i s drop in production between 1966 and 1982. The Coastal industry suffers not only from i t s r e l a t i v e l y low of productivity but also from the increasing scarcity of Douglas-f i r (Reeb, 1983 b). 6. LUMBER EXPORTS: Exports markets for Douglas-fir : Most Douglas-fir lumber production (about 60 %) i s exported (Figure 6). The main markets are the United States, Europe, Au s t r a l i a , and Japan (Figure 7). u o i ^ o n p o j c l 30 a6e^u30J9d B S B s ^ a o d x s ' j s q m n x JT.3-seT6n.oa _ 9 ajn6tj PERCENTAGE in A* t r a> 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 J I I l 1 I to 00 O 61 DOUGLAS-FIR EXPORTS. DISTRIBUTION BY DESTINATION. 1960 1965 1970 1975 YEAR 1980 1985 Legend A U . S . A . X EUROPE • AUSTRALIA B J A P A N B OTHER 21 While volumes exported to the United States, Europe and Australia have decreased, following the general trend, Japan has increased i t s share. In Europe, the United Kingdom, Belgium-Luxemburg and Italy are the main buyers of Douglas-fir lumber. 22 IV. CLEARWOOD OF DOUGLAS-FIR 1. DEFINITION: A t y p i c a l log w i l l y i e l d three broad types of lumber: 1) Clear lumber r e l a t i v e l y free of knots. 2) Factory and shop lumber, containing large knots but from which can be cut shorter and narrower clear pieces. 3) Construction lumber, where most of the knots occur. 2. GRADES: Four major types of grades for a l l species, excepting western redcedar, can be defined: 1) Clear grades: A) Standard items (Finish, Selects, Flooring, Siding ...) B) Special use items (Ladder stock, Crossarm, Industrial Clears ...) 2) Construction grades: A) Boards, Sheathing ... B) Stress grades (Dimension, Beams and stringers, Posts and Timbers.) 3) Factory lumber: Shop, Door stock, F l i t c h e s for remanufacturing ... 23 4) Special use grades: Decking, Railway and Car material Knotty panelling and siding ... (Canadian Lumber Grading Manual, 1977). 3. CLEARWOOD PRODUCTION: "The most notable trend in terms of grade mix over the la s t decade has been the r e l a t i v e decline in the production of shop and clear grades of lumber and the corresponding increase in the production of construction grades. This i s largely the result of the declining a v a i l a b i l i t y of and increased competition for logs of s u f f i c i e n t size and quality to manufacture the higher grades and increased production in the B.C. Interior and Central Canada where, because of the nature . of the resource, production i s confined for the most part to construction grades of lumber... Shop and clear grades account for less than 5% of t o t a l softwood production and thi s proportion is expected to decline in the future. Production of these grades is confined mainly to B r i t i s h Columbia, and in p a r t i c u l a r the Coastal region." (Govt.of Canada, 1979). Dobie (1975) did a detailed study on lumber and chip y i e l d from logs of Douglas-fir, hemlock and western redcedar, in Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia. A t o t a l of 822 trees and 2585 logs were observed. On average Douglas-fir yielded 20% clear lumber, but t h i s sample represented probably the better quality available on the Coast. Hemlock yielded 6.5% of clear and Cedar 24 This figure tends to confirm the numbers obtained from other sources. It seems that about 17% of the sawmills' output are clear and shop grades. Clear lumber represents about 5 to 6% of Douglas-fir lumber (Campbell, Chapital, St. John, Young, 1983) . A l l the people mentioned above are unanimous in saying that clears w i l l be more valuable in the future. They do not think that the trend in production of clear and shop grades w i l l change. Even i f logs of high q u a l i t y are becoming rare, modernization of the Coastal sawmill industry w i l l maximize the production of shop grades. For example, MacMillan Bloedel has planned to increase i t s production while using less logs (St. John, 1983). More recovery in the shop grades (about 10%) increases the revenue by 4%. With the present grading system most of the shop grades are graded as a No.3 which i s paid half the price; t h i s i s an important lo s s . Clear and shop grades which represent 17% of the production contribute about 30% of the t o t a l revenue generated by Douglas-f i r lumber. 4. MARKETS FOR CLEAR: Most of the clear lumber produced on the Coast i s exported offshore. Clear grades of Douglas-fir represent about 15% of Douglas-fir sales in offshore markets. Some countries l i k e I t a l y , Spain and West Germany are a 100% clear market. 25 Market Aus t r a l i a Belgium Holland West Germany France Ita l y Spain Japan United Kingdom (Campbell, 1983) Clear share of Douglas-fir Sales 1% 2% 25% 1 00% 95% 100% 1 00% 4% 1 0% Some of these countries represent only a small volume. In terms of volume of clearwood Ita l y i s the largest importer followed by France and the United Kingdom. The main u t i l i s a t i o n of t h i s Douglas-fir clear in I t a l y i s for window frames and doors, in France for r o l l e r - b l i n d s and in the United Kingdom for the ladder industry (Chapital, 1983). Douglas-fir plywood: B r i t i s h Columbia accounts for over 80% of t o t a l Canadian capacity and about 57% of B.C. capacity i s on the Coast. Approximately 45% of t o t a l softwood log volume converted to veneer and plywood in B.C. i s Douglas-fir. Manufacture of high value sanded plywood, about 45% of the B.C. Coast production, requires the better grades of Douglas-fir logs (Govt. of Canada, 1979). However, thi s industry faces some d i f f i c u l t i e s . The decreasing log quality requires increased•panel patching and 26 the equipment, which was designed for large logs, i s generally outdated. These are the two causes of high cost production and poor productivity. 27 V. PRICE TRENDS 1. LOG PRICES: To look h i s t o r i c a l l y at log prices we have to consider these three grades: No.1, No.2, No.3. They are defined as follow: No.1 50% clear lumber. Size: 20'x30" No.2 65% merchantable lumber. Size: 24'x14" NO.3 More than 50% firm wood, no minimum length or diameter (COFI, 1981) (See Appendix A for log grade description). The best way to appreciate the premium received for a high quality log i s to study the r a t i o of the price paid for a No.1 over the price paid for a No.3. 28 Table 5 - Trends in r e l a t i v e values of Douglas-fir logs. Smith (1983 c) Average price of grades in $/Mfbm. Period No. 1 No.2 No. 3 A l l No.1/No.3 No.1/A11 1924-9 21 .35 15.62 10.39 15.14 205 141 1930-9 19.99 13.54 8.39 1 2.58 238 159 1940-9 41.10 28.26 21 .90 27. 1 5 188 151 1950-9 86.68 65.24 51 .64 59.45 1 68 1 46 1960-9 112.17 85.76 62.98 71 .44 178 1 57 1970-9 129.17 107.27 66.07 80.99 1 96 1 60 1980-2 291 . 13 193.41 94. 1 0 131.37 309 222 The r a t i o of No.1 over No.3 has always been high and has been steadily increasing since the 1950's. The premium received for high q u a l i t y logs and i t s upward trend should be an incentive for intensive management of Douglas-fir. This premium is c e r t a i n l y not going to decrease as the difference between product value and purchase price i s greatest in the higher log grades (Wright and Dobie, 1977). 2. LUMBER PRICES: Here again the r i s i n g prices for clear lumber are i l l u s t r a t e d by the r a t i o of a clear grade: 1x6,C&Btr over a construction grade: 2x6,#2&Btr. The 1x6,C&Btr grade i s recommended and widely used where a fine appearance and good resistance to wear i s required. The 2x6,#2&Btr grade i s recommended for most general construction use. Dimension lumber of t h i s q u a l i t y i s limited in c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that affect strength or s t i f f n e s s values. 29 These two grades both have the same width and are widely used which make them suitable for comparison. Looking at Figures 8, 9 and 10 and Tables 6, 7 and 8, both prices show an increasing trend. Increasing ratios demonstrate that prices for clears r i s e more rapidly than do those for common grades. During a period of depressed markets for common grades in September-October 1974 and in A p r i l 1980 clear grade prices have been r e l a t i v e l y stable. This i s well i l l u s t r a t e d by Figure 10 where these two periods correspond to a peak in the ra t i o trend. The general trend is a net increasing r a t i o . It was about 1.5 in 1969 and about 3 for the f i r s t quarter of 1983, with a maximum of over 5 in A p r i l 1980. The same pattern can also be observed between other clear and common grades. This trend w i l l c e r t a i n l y remain, as more second growth Douglas-fir w i l l be harvested and w i l l almost exclusively produce construction grades. More extensive use of the Mechanically Stress-Rated (MSR) grades may also influence prices. Douglas-f i r construction grades would not be considered to be better than Hemlock or SPF (Kennedy, 1982) and, consequently, prices for these grades could f a l l thereby increasing the r a t i o between clear and construction grades. 3. CONCLUSIONS; Due to upward price trends clear lumber of Douglas-fir may be p a r t i a l l y replaced by products of substitution l i k e fingerjointed or laminated wood; however, demand w i l l remain high and consequently prices w i l l continue to increase. Owners 3 0 savmoa F i g u r e 8 - Monthly averages of r e p o r t e d p r i c e s Douglas-f i r , k i l n d r i e d . 1x6, C&BTR, FG F i n i s h . Source: Random Lengths 3 1 tn LJ y cr Q_ Q LJ h— CrT O CL LJ cr O CO LJ O < cr L J I T Q LJ c r o C N cr rz i C / ) < o o 0 0 o < cr c r i— CD C D X C N CO 00 CN 5 03 O 00 rv 00 rv rv rv to m • s < rv |_j io >-rv cs rv o o o o o rv Cl ta BO to CO C O C O in co I O o o CN O O SdVTlOO Figure 9 - Monthly averages of reported p r i c e s Douglas-f i r , k i l n d r i e d . 2x6, #2&BTR, Random 8/20 f e e t . Source: Random Lengths 32 Figure 10 - Ratio: 1x6, C&BTR / 2x6, #2&BTR. Source: Random Lengths 33 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF REPORTED PRICES ($) OOUGLAS-FIR, KILN DRIED. 1X6, C&BTR.FG FINISH. | YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN I vJUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV DEC | | 1964 170 176 180 180 180 180 I 1 8° I 180 | 180 | 180 | 177 176 | | 1965 176 180 180 180 176 171 I 1 ? 2 I 176 | 176 | 176 | 176 176 | | 1966 176 176 180 180 180 180 I 180 | 180 | 185 | 185 | 185 185 | | 1967 185 185 185 185 185 185 I 185 | 185 | 183 | 176 | 176 174 | | 1968 171 175 176 176 176 176 I 1 7 6 I 176 | 178 | 180 | 181 185 | | 1969 186 208 223 223 223 224 | 228 | 228 | 228 | 231 | 233 233 | | 1970 233 233 228 228 226 219 I 219 | 219 | 219 | 219 | 219 219 | | 1971 219 215 222 223 223 223 | 223 | 232 | 233 | 233 | 233 233 | | 1972 238 238 242 251 252 252 I 252 | 253 | 257 | 257 | 257 257 | | 1973 257 294 334 357 361 361 | 361 | 392 | 399 | 418 | 427 428 | | 1974 437 442 473 494 494 494 I 4 9 4 I 485 | 462 | 418 | 402 399 | | 1975 394 397 399 418 437 441 I 4 4 2 I 442 | 447 | 447 | 447 447 | | 1976 443 463 469 470 470 470 I 4 7 0 | 475 | 476 | 480 | 480 484 | | 1977 490 490 498 515 515 515 I 521 | 534 | 535 | 539 | 540 540 | | 1978 555 580 595 595 607 625 1 625 | 633 | 650 | 658 | 660 660 | I 1979 693 720 765 783 812 821 | 833 | 852 | 864 | 895 | 890 890 | | 1980 890 9CO 900 90O 900 900 1 9 1 0 I 900 | 895 | 895 | 875 840 | | 1981 840 840 825 800 760 760 I 7 4 ° | 740 | 725 | 650 | 600 600 | | 1982 595 595 595 585 585 592 I 5 75 | 570 | 570 | 570 | 560 600 | | 1983 670 730 730 730 D I S C O N T I N U E D SOURCE: RANDOM LENGTHS. Table 6 - Monthly averages of r e p o r t e d p r i c e s D o u g l a s - f i r , k i l n d r i e d . 1x6, C&BTR, FG F i n i s h 34 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF REPORTED PRICES ($) DOUGLAS -FIR, KILN DRIED. 2X6, #2&BTR, RANDOM 8/20' | YEAR | JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY ! JUN | JUL | AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC | | 1964 | 66 I 74 I 75 I 77 I 76 74 | 74 | 73 73 71 71 70 | | 1965 I 78 I 76 I 74 I 72 I 73 74 | 75 | 76 76 75 74 75 | | 1966 I 76 I 76 | 83 | 88 I 87 80 | 78 | 78 75 72 70 71 I | 1967 I 73 I 75 I 77 I 75 I 76 76 | 76 | 81 85 84 84 86 | | 1968 | 88 | 92 I 9 6 | 98 | 98 99 | 104 | 104 107 106 106 115 | | 1969 I 118 | 133 | 138 | 122 | 102 80 | 76 | 75 75 79 80 76 | | 1970 1 74 I 72 I 72 I 74 I 75 75 | 76 | 82 87 86 84 82 | | 1971 1 84 I 9 4 | 99 | 96 I 97 109 | 1 18 | 122 1 19 113 1 16 1 19 | | 1972 | 124 | 126 | 125 | 126 | 128 132 | 136 | 139 142 145 145 147 | | 1973 | 161 | 186 | 197 | 203 | 191 176 | 164 | 174 176 163 170 168 | | 1974 | 157 | 164 | 181 | 179 | 163 151 | 148 | 142 132 121 125 124 | | 1975 | 132 | 138 | 132 | 152 | 158 151 | 155 | 157 153 146 153 162 | | 1976 | 169 | 172 I 171 | 164 | 155 160 | 173 | 187 193 187 195 213 | | 1977 | 212 | 212 | 220 | 217 | 214 215 | 232 | 252 247 228 220 231 | | 1978 | 238 | 239 | 238 | 229 | 239 225 | 226 | 240 233 234 239 240 | | 1979 I 245 | 254 | 259 | 256 | 260 257 | 268 | 297 307 301 265 247 | | 1980 | 240 | 233 | 209 | 164 | 186 223 | 237 | 239 212 203 214 209 | | 1981 | 206 | 204 | 200 | 200 | 197 196 | 199 | 201 196 185 182 188 | | 1982 | 190 | 184 | 174 I 171 | 170 171 | 170 | 166 164 159 168 186 | | 1983 220 | 224 | 218 | 220 1 I I I SOURCE: RANDOM LENGTHS. Table 7 - Monthly averages of rep o r t e d p r i c e s D o u g l a s - f i r , k i l n d r i e d . 2x6, #2&BTR, Random 8/20 f e e t 3 5 MONTHLY RATIO OF REPORTED PRICES DOUGLAS-FIR, KILN ORIED.1X6.C&BTR/2X6,#2SBTR. | YEAR JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | | 1964 2 . 58 | 2 .381 2 .40| 2 .34 | 2 .371 2 . 431 2 43 | 2 47| 2 47| 2 .54 | 2 .49 | 2 5 1 I | 1965 2 . 26 | 2 .37 | 2 43 | 2 .50| 2 41 | 2 31 | 2 .29 | 2 32 | 2 32 | 2 35 | 2 38 | 2 .35 | | 1966 2 321 2 .321 2 171 2 051 2 07 | 2 251 2 31 | 2 31 | 2 47 | 2 57 | 2 64 | 2 61 | | 1967 2 531 2 471 2 401 2 47 | 2 43 | 2 43 | 2 43 | 2 28 | 2 15 | 2 101 2 10| 2 02 | | 1968 1 94 | 1 901 1 831 1 801 1 801 1 78 | 1 69 | 1 69 | 1 66 | 1 701 1 71 | 1 61 | | 1969 1 58 | 1 56 | 1 621 1 83 | 2 19 | 2 801 3 oo| 3 04 | 3 04 | 2 92 | 2 91 | 3 07 | | 1970 3 151 3 24 | 3 17| 3 08 | 3 01 | 2 92 | 2 88 | 2 67 | 2 52 | 2 55 | 2 61 | 2 67 | | 1971 2 611 2 291 2 24 | 2 321 2 301 2 05 | 1 89 | 1 901 1 96 | 2 06 | 2 01 | 1 96 | | 1972 1 921 1 891 1 941 1 991 1 97 | 1 921 1 85 | 1 82 | 1 811 1 77 | 1 77 | 1 75 j | 1973 1 601 1 581 1 701 1 761 1 89 | 2 051 2 201 2 25 | 2 271 2 56 | 2 51 | 2 55 | | 1974 2 78 | 2 701 2 611 2 761 3 03 | 3 27 | 3 34 | 3 42 | 3 501 3 45 | 3 22 | 3 22 | | 1975 2 981 2 88 | 3 021 2 751 2 77 | 2 921 2 85 | 2 82 | 2 92 | 3 06 | 2 92 | 2 76 | | 1976 2 621 2 69 | 2 74 | 2 87 | 3 031 2 94 | 2 72 | 2 54 | 2 47 | 2 57 | 2 46 | 2 27 | | 1977 2 31 | 2 31 | 2 261 2 37 | 2 41 | 2 391 2 25 | 2 12 | 2 17 | 2 36 | 2 45 | 2 34 | | 1978 2 33 | 2 43| 2 50| 2 601 2 54 | 2 78 | 2 77 | 2 64 | 2 79 | 2 81 | 2 76 | 2 ? 5 I | 1979 2 83 | 2 83 | 2 95 | 3 06 | 3 12 | 3 19 | 3 1 1 | 2 87 | 2 81 | 2 97 | 3 36 | 3 601 | 1980 3 71 I 3 86 | 4 31 | 5 49| 4 84 | 4 04 | 3 84 | 3 77 | 4 22 | 4 41 | 4 09 | 4 02 | | 1981 4 08 | 4 121 4 131 4 001 3 86 | 3 881 3 72 | 3 681 3 701 3 51 | 3 301 3 19 | | 1982 3 13 | 3 231 3 421 3 42 | 3 44 | 3 46 | 3 38 | 3 43 | 3 48 | 3 58 | 3 33 | 3 23 | | 1983 3 051 3 26 | 3 351 3 32 | 0 I S C 0 N T I N U E D • ... SOURCE: RANDOM LENGTHS. Table 8 - Ratio: 1x6, C&BTR / 2x6, #2&BTR 36 of high quality logs can expect an important premium. The future of sanded plywood i s less promising; production trends are downwards, markets are weak. It has to face strong competition from the new wood based panel products (Reeb, 1983 b). Intensive Douglas-fir management should be a very rewarding investment as premiums for quality w i l l increase. In the future some expect severe competition on the lumber market; therefore quality w i l l probably make the difference. Douglas-fir is a very interesting species, because of i t s wood, and i t has a great potential for management. Unfortunately, under short rotations, quality i s greatly decreased by the thickness and the persistence of i t s branches. Therefore, pruning should be considered with attention to obtaining the maximum return from the most valuable species of B r i t i s h Colombia. 37 VI. INFLUENCE OF INITIAL SPACING ON TREE GROWTH Spacing i s c e r t a i n l y the most powerful means to achieve a desired wood product. Rate of growth, natural pruning and other important tree c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are highly dependent upon spac ing. In t h i s chapter I w i l l f i r s t l y review results obtained in two major Douglas-fir spacing t r i a l s in North America: the Wind River and the U.B.C. Research Forest spacing t r i a l s . I w i l l then compare them with other spacing t r i a l s in Europe. 1. DOUGLAS-FIR SPACING TRIALS IN NORTH AMERICA Wind River Forest Station (Washington State, U.S.A.): The Wind River spacing t r i a l s are the oldest in the world and therefore provide much useful information. Results were summarized at age 53 by Reukema (1979). These t r i a l s were established in 1925 on a poor s i t e ( s i t e IV USFS c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) at six d i f f e r e n t square spacings: 4,5,6,8,10 and 12 feet (1.2,1.5,1.8,2.4,3.0 and 3.7 meters, which give a range of 6725 to 745 trees/ha). -Mortality: At spacing 1.2 to 1.8 m about 60 to 45% (4240 to 1320 38 trees/ha) of the o r i g i n a l number of trees died. At wider spacing the percent lost declined with increasing spacing to less than 20% at 3.7 m (145 trees/ha). -Height: This i s one of the most interesting r e s u l t s . Height increased with spacing. Most of the eff e c t of spacing on height growth has been occuring since about age 20. At age 53 the 250 largest trees per hectare at 2.4 and 3.7 m spacings are on average 10.5 m t a l l e r than at 1.2 m spacing. S o i l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s could not explain differences of this magnitude. Eff e c t of spacing on height growth i s also c l e a r l y demonstrated by the exterior rows of trees planted at close spacing, which are substantially t a l l e r than trees in the in t e r i o r of the clos e l y spaced plantation. -Diameter: Average DBH increases from 13 cm at 1.2 m spacing to 28.7 cm at 3.7 m spacing. Average DBH of the 250 largest trees per hectare ranged from 19.8 cm at 1.2 m spacing to 34.5 cm at 3.7 m spac ing. -Basal area: Gross basal area production to age 53 s t i l l decreased with increased spacing from 48 m2/ha at 1.2 m spacing to 40 m2/ha at 3.7 m spacing. But basal area of l i v e trees increased as spacing increases from 37 m2/ha at 1.2 m spacing to 42 m2/ha at 3 m spacing. -Volume: Contrary to trends of basal area, both gross volume and 39 volume of l i v e trees are greater at wide spacings. This can be well explained by the fact that trees are t a l l e r at wider spacings. Gross volume ranged from 296 m3/ha at 1.2 m spacing to 468 m3/ha at 3 m spacing. Volume of l i v e trees was 248 m3/ha at 1.2 m and 450 m3/ha at 3.0 m spacing. -Culmination of growth: At age 50, m.a.i. has apparently culminated at close spacings while i t i s s t i l l increasing at wider spacings. U.B.C.Research Forest: Three types of spacing t r i a l s were established at the U.B.C.R.F., but I w i l l mostly describe plantation 19 which was l a i d out in 1957 and for which most d e t a i l s are available. This spacing t r i a l provides two rep l i c a t i o n s of 49 trees at 3,6,9,12 and 15 feet spacing (0.9,1.8,2.7,3.6 and 4.6 meters), s i t e i s considered to be excellent (Walters and Smith, 1973). Results to age 25 were reported by Smith (1983 b). -Mortality: From 0.9 to 4.6 m spacing, mortality was respectively 53,32,30,20 and 11% of the o r i g i n a l number of trees -Height: There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in height among spacings. At age 25 height averaged 20.4 m. The highest mean height was at 3.6 m spacing with 21.4 m, and the smallest at 0.9 m spacing with 19.2 m. Looking at these data and at the l i v e crown i t i s probable that we w i l l observe the same trend as at Wind River. This may occur later and with less magnitude due to the better s i t e . 40 -Diameter: DBH increased with spacing. Average diameter increased from 13.8 cm at 0.9 spacing to 29.6 cm at 4.6 m. -Crown width: Crown width increased with spacing from 2.6 m at 0.9 m spacing to 4.7 m at 4.6 m spacing. It i s remarkable to see how crown width i s similar to spacing at wider spacing, because no or very l i t t l e mortality took place. At close spacings crown width i s much wider than i t s o r i g i n a l spacing. At age 25 the 0.9 m spacing has reached the same crown width observed at 1.8 m spacing, because of high mortality. -Mean height to l i v e crown: Mean height to l i v e crown decreased with spacing. At 0.9 m spacing i t was 11.8 m and at 4.6 m spacing 7.2 m. However, differences among spacings w i l l decrease as age increases. Already, differences between the two extreme spacings at age 28 were only 50% of the one observed at age 25. -Basal area: Live basal area decreased with increased spacing. At 0.9 m spacing basal area was 74.8 m2/ha and 27.6 m2/ha at 4.6 m spac ing. -Volume: Gross volume followed the same trend as l i v e basal area with 426 m3/ha at 0.9 m spacing and 204 m3/ha at 4.6 m spacing. This i s also true for net volume, 366 m3/ha at 0.9 m spacing and 193 m3/ha at 4.6 m spacing. However, i f l i v e basal area at 4.6 m spacing i s only 37% of l i v e basal area at 0.9 m spacing the 41 net volume at the widest spacing i s 53% of the 0.9 m spacing. This shows the higher volume per stem at wider spacing. -Bole q u a l i t y : In a previous study Smith (1977) found that spacing, at age 20, had no e f f e c t on the number of branches per whorl but branch size increased strongly with spacing. The ra t i o s of double bark thickness to diameter outside bark do not d i f f e r greatly from spacing to spacing but are strongly influenced by height in the bole. 2. SPACING TRIALS IN EUROPE Spacing t r i a l s based on a well known provenance are recent in Europe. In France a spacing t r i a l was established in Amance using a Latin square design to minimize s i t e influences on s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. B a r t o l i (1971) and B a r t o l i and Decourt (1971) reported the f i r s t observations made at 11 and 15 years, from planting. These Douglas-fir were planted in 1955. Seed provenance was Yelm, Washington. Four spacings were tested: 1.5,2,2.5 and 3 meters. The l a s t study in Amance forest was done by Messant (1980) in 1979. -At this time the stand was 27 years old. There was no difference among dominant heights but density influenced the average height. Due to a higher number of suppressed trees, height at close spacing was less than at wide spacing. -Difference in dbh with spacing i s s t i l l increasing both for the average and the dominant trees. For example, average dbh at 3 m spacing was 131% of dbh at 1.5 m spacing at 18 years 42 and 161% at 27 years. -Current increment in volume was not d i f f e r e n t after 21 years. -Annual increment trends in basal area have been inverted at 16 years and i t should be the same for volume at 27 years. The maximum current increment in stand basal area was observed at 16 years. For volume i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to l o c a l i s e i t , but probably culmination i s at 16 years for 1.5 and 2 m spacing, and at 24 years for 2.5 and 3 m spacing. -Live crown length increased with spacing. -Difference in mortality which was s i g n i f i c a n t after 13 years is not s i g n i f i c a n t after 21 years (exept for 1.5 m spac ing). -H/D r a t i o decreased with wider spacing but differences became less s i g n i f i c a n t with age. -Effect of thinning: 6 years after treatment i t i s s t i l l d i f f i c u l t to see a clear difference, but thinning always improved dbh increment. Systematic thinning i s i n f e r i o r to selective thinning considering both volume and form factor. -Conclusion: As dominant height i s not much influenced by density, i t i s a good way to determine s i t e q u a l i t y . Wide spacings result in a loss of production at thi s age, but thi s i s not true when we consider timber values i n , for example, number of trees per hectare with a diameter over 20 cm. In t h i s study Messant did not find any co r r e l a t i o n between wood density and dbh at 1.3 m. No correlation between mechanical resistance and ring width was observed by Polge (1969). As wood qual i t y does 43 not seem to be influenced much by ring width, wide spacing can be used. A biomass study (Messant, 1980) showed, at 27 years, no difference in biomass weight between the four spacings. This was also reported by Aussenac (1979) who found no difference in l i t t e r production of these stands (3.4 to 3.7 t/ha). As soon as the canopy i s closed foliage production i s the same. The most abundant l i t t e r production was measured between 15 and 20 years, which correspond to the maximum current annual increment (CAI). In Germany Van Tu y l l and Kramer (1981) used a reconstruction model to analyse the influence of spacing in 43,48, 52 and 73 years old Douglas-fir stands. I n i t i a l spacing was 3 m x 1 m, 4 m x 1 m and 5 m x 1 m. They also found no influence on height. Diameter growth and form factor are well correlated to spacing but also to thinning. Every stand had a diameter growth which reached a maximum in their early age and then decreased. Thinning i s prescribed before t h i s decline. They found no influence of spacing on juvenile growth, which i s somehow in contradiction with the study of B a r t o l i and Decourt (1971). Van T u y l l and Kramer recommended a spacing of 3 m aft e r the f i r s t thinning. Hapla (1981) has also studied spacing influence in di f f e r e n t stands. Trees were 19 and 23 years old. His observations on diameter, H/D r a t i o and crown length are the same as in the previous studies. But he found that average height increases with spacing. To answer some controversial questions about spacing the forest service of Baden Wurttemberg (Abetz, 1971) decided to 44 establish a few experimental plantations. Eight spacing t r i a l s were l a i d out and results at age 11 from planting were reported by Kenk and Weise (1983). A range of 500 to 4000 trees per hectare were planted at d i f f e r e n t spacings, in most cases rectangular spacing, 2 to 7 m between the rows and 0.83 to 4 m within the rows. Tree height i s c l e a r l y influenced by s i t e . Better results were obtained by wider spacing on poorer s i t e s and by close spacing on better s i t e s . Diameter (DBH) increased with spacing. This trend is stronger on poor s i t e s . (This confirm a study by de Champs and Dufour (1976) which showed that root competition occurs sooner than crown competition and therefore a lower density is better on poor sites.) For the same growing space, square spacing was superior to rectangular spacing. Crown closure occured 8 years after planting at 2.5 m spacing. The authors estimated that 1 metre increase in spacing w i l l delay crown closure by 2 to 3 years. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t influence of close spacing on branch development. The authors concluded that 1000 trees per hectare should be planted and a maximum of 2000 trees per hectare should be usedon d i f f i c u l t s i t e s to account for a higher mortality. 3. COMPARISON OF SPACING TRIALS The results found by these studies are about the same; i f there i s any difference, i t usually is related to the stand age at which i t was measured. It i s c l e a r l y demonstrated that wide spacings are associated with large diameter and differences 45 between close and wide spacings are increasing with age in respect to diameter growth. The Wind River spacing t r i a l s , however, on a poor s i t e , have shown that even gross or net volume production i s higher at wide spacing. Trends observed at an e a r l i e r age at the U.B.C.R.F. and in France seem to prove that the same results are very l i k e l y to be observed on good or excellent s i t e s . The magnitude of these gains on these si t e s i s s t i l l to be determined. But growth simulation models such as DFSIM (Curtis et a l . , 1981) showed s i g n i f i c a n t superiority of wide spacings over close spacings both in volume and possible thinnings. 4. EFFECTS OF WIDE SPACING ON WOOD QUALITY The objective of s i l v i c u l t u r a l treatment, such as wide spacing, i s to produce economically larger trees. But i t is commonly believed that such practices aimed at achieving this objective have undesirable e f f e c t s on wood s p e c i f i c gravity. Wide rings are associated with low density. Investigation on the influence of spacing on tree growth and wood qual i t y are very recent, as most spacing t r i a l s are s t i l l f a i r l y young. Smith (1980) found that ring widths of Douglas-fir decreased and percentages latewood increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y with years. At age 21 percentages of latewood decreased strongly as ring width increased, from 36% at 0.9 m spacing to 20% at 4.6 m spacing). However, he concluded that the reduced establishment costs and large piece sizes provided by wide spacings should compensate abundantly for their moderately reduced wood 46 q u a l i t y . M i l l e r (1984) found that spacing, in a 28 years old Douglas-fir spacing t r i a l , has no influence on the occurence of forks, fakers and r e l a t i v e amount of stem swelling at nodes. Parker et a l . (1976) have studied the effect of thinning and f e r t i l i z a t i o n on wood quality of Douglas-fir. They also observed that percentage latewood and density decreased with f e r t i l i z a t i o n . The f e r t i l i z e d trees remained generally unchanged in density, while the control continued to increase in density by 10 %. Thinning alone did not affe c t density adversely. Thus the thinning e f f e c t , which i s similar to the spacing e f f e c t , might prove to be more a t t r a c t i v e than f e r t i l i z i n g because of the more sustained increase in the e f f e c t of thinning. Increased growth obtained by f e r t i l i z a t i o n and thinning far outweight minor losses in density. The same results were obtained by Megraw and Nearn (1972) who found that o v e r a l l Douglas-fir ring s p e c i f i c gravity was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed by f e r t i l i z a t i o n and thinning. F e r t l i z a t i o n and to a lesser extent thinning, d e f i n i t e l y affected the within-ring, individual fiber densities. More intermediate-density type fiber resulted because of lowered latewood density and increased earlywood density. They also emphasized the importance of trees genetically superior in density which appear to maintain their superiority irrespective of subsequent f e r t i l i z a t i o n or thinning. Therefore selection of stock genetically superior in juvenile wood density i s a very important factor for maximizing wood qual i t y and return. 47 Hapla (1981) has also studied spacing influence on wood quality of Douglas-fir. The mean latewood width increased absolutely with spacing but i s s t a b i l i s e d when growing space is over 4 m2, but there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n between percentage of mean latewood and spacing (trees were 19 and 23 years ol d ) . Above a growing space of 4 m2 there i s a decrease in oven dry density, for example: d(2x2)=0.488 g/cm3 and d(3x2.8)=0.448 g/cm3. The dry density decreased with growing space and with larger ring width. It could be made clear by regression analysis that the ring width represented only an indirect connection to the wood density, while the r e l a t i v e portion of latewood in the ring predominantly determines the wood density in young Douglas-fir. S a v i l l and Sandels (1983) have looked at the influence of spacing on wood density of Sitka spruce and they found that only 12% of the var i a t i o n in wood density could be attributed to crop spacing. They concluded that the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of manipulating wood density through spacing are i n s i g n i f i c a n t in comparison to the potential from breeding trees with desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Zobel e_t a l . (i960) also stated that growth rate of l o b l o l l y pine of the same age growing under similar conditions accounted for less than 2% of the variation in s p e c i f i c gravity. From a l l these studies i t seems that the wood quality of fast grown trees and s p e c i a l l y Douglas-fir, i s far from being as low as some may expect. The negative effect of fast growth is very small compared to the advantages in term of volume, piece 48 size and rotation age. Genetically improved stock w i l l probably more than offset the s l i g h t decrease in wood density resulting from wider spacings. 5. ECONOMICS OF SPACING It i s essential that fast growth and high harvest yi e l d s of large logs and trees be combined (Smith, 1978 b). As Osborn (1967) showed, the cost of growing more volume at close spacing is very high. This i s even more true as we have learned that close spacing produces more wood only u n t i l a certain age after which the trend i s reversed. Growth simulation using DFSIM (Curtis et a l . ,1981) showed that at age 80, even on a very good s i t e , more wood is grown at wider spacings, 1588 m3/ha at 1.8 m i n i t i a l spacing and 1735 m3/ha at 4.6 m i n i t i a l spacing, with respectively a mean DBH of 44 cm and 76 cm. The difference in timber value at harvest age can be considerable. To the higher value at harvest age, due to piece size, should be added the savings in planting costs. At 85 cents per planted seedling and 5% rate of interest, costs of planting alone would amount to $19.48 per harvested m3 after 100 years at 4.6 m spacing, and $430.81 per harvested m3 at 2.7 m spacing (Kramer and Smith, 1984). In term of economics the advantages of wide spacing are very important. Other costs such as tending are about the same at d i f f e r e n t spacings, while harvesting costs per cubic metre are lower at wider spacing due to larger piece s i z e . Pruning costs, as I w i l l explain l a t e r , are about the same as the fewer trees to 49 take care of at wider spacing are offset by thicker branches. For the same number of seedlings, planting at 4.6 m spacing w i l l cover an area 2.78 times greater than at a spacing of 2.7 m (Smith, 1983 a). Wider spacings also mean fewer or no pre-commercial thinning. A comparison of close and wide spacing by Bredenkamp et a l . (1983) showed that using wider i n i t i a l spacing, pruning, early respacement and fewer thinnings give the highest volume of quality sawlogs in the shortest time. In New Zealand a s i l v i c u l t u r a l model SILMOD showed that optimum f i n a l harvest stockings may be near 100 stems/ha rather than 200 stems/ha (Sutton, 1984). It appears after t h i s short l i t e r a t u r e review that wider spacing should be considered as much more a t t r a c t i v e than close spacing. 6. CONCLUSIONS We are just starting to learn and r e a l i z e the importance of i n i t i a l spacing on tree growth and on i t s implication in terms of economics. Very dense plantations are no longer needed as planting stock i s now of increasing quality and as knowledge on provenance and s i t e allow us to reduce losses due to mortality. It was c l e a r l y shown that wide spacing results in a faster rate of growth compared to the conventional spacing. If biomass production i s the objective, close spacing and short rotation remain without doubt the best alternative as more wood i s produced. But i t seems l i k e l y that in the future wood fiber w i l l not be short in supply due to forestry development in many 50 countries. On the other hand wood quality w i l l probably be one of the most important c r i t e r i a for market penetration or expansion (Reeb, 1983 b). This implies that large size and high qu a l i t y logs (high percentage of clear wood) should be grown. Spacing t r i a l s have proved that large piece size can only be produced economically by wide spacing. If wide spacings have a s l i g h t effect on wood density, they unfortunately have a strong effect on branch diameter and on diameter of juvenile core, which i s produced within the l i v e crown and at the base of the l i v e crown ( E l l i o t , 1970). Knot diameter and deviation of grain d i r e c t i o n are the main factors for a low grading, and t h i s w i l l be increased by the MSR grading system (Mechanical Stress Rated). Douglas-fir w i l l be sp e c i a l l y disadvantaged by t h i s grading system and w i l l lose i t s superiority over the hemlock-fir or spruce-pine-fir groups (Kennedy, 1982). Thus a readjustment in prices to the-disadvantage of Douglas-fir can be expected. To avoid this problem and to maximize returns, wide spacing should be combined with pruning. As I w i l l describe in the chapter on pruning, i t simulates growing conditions of a close spaced stand for wide spaced trees. By pruning we can grow trees with the advantages of wide spacing: fast growth, large diameter, high volume, without i t s disadvantages. Pruning reduces the juvenile core, improves wood density and produces a larger quantity of clear wood. 51 VII. INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON BRANCH DIAMETER AND BRANCH AGE In t h i s chapter I w i l l describe and analyse the results of my research on the influence of spacing on branch diameter and branch age. The purpose of th i s study was to obtain more information on branch size and longevity. These data were needed to make a detailed evaluation of pruning in Douglas-fir stands. 1. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SPACING TRIALS The U.B.C. spacing t r i a l s have been established to study the effects of i n i t i a l spacing on the costs of forest management and on tree q u a l i t y . These t r i a l s feature three type of design: square and rectangular spacings and systematically increasing spacings arranged in a Nelder design. They are about 150 m above sea l e v e l . The s o i l parent material i s a g l a c i o f l u v i a l deposit. The s o i l i s a sandy loam, gleyed mini-humo-ferric podzol with mull humus. It i s eutrophic and hygric with a pH of 4.5. Pr e c i p i t a t i o n averages 2040 mm of rain and 1260 mm of snow to y i e l d a t o t a l of 2168 mm of water equivalent. Summer droughts are common. Daily temperature averages 9 degrees C (Klinka, 1976). 52 -Replicated 49-trees blocks: Douglas-fir plantation No. 19 was l a i d out in November 1957. This design provides two re p l i c a t i o n s of a fixed number of trees (7x7=49) at square spacing of 0.9,1.8,2.7,3.6 and 4.6 metres (3,6,9,12 and 15 fee t ) . This plantation was established on 0.45 ha. Plantation No. 19 was planted with 2+0 Douglas-fir of unknown provenance but from an homogeneous seed l o t . Replacement of dead trees was done using 2+1 seedlings of the same l o t (Smith, 1973). The area was logged in 1956 and has a s i t e index of 55 m (180 feet, 100 years). A l l spacings were measured for th i s study except the 0.9 m spacing, which was too close for p r a c t i c a l purposes. -Nelder p l o t : Nelder plot No. 1 was planted in December 1965 using Douglas-fir from seedlot 92G 14/B 313/1.5 as 2+2 seedlings. The Nelder design consists of 17 arcs and 36 spokes at a constant rectangularity of 1.086 and 14 arcs and 12 spokes at rectangularity from 1.0 to 3.9. "Square spacing" ranges from 0.8 to 5 meters. The area was logged in 1963 and cleared in 1964 for the plantation. The s i t e index i s the same as in the previous spacing t r i a l . Only the 3.6 and 4.6 m were measured to complement measurements in the rectangularity t r i a l . -Rectangularity t r i a l s : These t r i a l s were l a i d out to study the influence of di f f e r e n t rectangularity. 53 The plantation was established in 1967 with 2+1 Douglas-fir at nine d i f f e r e n t spacings including 0.9,1.4,1.8 and 2.7 m square spacing. The 1.4, 1.8 and 2.7 m spacing were measured. The area and the s i t e index are about the same as in the Nelder p l o t . -The Wind River spacing t r i a l s : The Wind River Experimental Forest l i e s just north of the Columbia River Gorge in Washington State. The climate of the area i s wet, with average p r e c i p i t a t i o n about 2500 mm per year. The average snowfall is about 2000 mm. The frost free season averages about 120 days. The spacing test plantation occupies a s i t e IV (U.S.F.S. c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) . The area was logged and burned f a i r l y heavily in 1920 and 1924. They are 400 m above sea l e v e l . S o i l s are generally 1.5 to 3 m deep, well drained and s l i g h t l y acid. Surface s o i l s are sandy loam, subsoils are loam, s i l t loam or clay loam. Source of seed i s unknown, but i t appears to be compatible with the planting s i t e . Seedlings were 1+1, planted in spring 1925 at 1.2,1.5,1.8,2.4,3 and 3.6 metres square spacing (4,5,6,8,10 and 12 feet) (Reukema, 1979). 2. MEASUREMENTS -Time: A l l measurements were taken during the summer of 1 983. Measurements at Wind river were taken in early July. Measurements at the U.B.C.R.F. were ca r r i e d out in July and August. It would have been preferable to c o l l e c t data in the f a l l when growth has ceased, but t h i s was not possible due to some time 54 constraints. -Method: A l l basic measurements such as diameters at dif f e r e n t height and tree height were recorded for a l l trees, plus the following parameters of interest for my study: branch diameter inside and outside bark, branch length, height to l i v e crown, average number of branches per whorl, diameter at the base of the l i v e crown, crown width, number of whorl up to the l i v e crown. Five trees per spacing in the rectangularity and in the Nelder plots and four trees per spacing in the 49-trees plots were measured. A t o t a l of 556 branch measurements were taken. When i t was possible, f u l l y stocked trees were chosen, and i f there was a missing neighbour, branches growing in t h i s gap were avoided when possible. During data c o l l e c t i o n i t appeared that more accurate data on branch age could be useful, therefore I took another set of 5 trees in each spacing to measure the two largest branch diameters inside and outside bark at 2,4 and 6 m height or lower i f the l i v e crown was under 6 m. For these trees DBH was also recorded and a t o t a l of 328 branch measurements were taken. At Wind River two types of measurements were c o l l e c t e d , the largest branch stubs at breast height at each spacing and branch measurements on open grown trees. In each case branch diameter inside and outside bark, branch length and DBH were registered for a t o t a l of 269 observations. - D e f i n i t i o n of some parameters. Height to l i v e crown: height of the f i r s t l i v e whorl which 55 is defined as a whorl having at least 75% of l i v e branches. Number of whorls: is estimated by counting the number of v i s i b l e whorls and adding 2 to take into account the f i r s t two whorls which are no longer v i s i b l e at th i s age. Crown width: i s obtained by measuring and summing two r a d i i of the l i v e crown plus the diameter at breast height. -Method: Branch diameters were measured along the small diameter of branch butt perpendicular to i t s axis. The small diameter was chosen over the large diameter to avoid large variations due to the angle of cut. It was observed that in most case branches are c i r c u l a r . -DBH was measured with a diameter tape to the nearest millimeter. (If a whorl was encountered the same method as for whorl diameter was used.) -Whorl diameter: was obtained by taking the mean of diameter above and below the whorl. -Tree height: was measured with a Haga. -Branch age: pieces of branch were cut and numbered in the forest, then brought back to the Faculty where they were sanded. Rings were counted with a microscope. This procedure seems to be very r e l i a b l e and gives a high accuracy for age dating. - A l l branches were cut with a pruning saw as close as possible to the bole. In most case trees were climbed in order to get the f i r s t l i v e branches and l i v e whorl diameters.' -Abbreviations: The following abbreviations w i l l be used to 56 present r e s u l t s . -AGE : in years. -BRAGE: branch age in years. -BRWH : whorl number of measured branch. -CW : crown width in m. -DBH : diameter at breast height in cm. -DIB : branch diameter inside bark in cm. -DN : diameter at 2.7 m (9 feet) in cm. -DOB : branch diameter on bark in cm. -DW : diameter of the f i r s t l i v e whorl in cm. -H : tree height in m. -HBR : branch height on bole in m. -HLC : height to l i v e crown in m. -L : branch length in m. -NB : number of branches per whorl. -RCD : root c o l l a r diameter in cm. -S : spacing in feet (in feet to f a c i l i t a t e computation) -S 2 : in square feet. -WHL : number of whorls. -Abbreviations used in s t a t i s t i c s : -Prob.: F-probability. The test outcome i s s i g n i f i c a n t i f Prob. i s less than 0.05. -R : c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . Describes the strength of the linear r e l a t i o n s h i p between two variables being correlated. -R2 : c o e f f i c i e n t of determination. R2 i s the proportion of the v a r i a b i l i t y which may be accounted for by the linear r e l a t i o n . 57 -SE : standard error of the estimate. It describes the spread of observations. We find 68% of a l l observations within + or one SE around the regression l i n e . 3. ANALYSIS OF DATA The analysis of data was done in two stages. F i r s t l y , a l l branch measurements were analysed to find the rel a t i o n s h i p between the parameters of interest such as DIB, DOB, L and CW. Secondly, as determination of wood quality is one of the objectives of t h i s research, I selected the two largest branches per whorl in order to study the influence of spacing on maximum branch diameter and on branch age. 3.1 Analysis Of A l l Branch Measurements A s t a t i s t i c a l package (MIDAS) was used to perform multiple linear regression. Another package SLTEST (Chinh, 1984) was used for common slope and common equation tests of hypotheses. 3.2 A l l Branches. Live And Dead. DIB was plotted against the d i f f e r e n t independant variables (Figure 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15). These figures show the linear relationship between DIB and DOB, L, DBH (and the other diameters) and CW. A table of correlation (Table 9) i s provided with the variables which are independant of tree age as my data were col l e c t e d on stands having d i f f e r e n t ages (DIB,DOB,L,CW,NB,S,DW,AGE). The following equations were found: DIB=0.042532 + 0.70744*L SCATTER PLOT N - 556 Our OF 556 1 DIB VS 2.DOB DIB 5 OOOO • C n 4.4444 • | 3.8889 • 0) ft 3.3333 • r r • ^ • ' • • 23 4 • 3 TJ • 3 • M 3.7778 • • 6 » 6 2 O • • • 7 32 r t 3 3 3 2 * • 6 X 2 O • • 6 7 4 6 » t l • 8 X • 2.2222 * 4X 5 2 p i • 2 69 • ^ • 3 9 X 9 M * X 7 X 4 2 4 X X X 3 V 1.6667 • 6 X 6 3 rS « 6 X X XX X 4 • • 2 X 8X r-l 9 X 7 O X X 6 2 O I . M M • 2 7 X 7 ffl • 8 3 • 2 8 4 9 • 42 3 3 • .59556 • • .60000 1.6667 2.7333 3.8000 4.8667 DOB 1.1333 2.2000 3.2667 4.3333 5.4000 4 4 + + 4 4 4 4 4 + 4 4^  4 4 4 4 4+ 4 4 ^ 4 4 4 4 4 -Hf +4 4 4 4x^ - 4 4 4 + + -4 4 - ^ 4 - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ^ < 4 4 > H 4 4 4 ^ 4 4 4 4 ' 4 > * + + 4 4 4 4 4 - 4 4 4 > 4 4 4 4 -J>44-444 4 4 - ^ 4 4 y r 4 4 + 4 4 2 3 BRANCH LCNGTH. - r 4 "1 5 Legend 4 OBSERVATIONS REGRESSION r t SCATTER PLOT N- 5S6 OUT OF 556 I.OIB VS. 9 CW D I B 3 OOOO • . LQ c ,-, 4.4444 • fD . • LO I 3 8889 * tn • O CO r t a .3333 • • r t . • fD r| • . • 2 3 3 4 3 • a • • 2 |—• 2.7778 • • • 4 4 3» O * J • 6 2 • 2 • 2 • 3 2 2 2 • 2 • • 2 • 3 6 * 2 • n • 2 • B 4 3 " ! 1 ' < J i • • • 2 2 4 *3 • • 2.2222 • 3 • * * 22 2 * , 2 5 •• • • 2 • 3 2 3 3 2 . . . . O • 2 6 • • • 4 3 5 • 2 2 • • * 4 2 * 6 2 * * 3 2 4 * • • • • 2 • 0 0 • • 3 4 4 * * * 7 3 9 «3 3 » 3 0 1.6667 • 23 3 2 4 * 4 2 4 2 2 • < 3 2 22 2 3 2 * 2 3 * 3 • fD *2 2 6 2 4 3 2 • 4 2 * 2 2 • 1 *2 7 4* 35 3 2 * 2 * * 2 4 • • • * 2 * S 9 2 * « • • * 2 3 O 8 2 *3 33 7 2 • 3 • l . l l l t t« ' 1 5 " • 3 • 4 • • • • 2 2 2 3 * 2 • *2 3 4 • 5 •6 2 2 • • * * .55556 •• 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.BOO0 4.0222 5.2444 6.4667 7 6889 CW 3.4111 4.6333 5.8556 7.0778 8.3000 SCATTER PLOT STRAT=STdAT N> S56 OUT OF 556 I.OIB VS. 13 DW DIB 4.5000 • M -£ 4.0556 • * 3.6111 • • I in O tU 3.1667 • rt • • rt 2 2 2 3 2 fl> • n 2 • • • • • tpj 2.7222 • • 2 2 42 *2 O rt • • 2 2 * *2 * •2 3 2 4 2* • 3 3S • • « 3 3 « 3 2 • 2 • 3 • 3« » 4 •3*2 • 2 52 » 2 • • i 4 " • • 1 3 ' U 4 32 ••26 •• • 3 2 *2 W • • 2 » 3 229 • 2 2 •• *2 1.6333 * • 7 4 24*3 «2 7 • 2 3* 4 O < 2 4 •• 24 6 • • • 4* ID • 3 22 2 3 ••J 2* 5 • • • 2 M 22 • «4 4 4 « » • 3 4 • »2 • O I.3BB9 •• 7 •• 34 33 5 •• « « 4 • • • • • 23 ** 22 4 • **2 • • • • 2 36 3* 6* 4 • • 3 • • 3* B B 2 22 3 * • • • 2 • • 2 2 2 * .94444 • • 22 • 52 • • 2 2 6 2 • • • • • 2 • • .50000 • • 5.6O0O 10.978 I6.3S6 21.733 27.111 DM 8.2889 13.667 19.044 24.422 29.800 SCATTER PLOT N« S56 OUT OF 556 I O i l VS. 10 NB DIB 5 OOOO • C fl> 4.4444 • tn a.8889 • to O D> rt 3.3333 • •O o rt a i—i W O < fD »1 z w 2.7778 • 2.2222 • 1.6667 • 1.1111 • • • 3 6 2 • 3 • • 3 6 • * 3 9 • • 2 7 * 2 X 4 S 6 7 6 • 3 6 6  • 7 7 S 4 8 5 6 3 6 8 7 4 • 4 6 X 4 8 • 6 X 9 4 • 4 3 X S 7 8 4 6 4 5 • 7 6 s .9 2 • 3 X 8 5 4 S 3 6 3 3 3 7 • X X 4 4 + 2 7 X 3 * 2 • 5 • • 2 3 5 6 3 2 • 7 2 2 a • 55556 • • • • • » • • • • • • • • • • • 6 0000 7.5556 9.1111 10.667 12.222 NB 6.7778 8.3333 9.8888 11.444 13.000 63 CORRELATION MATRIX N= 556 OF- 554 RO .0500= .0832 R» .0100= .1092 VARIABLE 1 .DIB 2. DOB 3. L 10. NB 11 .S 12.SS • 13. OV 15.AGE 1.0000 .9887 .8757 .3898 .6093 .6032 .7460 .4711 1 . DIB 1 .OOOO .8807 .3876 .6090 .6035 .7271 .4296 2. DOB 1.OOOO .4355 .6448 .6332 .7787 . 3929 3 . L 1.OOOO .4823 .4295 . 5425 .0580 10. NB 1.OOOO .9898 .8531 .3673 1 1 . S 1.0000 .8342 . 3356 12. SS 1.0000 .5115 13 . DW 1.OOOO 15 . AGE Table 9 - C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . V a r i a b l e s independant of t r e e age 64 R=0.87 R2=0.76 SE=0.301 (556 observations) DIB= -0.073628 + 0.86593*DOB R=0.98 R2 = 0.97 SE=0.093 (556 observations) Multiple linear regression. Using a l l parameters and a stepwise backward selection regression procedure, with a l e v e l of significance of 0.01, I obtained t h i s f i n a l equation: DIB=0.23048+0.64748*L-0.04922*DBH+0.12829*DN-0.02762*HLC -0.05397*CW+0.00112*SS-0.07 316*DW R=0.90 R2=0.82 SE=0.26 (556 observations) Plotting of residuals shows that we have a good relationship and data do not need to be corrected for homogeneity of variance or transformed due to a c u r v i l i n e a r relationship (See figure 16). 3 . 3 Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s For a l l data (41 trees) the highest c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t are obtained between DIB and DOB, L, DBH, CW and S with respectively: R= 0.98, 0.87, 0.74, 0.66 and 0.60. (Table 13). If we are looking at other variables and cor r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s we find some strong relationship between: CW and S :0.86 HLC and H :0.86 AGE and H :0.85 CW and DBH :0.78 HLC and AGE:0.74 AGE and DBH:0.74 Correlation matrixes for the same variables but independent 65 of age, were determined for each spacing t r i a l (Table 10, 11 and 12). They show, some trends which occur with increasing stand age. From the older stand (28 years) to the younger stand (19 years) we can observe the following relationship: CW and DBH: no change. CW and S : no change (except in the Nelder t r i a l , as the two widest spacings were measured, and we know that they are very similar at t h i s age). DBH and S : correlation i s the same at 19 and 28 years. Correlation for the Nelder plot i s only s l i g h t l y s i g n i f i c a n t , showing l i t t l e difference between the two wider spacings. But the slope of the 49-trees plot regression i s steeper than the slope of the rectangularity and Nelder t r i a l s regression (Figure 17). The difference between DBH at close spacing and DBH at wide spacing is increasing with age. The same trend was described by Messant (1980). CW and S : crown width at close spacing i s increasing with age as mortality occurs (Figure 18). HLC and S : the correlation between HLC and S decrease with increasing age. R=-0.76 at 19 years (except for the 3.7 and 4.6 m spacing which are 22 years old) and R=-0.68 at 28 years. The difference would be greater i f data on wider spacing would have been available at age 19 (Figure 19). H and S : correlation c o e f f i c i e n t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t in 66 SCATTER PLOT N> 556 OUT Of 556 17.RESIDUAL VS. 16.PREOICT RESIDUAL 5.0000 • 2.7778 1.6667 2 • « . .55556 • • 3 " 2 • • • •2 *2* **2*"*4 3 ••*• •••23*3 ••••2 * * •2 • 4*22**2S247*2*638'3*7« 2*4 5*2* 37* 6 *2«2 • • • ••••322 3346*24434*4483*247827S26*333427 • 3 2 " «2 2 • 4 « > 2 *2* • 2 2 2 * 4 2 « « 3 2 4 8 4*66634465*4442**5*33* 5 « 2*3 • ••2 222* • • 2 *433 33*234 232*2** • 2** • 2 • **22** • .55556 • • . . . . . j . . . . -1 .6667 -2 .7778 • - 3 . 8 8 8 9 • - 3 . 0 0 0 0 • .62103 1.3833 2.1459 2.9083 3.6707 PREDICT 1.0023 1.7647 2.5271 3.2899 4.0519 F i g u r e 16 - S c a t t e r p l o t of r e s i d u a l s . DIB and a l l s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s 67 C M o 01 u> m ID co o NV1 «- in i ID •t CD IT) O ID 0) CM It) CD 00 O *-IS CO o 10 CM n CM *— m PJ CO CO r» o O CO CM CM in in r> 0) r- PJ CO O o CM O in r> co O • 3 CD ( J in (0 P J in CM 0) co CM CM is CO 10 CM o o u CM in in CM • _l CO I •* CM 0) 0) in in CM CM r-in cn o r- O CM (0 "~ *~ CM P J 8 I- X CO p- o CM in (0 CM I D 10 cn in o CO p- CM m P J 10 in p- r» n CM CO f» !- r«- cn O (0 o Q (0 CO (0 CD m cn O <0 cn in P) 0) 10 *— p- io CO CO CO P) CM 00 t» r~ r~ cn O X ' CO in o CM CM CO 8 o ft cc (0 CD CD CM T CM CD O CM (0 *T P) r- in r- r» in r~ (0 (0 CD CD P) CM p- r> r> CD o • ( J (0 in O 10 (P O *- p) _ r~ (0 P ) to (0 CM cn p> p> CO CD r- P J CM P J CO io 10 CM o CO in in CO CM I - CD < P) CE — 5 8 m O ft oc cc t-</) X oc < cn z »-z « O u. — a r--I CD U J CD at — oc o « u z o CD 0) o P - p> o P J P J CM Q cn CM cn P I CO CD CO CD o Q in CM co CD o *— CO CD m CM CO (0 (0 (0 O CM I <T in in (0 o o p- 10 CO cn o [» P J CD CO P J O in o o in 10 in CO CD P J in p- P J P J CO O CO (0 p- P - O P J co. CD CO o 0) CO (0 (0 (0 CM l CO in in in CD O i U J _l 00 < cc 00 CO o X U _j < o u 03 z -1 m V) * X > a a -i a a Q X X u z V) Q 3 CM p> T in (0 r» CO cn o - CM P J 03 • O CM O - O • _ l n X - 3 PJ p-- PJ 3 — a * X O 3 PJ IT Table 10 - C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . R e c t a n g u l a r i t y t r i a l 66 o CN in —^ Q 0) o ro in i in CN o o in o o CO 01 P J in — i o o If) in CM CN CM U> o o in m CN 1/1 — t/1 O CO - z 8 8 IC t 0) r-t- pj t-- O 00 in in (0 O in in 10 • * 0) (J o o r» O P J CO u> '.o r- 1-CO in r- • CO CO m 10 IT 10 GO X CM 00 CM CO 10 CN in CO O P J CM 5 CN i c 00 CO 11 IC in ID r- X P J in CM *- in CM CO 00 0) in in ID CN 01 r» in P J P J i- en (fi CN r- r» pj pi 0) (0 ~- CM P ) (0 in tn CM 00 in CM o CO 00 P J o 00 o 0) r» r- CM X CO (D CM r- r» CN CN CO U> ' 09 in o o CN CO in 00 TT CO 00 0) CO r- tn CM in 00 r- t- 00 in CM O CO CM o o o CO CM o CO CD 10 CO CO P J P J 00 10 • o T a in CM CM O (0 00 m CM in O o CO CM 10 u> 00 (0 CO CO in P I P J in CN TT IP in O CO »- CM in in O r- r- r~ CM 10 tn CM CM r» in P J < in cc »-t-O (0 ID P J P J CM CM CM CO o ID in 00 CO O J CO r P J IC o ~- CM IC 00 t~ CO 00 CO 00 m in CM TT P ) P J P J P J • o CM O oc t-8 in O 8 8 O CO CO X oc cc O < IC z ~- UJ _l z n CO o u. < «—< a a 00 CO < < o _J C M > o a UJ IC CC CM CC o • V z CM in 8 8 ip co n in co n m m P J o r- cc ID CO CM in 00 CO in m n r CO CM O ^ * t- r- ~— CO CO CM in P J P J in P J — o D O a x CO o z o x HLC X NB l/J SS X o _J X X CD CO o CM PJ o o O • _ J O T I P ) X o PJ X X T a b l e 11 - C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . Nelder p l o t 69 0) CM -•— cn u> ID cn CO — C O I CO o p- in (0 o CM CM P J P J P J o in CO m CM CO in O t- CO 10 in *T CM t- PJ CM p- t» *" CD (J in CM P ) cn p-o P J in P J f» p) CO cn CO CO u in CM IP u> in o • _l CO I p- in CO in *- in CD 00 P - CM 0) CO P J 10 o t- CO p-CM CM *~ *" p> o P- X CD O (0 CO CM P J CM in i n 0) o CM 10 CM 0) cn CO r~ co 10 P ) P J r» P J r- 0) o cn «- O co CD CO cn O P - m p- CD CD cn U J CD p- CD ID CM (D X CD co P J p- CM P - r- 0) • CO in o CO CM ro ID t» o o CM <P 01 r-cn in P - m cn CO r- ID CM cn CO CO CM in p- co (D in CM in o CD cn *y p> r» CM P - P - 0) • u v cr (0 PJ < or 8 o to o 00 CO O 0) P- CM i n CM TT CD CM 0) Q CD CD O o CM in P) 5 ID m ID ID O i n CM m in CD ID CD CO o PJ CD CM CM o o cn P J CO O CD O m *r o CM o P J o in in ID CO 0) o in o p- CO cn O m 00 CO U J CM P J in CM in m CD • o CM Q < OC X or < z z o w a a o in O or pj CO n u. O 10 O - CM m cn O P J CM m CM ID TT in ID o CO o CO CO o CO CM CO o ~- in P J P - CO p- CO O CO CD CO ID P - CM P J m m in O CO < o P -O in 8 s P) s — a in CD VAR .DIB . DOB o o or .DBH z o X .HLC CW m z I/) SS a _i X 3t DW WHL - CM pj in ID 00 0) o CM pj CO Table 12 - C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . 49-trees p l o t s 70 CJ in in o CN en CM CO CD n in in o — Z P> 0) in cn CN cc in CD in 10 »» CO CO CO ^— CD P > r- CM r-CO m co CD p) CD P J O en 0) in CO CM O O o CO o ID O O r- r- cn CO p- to (0 p> co r« CO CM cn r- O ID P) r» cc CC cn • z ID O PJ in CM ID CO IC en CM ID 1 O CM O CO o CO cn CO en CD CO CO cn in I cn ID « f» (0 ID CD • CO in o CM OJ O P) pj tn cn in r» co in •vr o ID CJ co CD to m co p> 0) cn ID p> t-cn — CO cn i -to o CM ID cn o • t) v or 8 C • uj O in a — < 8 o cc in — f CD to in 00 CM r- o O - C ? in in o in P > co CN O O < 5 co CM P J P J r- 01 r- r- r CM o CO co r- P ) o o o o P5 3t — o CM P ) CO o o CD 00 CD 8 «- o CD CD CD CO o in to r » cn CO CO en P J Ol o p> cn rt CO o O CM CM CO r» P - P J O ID p> CD CD t» • o CM O o 8 o CM rt P > 00 ID in p; PJ CM IO x or < Z z o or Or o in O cr in in 8 8 t- t- CM o cn P J rt co P J CM o — 00 in in CM ID rt P - CO 0) P J CC CO r- pj rt en rt ID 00 o O «s 09 en 00 t - r~ r* P J ID P J CD (0 • M — O CD — P J 01 P J r» CO m co CO CD pj CO < CD in in < > DIB DOB -1 . RCD DBH NO I HLC CW CD Z l/J SS 31 a tu c — CM P J in CD CO cn o — IN P J IT. Table 13 - C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . A l l data INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON DBH RCG. ON_49-T 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 6 9 12 15 SPACING, feet INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON CROWN WIDTH 12 SPACING, feet 15 Legend A RCCTANSULARlTV X 49-T PLOT  RCGRCSSION I N F L U E N C E O F S P A C I N G O N H E I G H T T O L I V E C R O W N Legend A RCCTANCULA.RITY X 49-TPLOT RCCRESS. REC RLGRCSS. 49-T • • | > > 1 " • 1 ' ' 1 3 6 9 12 15 SPACING feet. 74 z o C or O l u i U) £ a) o z O (/> </> U J OX -H- + r t t - + + r ++ _ C N / / + HH- + + + / / / - c n <L> d z u < Q_ CO - t o I— r - T—' l " I " I ' I ' I — r n — ' I ' I ' I ' I—' I ' [ ' I ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o "1 H8Q/H F i g u r e 20 - Influence pf spacing on H/DBH 75 a l l t r i a l s . There i s no influence of spacing on tree height. We can however observe a trend; the correlation c o e f f i c i e n t is negative at 19 years (R=-0.17) and becomes posit i v e at 28 years (R=0.17). S and NB : c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t at 28 years R=0.33 and at 19 years R=0.81. It i s not s i g n i f i c a n t in the Nelder p l o t . The high co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t for the rectangularity t r i a l might be explained by the surprisingly high mean number of branches at 2.7 m spacing. spacing (m) ave. # of branches rectangularity 1.4 7.2 1.8 7.9 2.7 11.1 Nelder plot 3.6 9.9 4.6 9.9 49-trees plot 1.8 8.7 2.7 8.5 3.6 9.9 4.6 9.2 These observations are in agreements with other results obtained in the various spacing t r i a l s I have previously reviewed. 76 3.4 Multiple Linear Regression Of Some Variables Of Interest -HLC: HLC=-5.5755+0.4l989*H+0.40748*AGE-0.3828*S R=0.95 R2=0.91 SE=0.98 (41 observations) -DBH: DBH=-12.937+1.2084*H+1.2793*S R=0.92 R2=0.85 SE=3.01 (41 observations) Note: AGE i s not kept in the equation as H i s a r e f l e c t i o n of age and s i t e . -CW: CW=2.4687+0.12936*DBH-0.10134*H+0.16664*S R=0.91 R2=0.82 SE=0.62 (41 observations) -H/DBH: There is no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among the three spacings (Figure 19). A test of common equations' gives Prob.=0.66. H/DBH=64.80+1555.0*1/S2 R=0.89 R2=0.78 SE=13.16 (41 observations) These results show that unthinned and spaced stands can be well modelled. At wide spacing the variation should be less than observed for a l l spacings, as we have less mortality. 3.5 Regression On Live Branches Only The same procedure was used as in the previous analysis. The stepwise backward selection of variables gives the following res u l t s : DIB=0.23081+0.64846*1-0.058l88*DBH+0.10791*DN-0.03024*H -0.086782*CW 77 R=0.91 R2=0.83 SE=0.259 (268 observations) 3.6 Regression On Dead Branches Only DIB=0.2047+0.64077*L-0.026513*RCD+0.040079*DN+0.042418*HLC -0. 10371*S + 0.0055968*SS R=0.91 R2=0.83 SE=0.25 (288 observations) There i s no fundamental difference between the two equations. 4. REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON THE TWO LARGEST BRANCHES PER WHORL The f i n a l equation i s : DIB=1.0746+0.3312*L+0.066981*DN-0.040565*H-0.091698*S +0.0041741*SS R=0.92 R2=0.86 SE=0.24 (154 observations) This equation i s not much better than the one obtained with a l l data. 4.1 Regression On Live Branches DIB=0.58123+0.38112*L-0.12799*DBH+0.19886*DN-0.039033*H R=0.92 R2=0.84 SE=0.25 (84 observations) 4.2 Regression On Dead Branches DIB=0.50676+0.23045*L-0.09268*RCD+0.07797*DBH+0.075173*DN +0.10117*CW-0.025999*WHL R=0.96 R2=0.92 SE=0.18 (70 observations) 78 4.3 Conclusion Looking at the regression and correlation c o e f f i c i e n t dead branches always show a better relationship to other parameters than l i v e branches. This i s probably due to two factors. Live branches have not reached their maximum diameter and t h i s may be re f l e c t e d by some wider variations than for dead branches; however, additional growth on l i v e branches at the base of l i v e crown i s almost i n s i g n i f i c a n t (Reukema, 1959). Probably the most important factor is due to a more advanced s o c i o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n among trees. Dead branches have grown under a r e l a t i v e l y uniform level of competition, low mortality and a more constant growth rate, while at the observed ages mortality has already created gaps and there i s a more v i s i b l e d i s t i n c t i o n among dominant, codominant and suppressed trees. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true for the closed spaced stands where variation in height and diameter i s great. 5. RESULTS OF THE WIND RIVER SPACING TRIALS AND COMPARISON Because of the nature of data collected, I could only analyse the influence of spacing on dead branches DIB. But measurements taken on older open grown trees can give some information on the r e l a t i o n between DIB and L. DIB=-0.82825+1.1189*L R=0.95 R2=0.92 SE=0.49 (74 observations) Figure 21 shows the regression lines of DIB on L for 0> o $1 o < X • UJ h — LU ss X < o a < — ' m ^ x ^ O LxJ 21 LaJ LJ ct: o -z_ :z — < on cn o o - T -O m o o o C N o o E E < m o Q to U J o £ < s 5 < Cr: CD Uo •JJP "H10N31 H O N V d a gure 21 - Branch l e n g t h and branch diameter i n three d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s 80 U.B.C.R.F. and Wind River. These two regression l i n e s have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t slope (Prob.=0.0000). The difference may be attributed to tree age or to genetics. In Wind River branches were coll e c t e d from older open grown trees, while at U.B.C.R.F. the oldest trees were only 28 years old. For the same branch length DIB in Wind River is larger. This was shown by the L/DIB r a t i o . The relations between DIB and branch length and L/DIB in Wind River are f a i r l y close to the ones obtained by Kenk and Unfried (1980) in Germany. Their data are also plotted in Figure 21. The results of my study tend to c o n f l i c t with those of Kenk and Unfried which show that larger branches have a proportionally smaller DIB. The means obtained for each spacing at the U.B.C.R.F. show an opposite trend, the L/DIB r a t i o getting smaller with wider spacing. However th i s difference i s small; L/DIB at 1.8 m spacing i s 135 and at 4.6 m spacing is 125. For the same branch length of 2m mean DIB at 1.8 m spacing i s 1.48 cm while i t i s 1.6 cm at 4.6 m spacing. This i s also well i l l u s t r a t e d by the slopes of the three curves. For the U.B.C.R.F. data the slope i s steeper, thus DIB i s proportionally larger for longer branches than for shorter branches. These differences might be attributed to stand structure. The German stands were thinned and therefore influence of i n i t i a l spacing i s diminished. Measured branch length might be another factor. In Germany and at Wind River branch length up 81 to 5.5 m were recorded while at the U.B.C.R.F. no lengths over 4.5 m were measured. These differences are not very large and i t i s interesting to see the close relationship between the German study and mine. This implies a f a i r l y stable relationship between branch length and DIB, on which s i t e and genetics may have l i t t l e influence. 6. INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON DIB Influence of spacing i s well described in Figure 22. There is a d e f i n i t e upward trend with increasing spacing. The c o r r e l a t i o n between DIB and spacing i s R=0.72. The trend is the same for l i v e and dead branches. It seems that age does not influence much the slope of regression l i n e of DIB up to 13 m (upper l i m i t of my measurements). We can, however, observe some differences between l i v e and dead branches mean DIB in the 49-trees p l o t s . At close spacing, l i v e branches start to be larger than dead branches, as mortality creates gaps, while the difference is negligeable or even reversed at wider spacings due to the increased or constant l e v e l of competition. Thus at close spacing, and on the U.B.C.R.F. s i t e , mean DIB w i l l increase s l i g h t l y with height. In the rectangularity t r i a l these differences were not observed. At age 19, s o c i o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s t i l l has very l i t t l e e f fect at a l l spacings. Spacing has a d e f i n i t e influence on the mean maximum branch diameter, but i f we look at individual trees, DBH i s the most important factor for large branches. For the same DBH at INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON BRANCH DIAMETER 6 T 9 12 15 Legend A REC. LIVE X REC. DEAD • 49T LIVE H 49T DEAD S W.R. SPACING feet 83 d i f f e r e n t spacings at the same age maximum DIB w i l l be about the same. 7. INFLUENCE OF SITE Figure 23 shows no interaction between s i t e and spacing. The slopes of the three regression lines obtained at three d i f f e r e n t location are remarkably s i m i l a r . For the three spacing t r i a l s I obtained the following regression equations: Rectangularity and Nelder: DIB=0.8779+0.1168*S R=0.97 R2=0.95 SE=0.12 (5 spacings) 49-trees p l o t s : ) l DIB=1.122+0.08933*S R=0.88 R2=0.78 SE=0.24 (4 spacings) Wind River: DIB=0.4102+0.1044*S R=0.98 R2=0.96 SE=0.06 (6 spacings) Test of hypothesis of common slope: F=0.38 Prob.=0.69 The three slopes are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Poor s i t e s result in smaller DIB than do good s i t e s ; t h i s i s well i l l u s t r a t e d by the regression l i n e for Wind River. Site does not influence effects of spacing; therefore the s i t e component could be e a s i l y incorporated into a prediction model for DIB. 84 I ' ' ' ' I ' ' 1 ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' 1 I ' ' ' 1 I ' ' • ' —T~ in m in <N ui *~ \n **i oi —; o w o >iyv8 3QISNI HONVda F i g u r e 23 - Inf l u e n c e of spacing on branch diameter. Regression l i n e s 85 8. INFLUENCE OF LIVE WHORL DIAMETER ON DIB To have the same base of comparison between branches in d i f f e r e n t stands, I used the diameter of the f i r s t l i v e whorl (mean of two diameter taken above and under the whorl). The c o r r e l a t i o n between DIB and DW i s high R=0.85, and I obtained a common equation for the three spacing t r i a l s (Figure 24). DIB=0.53706+0.10308*DW R=0.85 R2=0.72 SE=0.33 There i s no difference between the three spacing t r i a l s due to age or genetics. The test of hypothesis of a common equation gives a high p r o b a b i l i t y , Prob.=0.55. 9. PREDICTION OF DIB Regressions with d i f f e r e n t variables were tested. The purpose of t h i s analysis was to find an e a s i l y measured parameter in order to predict the maximum branch diameter of a tree. A stepwise backward regression was performed on the following independant variables: DBH,H,HLC and S at level=0.0l. The f i n a l equation, after elimination of HLC and S, i s : DIB=1.6394+0.081016*DBH-0.070898*H R=0.82 R2=0.67 SE=0.34 (See residuals, Figure 25) (154 observations) Then I t r i e d other regressions using other diameters or a + t 4 f + 4 + 10 ~1~ 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 DIAMETER OF LIVE WHORL cm 26 28 Legend + • OBSCRVATIONIS RCGRCSSION" 30 87 SCATTER PLOT M 154 OUT OF 154 23. RES VS. 24.PREO RES 5 . 0 0 0 0 • 3.8889 • 2.7778 • 1.6667 • .55556 * 3 • • 2 • 3 • 2 • 2 3 • 2 3 2 • 6* 2 3 3 • 2 • 3* 4 3 3«« • • • «3« 23 3 • • 3 • 2 • 32 »3 • • 4 «2 3 • a a 4 •• *2» 2 * a .55556 • • . . . 2 . -1.6667 - a .7778 • 3.8889 * 5.0000 1.6845 2.1996 2.7147 3.3298 PREO 1 4 2 7 0 1.9421 2.4573 2.9733 3.4874 Figure 25 - Scatter plot of residuals. DIB and S 88 combination of them (RCD,9D,DW) but none of them improved the regression. Also H/DBH did not give a better r e s u l t . Thus DIB can be better predicted with DBH and H only. As H i s a d i f f i c u l t costly to measure variable, H can be predicted from S,AGE and DBH. H=2.87 31+0.30408*DBH-0.52793*S+0.60856*AGE R=0.92 R2=0.86 SE=1.53 (41 observations) The predicted H can now be used in the equation. A regression made with the estimated H gave: DIB=1.3723+0.092113*DBH-0.065509*H R=0.88 R2=0.78 SE=0.30 (154 observations) An easier way to estimate DIB w i l l be to substitute AGE for H as they are strongly correlated (R=0.88). DBH w i l l then carry the influence of competition and s i t e . DIB=1.4012+0.056278*DBH-0.042258*AGE+0.046083*S R=0.81 R2=0.66 SE=0.35 (154 observations) In t h i s equation S improves the regression only s l i g h t l y . Even i f DBH alone can estimate DIB very well, I think that H or AGE should be kept in the equation to compensate for the increase of diameter with age. At the U.B.C.R.F. the age range is f a i r l y small (9 years) and t h i s explains the very high correlation between DIB and DBH. For dead branches: DIB=1.486+0.04l833*DBH-0.041774*AGE+0.056008*S R=0.84 R2=0.71 SE=0.27 (70 observations) 89 For l i v e branches: DIB=1.1668+0.067222*DBH-0.034627*AGE+0.038568*S R=0.84 R2=0.70 SE=0.35 (84 observations) The slopes of these equations are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , prob.=0.005. These equations compare very well with the f i r s t ones, using a l l possible variables. This i s understandable as DBH and H r e f l e c t the growing conditions. Almost every factor is incorporated in these two parameters: site,age and competition. 10. BRANCH AGE DATA ANALYSIS This analysis" uses the second set of data I co l l e c t e d to obtain supplementary information on branch age. The cor r e l a t i o n matrix (Table 14) shows that the highest co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are obtained between BRAGE and DIB, R=0.79, and between BRAGE and DBH and S, R=0.76. This table shows similar c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between DIB and other variables as in the f i r s t set of data. Also the regression equations of DIB on DBH and AGE are similar to the equations obtained from the f i r s t set of data and test of hypothesis of common equation for both set of data gave the following r e s u l t s : For l i v e branches (166 observations): Prob.=0.20 Common equation: DIB=1.298+0.08457*DBH-0.04205*AGE For dead branches 2-2.5 m height (146 observations): Prob.=0.64 90 CORRELATION MATRIX N= 225 DF = 223 R» .0500= .1308 R«> .0100= .1714 VARIABLE 1 .S 1.0000 2 .DBH .7684 1.0000 3 . HBR -.0257 .2545 1.0000 4 . BRWH -.1207 . 1226 .9613 1.OOOO 5. BRAGE . 7699 .7699 .0971 -.0293 1.0000 6 .DIB .7125 .8204 .2295 . 1020 .7977 1.0000 7. DOB .7060 .7910 .2145 .0947 .7935 .9839 1.OOOO 8. ,TRAGE .4104 .7220 .4743 .3879 .5056 .4488 .4136 1.OOOO 1 . 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8 . S DBH HBR BRWH BRAGE DIB DOB TRAGE Table 14 - C o r r e l a t i o n matrix. Branch age data 91 Common equation: DIB=1.905+0.0705*DBH-0.064*AGE For a l l branches (312 observations): Prob.=0.24 Common equation: DIB=1.602+0.07741*DBH-0.05272*AGE Equations for l i v e and dead branches are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , prob.=0.002. 11. INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON BRANCH AGE There i s a clear influence of spacing on branch age. Branch age increases with increasing spacing (Figure 26). In this Figure we can see the same trend we already observed with DIB, but i t is here more enhanced. At close spacings l i v e branches contain about one more year than dead branches, due to the s o c i o l o g i c a l position of surviving trees. At wide spacings the differences seem much less and in some cases dead branches have even l i v e d longer than l i v e branches. This i s probably due to an increasing branch competition. In terms of branch growth the following pattern could be described: at close spacing competition occurs early and with age and mortality the lev e l of competition for growing space tends to be less than i t was at the beginning. At wide spacing, branches grow f i r s t in an "open grown" condition, then with canopy closure competition increases and reduces s l i g h t l y branch age, then from t h i s stage we can expect to see the wider spacing following the same evolution as the close spacing. This trend i s shown in both stands when spacing is larger than 2.7 m (9 f e e t ) . 92 12. INFLUENCE OF SITE There i s d e f i n i t e l y a s i t e e f f e c t , but t h i s can not be shown from the U.B.C.R.F. data as the stands are growing on the same s i t e . However from the data we have c o l l e c t e d at the Wind River spacing t r i a l , i t seems that branches l i v e longer on a poor s i t e , even for a much smaller DIB, than on a good s i t e . At Wind River average branch age by spacing was: 7 years at 5 feet, 11 years at 6 feet, 15 years at 8 feet, and 16 years at 10 feet and 12 feet. This means that faster grown trees are l i f t i n g their crown much sooner than slow growing trees. 13. BRANCH AGE AND DIB The relationship between branch age and DIB i s strong, R=0.79 (Figure 27). At 1.8 m (6 feet) spacing a branch with an average maximum diameter of 1.4 cm needs 5 years to grow to this size and in a 4.6 m (15 feet) spacing i t needs 9 years to reach a maximum diameter of 2.6 cm. This give a similar yearly DIB increment for a l l spacings. This consideration and the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t obtained show that branches in wide spacings are larger because they l i v e longer and not because they grow faster. 14. PREDICTION OF BRANCH AGE With a stepwise backward regression with a l e v e l of 0.01 performed on a l l variables I obtained these equations: For a l l branches (225 observations): BRAGE=1.5674+0.16248*S-0.068549*BRWH+1.3556*DIB+0.088234*AGE 1 C n (TJ c fD 3 O cn •d o> o 3 LQ O 3 or •-« o> 3 O 3' 0) ro O > s U J O < X o < CD 10 9 H 8H 6 H 5-i 3 INFLUENCE OF SPACING ON BRANCH AGE 6 12 CO L e g e n d A REC. PCAD X RCC. U V C • 49 - T . DEAD El 49 - T . LIVE n 15 SPACING, feet INFLUENCE OF BRANCH DIAMETER ON BRANCH AGE BRANCH AGE. year 95 R=0.86 R2=0.74 SE=0.92 (See residuals, Figure 28) For dead branches: BRAGE=1.5338+0.22345*S-0.1263*BRWH+1.2432*DIB+0.09158*AGE R=0.88 R2=0.78 SE=0.88 (143 observations) For l i v e branches: BRAGE=2.3473-0.22858*BRWH+1.3832*DIB+0.20636*AGE R=0.86 R2=0.74 SE=0.85 (85 observations) As we have seen before with DIB, spacing does not stay in the equation for prediction of l i v e branch age. The number of whorls to l i v e crown remains in a l l equations, indicating the influence of whorl height. For s i m p l i f i c a t i o n I w i l l replace BRWH by BRH (they are highly correlated, R=0.96). The variables S,DIB and AGE were used for the prediction equation as they can be e a s i l y obtained. A l l branches: BRAGE=1.3935+0.19024*S+1.2819*DIB+0.063159*AGE R=0.85 R2=0.73 SE=0.93 (225 observations) or, BRAGE=2.4779+0.20315*S+1.4066*DIB R=0.84 R2=0.72 SE=0.96 (225 observations) Dead branches: BRAGE=1.135+0.2605*S+1.1047*DIB+0.061933*AGE R=0.87 R2=0.76 SE=0.92 (143 observations) or, BRAGE=2.2456+0.31842*S+1.059*DIB R=0.89 R2=0.80 SE=0.85 (143 observations) Live branches: 96 SCATTER PLOT H» 225 OUT OF 225 15.RESIDUAL VS. 16.PREDICT1 RESIDUAL 5.0000 • 3.8889 • 2.7778 1.6667 • 34 .55556 • 22 -1 .6667 * -2 .7778 • 3 3 • 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 •• 2* '6' •• . * 2 • . . . 242 2 2 52* • 3 .5 22-•34 • • 22* 2*" 6 -55556 • 3 . 3 . g . . , • 2* «22 2" • 2 - • • • 2 ' 2 •2 - 3 . 8 8 8 9 • - 5 . 0 0 0 0 4 1 6 8 3 5 8 6 8 9 7 9 6 9 6 9 2 7 0 2 " i o ? 9 7 l " "pREDICTI 5 0 1 8 6 6.7193 8.4199 10.121 11.821 Figure 28 - Scatter plot of residuals. BRAGE and S, BRWH, DIB, AGE 97 BRAGE=2.1134+0.085784*S+1.549*DIB+0.049083*AGE R=0.84 R2=0.71 SE=0.89 (82 observations) or, BRAGE=2.943+0.088351*S+1.6791*DIB R=0.84 R2=0.70 SE=0.90 (82 observations) In these equations DIB contributes more for l i v e branches than for dead branches, and we observe the opposite with spac ing. P a r t i a l c o e f f i c i e n t s of determination variable dead branch l i v e branch S 0.56 0.26 DIB 0.45 0.64 AGE 0.23 0.19 These confirm the decreasing importance of i n i t i a l spacing with increasing age. Logarithmic and inverse transformations have been t r i e d to increase the precision of the equation, but none gave a substantial improvement. Dead branch age can be very well estimated from spacing and tree age only, while l i v e branches need DIB for a better r e s u l t . As DIB can be predicted with accuracy from DBH and other variables such as AGE,HBR and S i t i s not a major problem to keep DIB in the equation. To predict DIB I w i l l use thi s f i n a l equation: DIB=1 .347 + 0.071642*DBH-0.056797*AGE+0.033284*HBR+0.0301 59*S R=0.86 R2=0.74 SE=0.33 (225 observations) 98 The rela t i o n s h i p is improved compared to the previous one, by keeping HBR in the equation. For dead branches: DIB=1.4161+0.06554*DBH-0.059913*AGE+0.053455*HBR R=0.86 R2=0.75 SE=0.31 (143 observations) For l i v e branches: DIB=0.75599+0.078086*DBH-0.040555*HBR R=0.86 R2=0.75 SE=0.34 (82 observations) For the l i v e branches equation, selection of DBH and HBR i s explained by the fact that DBH i s the actual DBH and therefore there i s no need to compensate i t with AGE. HBR i s negatively correlated because the closer the spacing, the higher the height to l i v e crown, and the thinner the branches. Using predicted DIB, I produced estimates of BRAGE. The co e f f i c i e n t of corr e l a t i o n of the predicted BRAGE and the measured BRAGE was R=0.80 for a l l branches, R=0.84 for dead branches and R=0.73 for l i v e branches. 15. IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS If high wood quality i s the objective of a forest manager, prediction of maximum knot diameter can be very useful. Maximum knot diameter (DIB) can be ea s i l y predicted with only four variables which are easy to know: DBH, AGE, S and HBR (HBR i s defined by the user). These equations can be used to estimate a mean maximum branch diameter for a stand or for individual trees. They are v a l i d for prediction up to 12 m, which i s 9 9 equivalent to two log lengths of at least 5.5 m length. They can be used to plan pruning or thinning schedules or to set the desired i n i t i a l spacing. These equations are v a l i d for the very good s i t e on which data were c o l l e c t e d . However they could probably be applied to other s i t e s as DBH car r i e s the influence of s i t e in the equation and we have c l e a r l y seen that there i s no interaction between spacing and s i t e on branch diameter. In t h i s thesis these equations w i l l be used to estimate the amount of clearwood and i t s associated costs resulting from dif f e r e n t pruning regimes. In the next chapter the l i t e r a t u r e available on pruning of Douglas-fir and other species w i l l be reviewed in order to provide a framework for a simulation model. 100 VIII. PRUNING It has been shown in many studies that knots are the major cause of low grades. Von Pechmann and Courtois (1970 a,b) made an exhaustive study on wood quality of Douglas-fir and found that knots were responsible for 94% of low grades. Young Douglas-fir timber i s known to produce a higher proportion of No. 1 Common and Better lumber but l i t t l e or no clea r . A lumber recovery survey published by Matson (1952 a) showed that Douglas-fir up to 100 years w i l l not y i e l d clearwood, unless the timber stands receive some c u l t u r a l practices such as pruning. Poor natural pruning of Douglas-fir i s responsible for the low quality lumber in second growth stands. In a l l , i t takes about 60 years from the death of a branch to i t s complete occlusion and thi s generally means an enclosed black or loose knot 15 or more centimeters long (Kachin, 1940). If we assume that a branch w i l l l i v e an average of 10 years at a height of 6 meters, a Douglas-fir w i l l not start to produce any clearwood before 80 or 90 years which is beyond the rotation age. It then appears that very l i t t l e clearwood can be produced in untreated second growth Douglas-fir. 101 Because of i t s growth rate, the strength of i t s wood and i t s large knots, Douglas-fir is the prime candidate for pruning. Pruning can also be very advantageously combined with the benefits re s u l t i n g from wide spacing. Pruning does not only help to produce clearwood but also improves other wood properties and taper i f l i v e branches are pruned. 1. LIVE CROWN PRUNING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES Pruning of l i v e crowns tends to simulate more densely grown conditions. Trees grown under such conditions have desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as more c y l i n d r i c a l stems, less juvenile wood, higher wood density and more clearwood. Fortunately, a few studies are available on the influence of l i v e crown pruning of Douglas-fir on tree growth and wood qual i t y . 1.1 Wood Quality Probably the most detailed study on the influence of pruning on wood quality was published by Polge e_t a l . (1973). Fifteen years old Douglas-fir, spaced at 5m x 5m, f u l l y crowned, were pruned to remove 20,30,40 and 50% of the l i v e crown. Results for the control, no pruning, and for the most severe pruning (50 %) are reported and compared. -Radial growth was decreased for the pruned trees after treatment but was no longer s i g n i f i c a n t 3 years l a t e r . -Minimum and maximum wood densities were s l i g h t l y improved but differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t . -Transition from early wood to late wood was much faster after treatment. 1 02 - Acceleration of t r a n s i t i o n from juvenile to mature wood was also observed. -Wood density increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y for the pruned trees. -Tangential and r a d i a l shrinkage was increased but a x i a l shrinkage decreased which i s an interesting aspect. Axial shrinkage i s one of the most important as i t s effect i s in the dir e c t i o n of the wood fiber or the d i r e c t i o n of sawn wood. These results confirm the ones obtained by Gerisher and de V i l l i e r s (1963). They studied the ef f e c t of heavy pruning on wood quality of Pinus radiata . A crown length of at most one t h i r d of t o t a l height was l e f t . Pruning was car r i e d out in 1928 and these trees were f e l l e d in 1960. Compared to unpruned trees the pruned trees had the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : -percentage of summer wood had increased by 14 to 26 %. - s p e c i f i c gravity had increased from 0.48 to 0.60 g/cm3. -f i b e r angular s p i r a l i t y was reduced from 4 to less than 3 degrees. A timber recovery study showed a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t reduction (0.05 level) in twisting for the pruned trees. No differences were observed for bow or spring. There was an extremely s i g n i f i c a n t increase in fiber length. The authors concluded: "Heavy pruning could be employed as a useful means of c o n t r o l l i n g the diameter of juvenile core in stems of Pinus radiata in rapidly growing plantations, where planting at very close espacements to ef f e c t t h i s i s uneconomical." 1 03 1 . 2 Tree Growth In England an 11 years old plantation of Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce, i n i t i a l spacing 1.8m x 1.8m, thinned at age 9 leaving 1850 trees/ha (2.3m x 2.3m), was pruned up to half of i t s height (4.9 m) removing about 32% of the l i v e crown. On average, green branches were removed from a length of 2.6 to 5 m above ground. In t h i s study Lehtpere (1957) showed that pruning has no effect on height growth but induced a s i g n i f i c a n t but temporary reduction in diameter growth at breast height. Diameter growth at the base of the remaining l i v e crown was not affected. Therefore, tree form was improved. Three years later DBH of pruned trees was even s l i g h t l y , but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y , larger than in the contro l . At the Wind River Experimental Forest, Stein (1955) described a pruning study which was implemented in 1937. Three i n t e n s i t i e s were tested: 25, 50 and 75% of the l i v e crown was removed. The trees were remeasured in 1950. The stand was already 28 years old and moderately to well stocked. The s i t e i s the same as in the spacing t r i a l . A wide variety of trees were included in the treatment with DBH ranging from 8 to 27 cm, and height ranging from 8.5 to 18 m. On average the trees already had dead limbs up to 3.8 m. After 13 years diameter growth was not reduced by the removal of the lower 25% of the l i v e crown length but actually was increased by 6.5 %. However, trees with 50 and 75% of the l i v e crown length removed grew less in diameter by 8.3 and 53.1% 1 04 respect i v e l y . The same trend was observed for height growth. While the difference between control and the 50% treatment was s i g n i f i c a n t for the f i r s t 6 years, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for the entire period of observation (13 years). Stein concluded that removal of the lower one t h i r d of the l i v e crown length can be done without a f f e c t i n g future growth, and that the 50 and 75% treatment should be considered too severe. He observed that among trees having received a heavy pruning more than 50% dropped back one or more crown classes. It should be noted here, that even i f these trees were among dominant and co-dominant in a naturally regenerated stand, they had a wide range of diameters and they received the pruning treatment randomly. Thus crown competition was most c e r t a i n l y uneven to the disavantage of the most severely pruned trees. This stand was not thinned, res u l t i n g in a longer recovery period for pruned trees. The results of Stein's study contradict somewhat Lehtpere's. These differences were discussed in a paper by Mar.Moller (1960). The differences in both experiments were outlined, and the author showed that removal of one t h i r d of the l i v e crown should reduce growth during the f i r s t 2 or 3 years. He j u s t i f i e d his conclusion by the fact that Stein used means for a long period after pruning. One very important factor was omitted by Mar.Moller. In the English experiment the stand was much denser and the pruning effect might have been enhanced by competition. Spacing 1 05 cer t a i n l y plays an important role which I w i l l describe l a t e r . Stein was not the only author to report a growth increase after a low pruning of the l i v e crown. Reukema (1959) showed that the lower branches of Douglas-fir f a i l e d to lay on annual growth rings for the last several years of their l i f e . I also observed the same phenomenon when I was counting branch ages. The last rings were extremely small and comparison with actual age at which the branch died showed that about 2 years were missing. Therefore these branches contribute very l i t t l e or nothing to tree growth and might even be net users of photosynthate. This theory can explain the gain in growth after removal of the lower branches. However, th i s holds only for closely spaced stands. In open stands branches receive enough l i g h t to contribute to growth. Height growth increases were also observed by Keller (1968), Mitscherlich and von Gadow (1968) and Helmers (1946). Whether removal of the lowest t h i r d of the crown length i s or i s not harmful has very l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l importance as the Lehtpere study showed a rapid rate of recovery after treatment. Staebler (1963,1964) reported results 2 and 4 years after pruning of f u l l y crowned open grown Douglas-fir. Diameter ranged from 7.6 to 28 cm, height from 7 to 19m. Three pruning treatments were applied: 1/3,1/2 and 2/3 of tree t o t a l height. Diameters measurements were taken at 1/3,1/2 and 2/3 of tree height. Trees pruned at up to 1/2 and 2/3 of their height showed a marked reduction in diameter growth at points low on the bole, but a lesser reduction higher up, with consequent 106 improvement in form. Height growth was reduced by the most severe treatment with no measurable recovery after 4 years. In this experiment, the treatment removing 1/3 of l i v e crown tree height was only very s l i g h t l y affected. After adjustment for di f f e r e n t i n i t i a l tree volumes growth for the four years was: No pruning : 0.153 m3 1/3 pruning : 0.144 m3 1/2 pruning : 0.101 m3 2/3 pruning : 0.057 m3 Results of t h i s experiment agree cl o s e l y with the previous one. Pruning of more than 1/3 of the l i v e crown length reduces stem volume growth but improves tree form. The most severe treatment reduces height growth. In France, Keller (1968) reported a pruning experiment on four species: Pinus strobus, Picea excelsa, Picea sichensis and Pseudotsuga menziesii . Douglas-fir were spaced at 3 m x 3 m and were f u l l y crowned. Diameters were observed at 1.3 m, 1/3 and 2/3 of i n i t i a l tree height. Leader length was taken to measure height growth. Pruning treatments consisted of removal of 20,30,40 and 50% the l i v e crown. Measurements were taken the year following pruning. -Twenty percent removal always resulted in an increase in height growth. - Diameter growth decreased proportionally with increased 1 07 pruning in t e n s i t y , but the reduction at 2/3 of tree height was f a i r l y small. Tree form was much improved for the most severe treatment. -For the 50% treatment g i r t h increment at 1.3 m was 2.27 cm compared to 5.72 for control, but at 2/3 of tree height i t was 4.15 cm compared to 5 cm for cont r o l . -An almost linear relationship was found between pruning intensity and taper improvement. For 10% of l i v e crown length removed, taper i s improved by over 1 %. Keller concluded that pruning to 50% of the l i v e crown length has no damaging effect on tree l i f e i f well done. In a vigorous stand, trees can recover quickly as was shown in Stein's study. Keller has also shown with Pinus strobus that pruning does not influence height growth the following year after treatment due to nutrient reserve, but i t does the second and subsequent years. In another experiment in a Douglas-fir plantation, i n i t i a l l y spaced at 5 m x 5 m, described by Polge (1969), 20,35 and 50% of tree height ( f u l l y crowned) was pruned. I n i t i a l l y the g i r t h decrease was 8.03 cm/m from the DBH to 2/3 of tree height. After pruning and two growing seasons results were: percentage pruned : 50 35 20 0 (taper,1967)-(taper,1969) cm/m : 0.98 0.42 0.07 -0.24 While taper increased for control trees i t dramatically 108 decreased for the most heavily pruned trees. Total gain of 50% pruned trees over control i s 1.22 cm/m in only two years. McConkey (1965) showed that heavy pruning has no influence on the remaining branches. Residual branches had the same increment as branches taken at the same height in an unpruned stand. Heavy pruning does not result in increased branch growth to compensate for l i v e branch removals. In general, a l l these studies agree on the effect of l i v e branch pruning. Differences of opinion are primarily concerned with the upper l i m i t that a pruning treatment can reach. This l i m i t varies from one t h i r d to half of the l i v e crown length. Divergence of opinions can be attributed to the di f f e r e n t stand densities in which the experiments were conducted. The influence of crown competition or i n i t i a l height to l i v e crown was never r e a l l y well investigated. From th i s l i t e r a t u r e review, i t appears that pruning 50% of l i v e crown length of a f u l l y crowned tree and of an incompletely crowned tree w i l l not give the same re s u l t s . A f u l l y crowned tree w i l l be l e f t with a l i v e crown on 50% of i t s height, while the other w i l l be l e f t with less than 50% as i t s crown had already l i f t e d , therefore, we can expect to get a d i f f e r e n t response to treatment in these two d i s t i n c t cases. More research i s c e r t a i n l y needed which should look at the influence of pruning with reference to tree height, rather than l i v e crown, to es t a b l i s h a basis of comparison. 1 09 2. EFFECT OF SPACING ON PRUNING INTENSITY Unfortunately not much has been done in t h i s area. A the o r e t i c a l study by Brown (1962) suggested that pruning the same proportion of trees in close and open stands w i l l give d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . He considered two phases in branch l i f e . The f i r s t one when branch diameter d i r e c t l y increases with age and the second when branch diameter remains almost constant. In the f i r s t phase the sum of branch diameters in a whorl occupies a large percentage of the circumference, while in the second phase this percentage decreases rapidly. Thus, i f branches are pruned in the f i r s t phase tree vigour should be adversely affected; t h i s concept in mind, spacing influences can be explained by looking at Figure 29. Removal of 55% of the l i v e crown in the densely spaced stand w i l l not reach the area where branches are s t i l l in their f i r s t phase, but i t w i l l in wider spaced stands. This theory supposes that the second stage in branch development is of about equal duration in both stands. Thus pruning of dense stand w i l l not affect growth as much as i t w i l l in nearly open stands. This theory supports some observations reported by Helmers (1946) in western white pine stands from 20 to 30 years in age. Trees pruned over 55% of their l i v e crown length suffered a higher loss in growth rate in the most open stands. Furthermore, 8 of 17 of the heavily pruned (pruned more than 55 %) trees died in the most open stands (500stems/ha) during the f i r s t 3 years, while none died in the densest stand (2500 1 1 0 111 stems/ha). This confirms that the more heavily shaded lower branches of trees growing in closed stands contribute less to the n u t r i t i o n of trees than lower branches of open grown trees. A second study by McConkey (1965) dealt more s p e c i f i c a l l y with the influence of spacing and pruning intensity on tree growth. A 12 years old stand of white pine was thinned to spacings of 1.8 m x 1.8 m and 3.6 m x 3.6 m. Selected trees averaged 2.7 m in height and 2.8 cm at DBH. Three pruning i n t e n s i t i e s , 0, 1/3, 2/3 were randomly assigned. After 7 years the growth rate had recovered or almost recovered to the l e v e l shown by unpruned trees. The data generally indicate a slower rate of recovery among trees at the 1.8 m spacing than at the 3.6 m spacing. A net loss in volume resulted from pruning and t h i s loss was greater at the closer spacing. McConkey found that the main stem growth rate recovered while branch area i s s t i l l 70 or 80% of the normal branch area in control trees. Here again t h i s result proves that some portion of the lower l i v e crown of unpruned trees contributes l i t t l e or nothing to main-stem growth. 2.1 Discussion And Conclusions The two l a s t studies may seem to be contradictory. The f i r s t one showed a negative effect of wide spacing after heavy pruning and the second one a positive e f f e c t . This contradiction i s to be related to the one discussed e a r l i e r about the ef f e c t of removing 1/3 of the l i v e crown length. In both cases we face some ra d i c a l differences between the 112 experiments. For example in Helmers and Brown's studies, trees were already 20 to 30 years old and had, in close stands, a substantial amount of dead branches (Figure 28), while the most open grown trees had a much longer crown length. Thus, for the same tree height, pruning of 55% of the l i v e crown length w i l l remove considerably more branches for the same tree height than in the closer spaced stand and i t i s very understantable that the open grown trees suffered more mortality and increment losses. In McConkey's study both close and wide spaced stands had the same tree height and were f u l l y crowned. Such an experiment makes a sound basis for comparison. In this case i t was c l e a r l y shown that the wider spaced stand have more potential to recover after heavy pruning. When Brown stated that "the adverse effect of removing a fixed proportion of green crown in a dense stand would be less than in an open stand", we should be careful in interpreting th i s conclusion. This was observed when the crown has already l i f t e d but did not occur when trees were young and f u l l y crowned. It would be interesting to have more information on stands which were observed by Helmers, to know what had happened to the small crowned trees in dense stands. The high survival rate after pruning i s due to the reduced shock they have suffered, as explained by Brown. Considering the r a t i o of crown length over t o t a l height, I suspect very slow growth, stagnation and future high mortality. 1 1 3 In conclusion from what we have seen before we know that removal of the lower t h i r d of the l i v e crown has very l i t t l e e ffect on tree growth. We also know that pruning 50% of the l i v e crown aff e c t s growth rate for about the next 5 years (Stein 1955, Polge 1973) while wood qual i t y and tree form are greatly improved. Therefore, i f wide spacings are used for th e i r advantages in term of growth, some of their disadvantages can be corrected by heavy pruning. Pruning 50% of tree height, when f u l l y crowned, whatever the spacing, i s not a problem i f well done and i t should be recommended. Once the crown has naturally l i f t e d to a few metres high, removal of 1/3 of the lower l i v e crown length should be considered as a safe l i m i t ; 40 or 50% might also be acceptable but consideration should be given to stand density and stand age. 3. WHEN SHOULD TREES BE PRUNED? Having in mind the guidelines mentioned above and thinking in terms of economics, each pruning l i f t should correspond to a log section to allow a maximum clear recovery. Therefore, i f i t is planned to prune 50% of the l i v e crown we must have a tree height double the pruned length. For a f i r s t l i f t up to 3 meters, tree height should be 6 metres or more. Polge (1976) recommended pruning 40% of tree height when tree height i s 10 m and 50% at 14 m to produce two pruned Douglas-fir logs. Kramer (1976) recommended pruning Norway spruce in two l i f t s at tree heights 8 and 12 m, f i r s t l y up to 3m secondly up - 1 1 4 to 5m and removing, respectively, 35 and 27% of the l i v e crown length. Polge's prescription i s for widely spaced stands (5 m x 5 m) and Kramer's for closer spaced stands. The German forest service in Baden-Wurttemberg recommends pruning every Douglas-fir up to 2.5 m at tree height 6 to 8 m (about 10 cm DBH). Then a second l i f t i s made up to 5 m at tree height 10 m (about 15 cm DBH). Further pruning up to 10 or 15 m can be done i f a DBH of respectively 65 cm and 70 cm can be achieved at rotation age, to obtain a r a t i o of 1:2 between the knotty core and the clearwood s h e l l (Wetzel, 1981). It is not necessary to prune early when DBH i s small as the core w i l l have in any case a poor q u a l i t y . The diameter at the upper l i m i t of the pruned butt should have a minimum of 10 cm as the wood produced near the p i t h i s of very low quality (Polge, 1969). But on the other hand a tree should not be pruned too late because the amount of clearwood produced w i l l be less and because pruning of l i v e crown at a young age also is more desirable due to the rapid rate of recovery. For example, pruning of 1/3 of the l i v e crown means fewer whorls in a young stand than in an older one and, older trees have a much smaller height increment. Thus the time required to compensate for pruning l i v e branches w i l l be longer (Mar:Moller, 1960). Another important consideration in favour of early pruning is the presence of a f a i r l y important c a l l u s around big branches which w i l l delay the production of clearwood for at least 5 years (depending on growth rate). In any case, the c a l l u s should not be cut as I w i l l explain l a t e r . 115 The right time for pruning i s also dictated by economic factors. If pruning i s done early interest w i l l be charged for a longer period and w i l l increase costs, but pruning time w i l l be less due to the smaller branches ( i f green pruning i s done), thus interest costs might be o f f s e t . The d i f f e r e n t options w i l l be reviewed in d e t a i l , using the model PRUNE. However, we can already say that early pruning seems to be the more at t r a c t i v e p a r t i c u l a r l y for wide spacings. Early pruning w i l l improve wood quality, maximize clearwood production and reduce pruning time. 4. NUMBER OF TREES TO PRUNE Pruning i s one of the most ' intensive s i l v i c u l t u r a l treatments and consequently i s expensive. This leads to the question of how many trees should be pruned? What should be the target number of pruned trees at harvest age? Obviously only superior trees should be selected in order to minimize costs and maximize returns. Only fast growing, wide spaced trees can make pruning a sound and p r o f i t a b l e investment (Polge, 1969, Smith and Kennedy, 1 983) . Polge (1973) suggested that when clearwood production is the f i n a l objective, pruned trees should be grown in an almost open grown condition to maximize growth. To fi n d the optimum density, he used the l i v e crown width that can be measured on open grown trees on a similar s i t e , then reduced i t by a factor of 0.6 to 0.7 to fi n d the optimal spacing, as pruning lower branches w i l l decrease crown width and because competition when crowns are just tangent i s not great. For Abies grandis , and 116 open grown trees having a crown width of 9 m, a minimum spacing of 5.4 m should be the aim. Thus a maximum of 340 trees per hectare should be pruned. The same calcu l a t i o n for Douglas-fir, using data published by Smith (1978 b), w i l l give the same number of trees per hectare as open grown Douglas-fir have a crown width of 8.6 m. Kramer (1976) recommended pruning the 450 largest Norway spruce per hectare to ensure harvest of 300 trees of 40 cm mean diameter or 250 trees of 45 cm mean diameter. This was done under the c l a s s i c a l German s i l v i c u l t u r a l regime, with i n i t i a l spacing 1.5 m x 1.5 m, thinned at age 20 (1 of every 4 rows removed). In Baden-Wurttemberg about 200 Douglas-fir per hectare are pruned up to 5 m and between 100 and 200 trees per hectare up to 10 m (Wetzel, 1981). In denser stands we must consider pruning more trees than in a wider spaced stands as competition and mortality are more severe and the number of trees greater. Therefore, designation of superior trees i s much more unreliable. From 300 to 400 pruned trees per hectare should be a reasonable range, i f f i n a l harvest objectives are around 200 or 300 trees. The decision, concerning the number of trees to prune, should be taken considering d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s inherent to the stand, i t s health, i t s exposure and i t s harvest age. With radiata pine Sutton and Crowe (1975) suggested that 400 to 500 stems/ha need to be i n i t i a l l y selected to ensure a 1 1 7 f i n a l crop of 200 stems /ha. The number of trees selected for the f i r s t l i f t should be higher than the number of trees for the second or f i n a l l i f t . Determination of superior trees at an early age is d i f f i c u l t , hence selection of an additional 50 to 100 trees, depending, on stand density, w i l l probably provide for t h i s problem. For the f i r s t pruning a larger number of trees than recommended can be pruned for other purposes such as f i r e protection, to prevent ground f i r e s from spreading into the crowns, or for game management. This type of pruning provides also an easier access in the stand i f thinning has to be ca r r i e d out (Williams, 1981). Some of t h i s extra cost might well be offset by the reduction in the costs of marking, measuring and travel time (Figure 30). 5. THINNING AND/OR FERTILIZATION AFTER PRUNING Thinning after pruning i s necessary i f i t i s done in a closely.spaced stand or i f crown closure has already taken place. An extreme example can be taken from New Zealand where some researchers recommend that the residual number of stems/ha after pruning should be 200. If slow growing trees cannot be pruned economically, a l o t of attention should be given increasing growth rate. Wide spacing and or thinning are the most e f f i c i e n t tools to achieve t h i s objective. If 400 stems/ha are planted at 5 m x 5 m, consideration should be given to removing unpruned trees in a commercial thinning around 35- years. Mean DBH w i l l be about 40 cm on the 118 119 U.B.C.R.F. s i t e (data from DFSIM). This i s a theoret i c a l recommendation, and further research should be done to increase our knowledge about wide spacings and their potentials for thinning. DFSIM simulations have already shown that t h i s potentials exist and i s f a i r l y substantial (Smith,.1984). F e r t i l i z a t i o n is another means to increase wood production and also to compensate for a decrease of growth rate after heavy pruning. Kramer (1976) observed that f e r t i l i z a t i o n after pruning improved crown development and that the increment of pruned trees was two to three times higher for the upper diameter class than for the lower diameter c l a s s . F e r t i l i z a t i o n increased increment of pruned trees by 20% compared to pruned but not f e r t i l i z e d trees. The pruned and f e r t i l i z e d trees had a higher higher volume increment than the control trees. F e r t i l i z a t i o n i s c e r t a i n l y a way to overcome or minimize pruning shocks, but i t has not been proved to date that i t i s economically f e a s i b l e . Here also more research i s needed. 6. CLEARWOOD RECOVERY IN PRUNED TREES McBride (1961) observed the lumber grades recovered from 49 years old Douglas-fir in a stand of SI 140, pruned 28 years before. These trees were f i r s t pruned to d i f f e r e n t height from 4 to 7 m, they were 21 years old and had an average DBH of 27 cm. Pruned trees yielded an average of 20% of clear lumber, compared to v i r t u a l l y no clear for the unpruned trees. It i s also important to outline that these trees were not thinned and therefore could not grow an optimum quantity of clearwood. The 120 faster growing trees must be pruned in order to maximize benefits of pruning. The trees which grew at a rate of 7.5 mm (DBH) per year produced 32% of clear lumber. This a considerable result for a 49 years old Douglas-fir which under natural condition would have only produced knotty lumber. In another study, Dimock (1962) looked at the veneer recovery from pruned Douglas-fir. Trees were pruned 20 years before harvesting when the stand was 60 years old. Grade A veneer averaged 10% of t o t a l recovery. If pruning has been done e a r l i e r , recovery of grade A would have represented the major portion of the t o t a l . These two studies have shown how important the benefit of pruning can be and pruning of the faster growing trees, not over 20 years, could be a p r o f i t a b l e operation in the best Douglas-f i r stands. 7. HEALING OF BRANCH BUTT AND ITS RELATED HAZARD Healing of branch butt i s not a problem for fast growing trees. After two growing seasons most pruning scars were healed in a widely spaced stand of Douglas-fir (Polge, 1969). The same observation was reported by Lehtpere (1957) in a denser plantation, but scars were smaller because of the smaller branches. The importance of tree age, density and s i t e i s enhanced by Stein's statement: "most wounds healed over 13 years These trees were on a poor s i t e , were 28 years old when pruned and were not thinned. This c l e a r l y shows the benefits of fast 121 growing and young trees. I have observed pruned Douglas-fir, 15 to 20 years old, on Vancouver island, which showed a very fast healing only 2.5 months after treatment (Figure 31 b). These stands were also spaced at 5 m x 5m immediately after pruning. The younger the stand the faster is the healing. It does not seem that branch diameter i s a strong influence on healing time. In a study done at Wind River Anderson (1951) showed that on average, the healed knots were as large, or larger, than the unhealed knots in most case. But stub length greatly affected healing time, the shorter the stub, the quicker i t i s healed over. Serious fungi attacks r e s u l t i n g from pruning were never reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . Stein (1955) stated that no decay has been found under pruning wounds of Douglas-fir, even with the long period of healing required on t h i s s i t e . Infection by heart-rotting fungi can occur through pruning wounds of l i v e branches and are more common in spring pruned trees than in f a l l pruned trees. However, most of these infections remain small and i n c i p i e n t , and die soon after the pruning wounds are closed (Child, 1956). Pruning can be done at about any time, keeping in mind that everything should be done to ensure a fast healing and that l i v e branch wounds are healing faster than dead branch wounds. F a l l or winter pruning is probably safest, as I have observed that young Douglas-fir with thin bark may suffer, during the growing season, from bark peeling by pruning tools (Figure 31 a). Pruning can be done in v i r t u a l l y any season and t h i s i s 122 F i g u r e 31 a. Pruning wound, b. H e a l i n g of pruning s c a r a f t e r 2.5 months 123 p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e during seasons of low labour a c t i v i t y . The development of epicormic branches is common in Douglas-f i r i f the canopy is opened, but the evidence i s that thin barked intermediate and suppressed trees sprout more profusely once exposed to much li g h t (Kachin, 1940). Echstein (1974) showed that intensive pruning could induce the formation of epicormic sprouts. Pruning was executed at age 42 at d i f f e r e n t i n t e n s i t i e s , 50, 60 and 70% of tree height and the percentage of trees with epicormic sprouts was, respectively, 35.7, 43.2 and 57.1%. We should note that pruning height reached 20 m and was probably much too high. Isaac (1945) observed that 15% of trees with only 1/4 of their l i v e crown length l e f t developed epicormic sprouts, while none were observed on trees which kept 50% of their l i v e crown. In the same stand and only two years after pruning, epicormic sprouts and branches developed from sprouts were observed only in the group where 75% of the l i v e crown was pruned (Stein, 1955) . Thus pruning up to 50% should not cause any damage due to epicormic sprouts. Sunscald seems to be a more serious problem under certain conditions. In the experiment reported by Stein 12% of trees had sunscalds in the 50% group and 33% in the 75% group. Sunscald damage to trees pruned in 1954 was also described by Haynes (1958) at the U.B.C.R.F. These stands were located on a southerly 20 to 50% slope. In 1984 some pruned hemlocks s t i l l had open scars as much as 3m long and 0.05 m wide but a l l 1 24 Douglas-fir scars had healed. The topography might have been of some importance as the trees were severely exposed to sun. It i s d i f f i c u l t to know the exact cause of t h i s damage, probably a combination of thin bark and sun exposure or even the sudden severe frost of November 11, 1955. No sunscald damage was reported in France or in Germany. However attention should be given to t h i s potential hazard, and stand exposure should be considered before prescribing pruning intensity. 8. PRUNING AND STAND HEALTH Douglas-fir can be subject to infection by dwarf mistletoe. This plant f i r s t attacks branches and progresses slowly to the stem. Thus pruning of the lower branches can prevent i n f e c t i o n . Proper spacing, fast growth and pruning w i l l minimize opportunities for mistletoe to invade stems from infected branches. Parmeter and Scharpf (1983) did not expect stem infection to be a serious problem in stands of well spaced pruned and properly managed Douglas-fir. Pruning allows a better a i r c i r c u l a t i o n in the stand and has a possible po s i t i v e effect on stand health by reducing fungi a c t i v i t y (Bessieres, 1983). 1 25 9. PRUNING TECHNIQUES 9.1 How To Prune Branches must be cut as close as possible to the bole, but in any case neither the bark nor the c a l l u s margin should be damaged to ensure an optimal cambial a c t i v i t y for a rapid healing (Figure 32 a). It i s often d i f f i c u l t to prune big branches without tearing apart a piece of bark and leaving a large wound. In this case the operation should be done in two stages (Figure 32 b). This problem i s reduced i f young trees with their small l i v e branches are pruned. 10. PRUNING TOOLS 10.1 Hand Tools There are two main type of tools, pruning saws and pruning shears (Figures 33 abc, 34 abed, 35 ab and 36 ab). -Pruning shears (Figure 34) are the most useful for low pruning up to 2 to 3 meters. They are very e f f i c i e n t for branches less than 2.5 cm in diameter. The cutting action of the two blades leaves a sharp cut and never damages bark. Several type of shears are on the market. The shears shown in Figure 34 a, which have a m u l t i p l i c a t i o n e f f e c t , can cut branches up to 3.5 cm and are easier to operate, but they leave branch butts 2 to 5 mm long. For high pruning, shears can be mounted on a pole (Figures 34 cd and 35 a) but they were found d i f f i c u l t to operate, 126 Figure 32 - Pruning techniques 127 Figure 33 - Pruning saws 128 Figure 34 - Pruning shears Figure 35 - Pruning tools on poles 130 Figure 36 - Cutting action of pruning shears 131 requiring a lot of e f f o r t to place the shears at the right position. It i s often d i f f i c u l t to cut the f i r s t branches in a whorl. Due to the large size of pruning shears, they are not ea s i l y introduced between branches. They are also time consuming as the operator must turn around the tree to prune i t s branches, because they can be used on one side only. -Pruning saws are the most widely used pruning tools and t i l l now are the most e f f e c t i v e for high pruning. Different types of saw exist (Figures 33 and 35 ab) but the most popular is s t i l l the curved pruning saw. Double blade saws (Figure 33 c) are often too bulky to be inserted in a whorl. Pruning saws can be mounted on poles and then pruning i s e a s i l y done up to 4 to 5 meters. Hand pruning remains the most e f f e c t i v e way to prune trees, operationally. I suggest that for a f i r s t l i f t up to 2 to 3 m pruning shears should be used. For a second l i f t up to 6 m the stand w i l l be already e a s i l y accessible and pruning saws on poles could be used. This probably w i l l be the most cost e f f e c t i v e way to prune. Higher pruning w i l l require a pruning saw and a ladder to climb the tree. Ladders are commonly used in New Zealand for high pruning and these could be purchased or s i m i l a r l y developed in B.C. However, pruning shears are more desirable than pruning saws for their better quality of work. Further research i s needed to improve tools. None of the tools shown in Figure 35 appeared to be superior to the pruning saw; they are either too heavy or could be operated on one side only. 1 32 10.2 Mechanical Tools The Tree Monkey was put on the market in 1966 and has been improved since then (Figure 37 a). It i s a heavy piece of equipment which requires two workers. It can not prune branches i f whorl diameter i s under 10 cm and i t requires p e r f e c t l y straight trees (Figure 37 b); otherwise long pieces of bark can be torn o f f . It can not be used under wet conditions as the bark becomes too slippery. Before using the Tree Monkey the lower part of the bole should be manually pruned. Douglas-fir can be mechanically pruned due to the thickness of i t s bark (Sachsse, 1973). However, in another study Sachsse (1983) found a higher number of wounds than was f i r s t expected from a vis u a l inspection. Only 12.5% of Douglas-fir were wound free. The main damaging factors were bole crook and excessive branch swell. Most of the damage occurred over 8 meters, and the author did not recommend i t s use over 6.5 meters. Thus the Tree Monkey loses most of i t s advantage as pruning up to 6 m can be done e a s i l y by hand. Roussel (1983)' stated that the Tree Monkey can be economically used for pruning. However this i s done under a conservative s i l v i c u l t u r a l regime. This involved pruning at age 30 (DBH=20 cm) up to 12 m in one l i f t , as operating costs of the Tree Monkey are almost independant of pruning height, with harvest at age 120. -Pneumatic shears. This i s c e r t a i n l y the most interesting and most promising pruning tool available (Figure 38). 133 F i g u r e 37 - The KS 31 Tree Monkey 1 3 4 1 35 The quality of work i s excellent, as for any pruning shears, and pruning can be done over 6 metres without ladder. The work is much easier. Brossmann (1982) estimated an ergonomic improvement of 20 to 40%. Two to four hoses are linked to a small a i r compressor which weigh about 100 kg. Its only disadvantage, r e l i e s on compressor mobility. Use of compressors requires a good road infrastructure. It would not be very d i f f i c u l t to adapt a small vehicle to move the compressor i f i t were to be used on a wide scale. -Chain saws. Small chain saws can be used for low pruning (Figure 40). They are time e f f i c i e n t but bark wounds are e a s i l y made. The high rate of u t i l i z a t i o n during pruning operations results in frequent machine breakdowns. Small chain saws are also available for high pruning (Figure 39). Their weight, about 5 kg, might be a problem when used a for a long time. 11. PRUNING TIME A very small amout of good data are available. Most pruning time studies concern natural stands and can not be applied d i r e c t l y to a managed stand. Polge (1965) estimated mean pruning time for Pinus strobus to be 1.5 minutes up to 2 m, 2.5 minutes up to 3 m, 4 minutes up to 4 m, 6.5 minutes up to 5 m and 9.5 minutes up to 6 m. For the same species Keller (1968) reported 3 minutes up to 2.2 m, 4.75 minutes up to 3.3 m, 7 minutes up to 4.4 m and 8.5 minutes up to 5.5 m. Bessieres (1983) used another unit: metres of bole pruned per day per man. Pruning from 0 to 2.5-3 m: 325 to 375 1 36 m/day/man, from 2.5 to 6 m: 150m/day/man, from 6 to 9 m: 1OOm/day/man. Wetzel (1981) gave the following guidelines: pruning height (m) time (min./tree) 0 - 2.5 4.5 2 . 5 - 5 6 0 - 5 9 5 - 1 0 20 A l l these data are for hand pruning. Hedin (1982) found that, on average, 3.11 minutes per tree was required to prune Douglas-fir up to 3 to 3.5 m in a two-pass system, a f i r s t crew using small chainsaws removed the lower limbs and a second crew removed the higher branches with a pruning saw on telescoping extension poles. A Tree Monkey can prune about 40 trees a day (Roussel, 1983). Le Thery (1983) stated that 100 trees/day/man can be pruned with the pneumatic pruning shears. Brossman (1982) gave the following times for the same t o o l : 2 men crew 4 men crew min/tree : 6 5 4 3 6 5 4 3 stems/day: 110 132 165 220 220 264 330 440 From the data I have c o l l e c t e d in the U.B.C.R.F. spacing t r i a l s I obtained the following mean times for a l i f t from 2 to 4 m: spacing (meters): 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.6 time/tree (min.): 2.98 3.74 4.49 5.25 1 37 12. PRUNING COSTS It is not of much significance to use costs from the l i t e r a t u r e , as hourly salary, work conditions, and rate of interest fluctuate too much from one study to another. Costs w i l l be discussed in d e t a i l in the analysis of PRUNE output. The p r o f i t a b i l i t y of pruning was demonstrated in many studies. Shaw and Staebler (1952) stated that "pruning, when properly done, i s a sound investment. Therefore a r t i f i c i a l pruning in t h r i f t y , young stands should be widely encouraged". Smith (1954) showed that pruning i s a safe and pr o f i t a b l e investment and that largest returns may be expected when rapidly growing trees are pruned at an early age and be accompanied where possible by thinning. Roussel (1983) estimated that pruning could generate a rate of return of 5.29% on investment. Simi l a r l y Karkkanen (1982) found an internal rate of interest of 5 to 6% for pruned logs of Pinus s y l v e s t r i s . Larger trees showed a better p r o f i t a b i l i t y than the small ones. The l i t e r a t u r e i s unanimous in saying that well planned pruning can be very p r o f i t a b l e i f at the same time emphasis is put on increasing the rate of growth per tree. The combination of wide spacing and pruning seems to offer a l l these p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 1 38 IX. SIMULATION MODEL: PRUNE 1 . PURPOSE OF THE MODEL A simulation model was b u i l t in order to investigate the many di f f e r e n t e x i s t i n g options and to determine what w i l l be the optimum regime, considering d i f f e r e n t spacing and diff e r e n t pruning i n t e n s i t i e s . Only 6,9,12 and 15 feet spacings can be simulated. Results generated by the model make possible a sensivity analysis. The simulation model incorporates results obtained in chapter VII to find maximum knot diameter and conclusions from chapter VI and VIII. However, the main objective in building this model was to give to the user a detailed output. Two main outputs are produced. The f i r s t one provides a l l the information on tree size, tree and stand volume and volume of clearwood obtained after pruning. The second one gives a l i s t of costs per hectare, per tree and per harvested pruned tree. This model i s semi-interactive. Thus the user i s asked to provide some information on stand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , pruning regime and their related basic costs. The input as well as the output are printed for immediate inspection. The model allows study of up to 5 l i f t s per run. This model was b u i l t in order to use the output generated 1 39 by a growth and y i e l d simulation model l i k e DFSIM. It i s calibrated for Douglas-fir on very good s i t e , but could e a s i l y be adapted to other s i t e s i f data become available. The simulation program is written in WATFIV-S using a main program c a l l i n g seven subroutines. 2. MAIN PROGRAM The main program sets up the problem by assigning the input and the output f i l e s , c a l l i n g the input routines, i n i t i a l i z i n g a l l counters, interacting with the user to get the main problem parameters: i n i t i a l spacing, f i n a l pruning height, percentage of defective trees not suitable for pruning. It then assigns a predetermined diameter frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n and c a l l s the dif f e r e n t subroutines: DISTRI, PRUNE, CORE, VOLUME, BRANCH and ECONO. It then prints the output. The output w i l l be described at the end of this chapter. 3. SUBROUTINE DISTRI Subroutine DISTRI i s c a l l e d at the very beginning of the program. It asks the user to enter stand age when pruned, i t s mean DBH and number of trees per hectare. Then using a diameter frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n from data c o l l e c t e d at the U.B.C.R.F. spacing t r i a l s (Smith, 1983 b) i t determines the range of diameter classes and the number of trees in each c l a s s . The two extreme diameter classes are computed as a function of mean diameter which is multiplied by a constant, which varies s l i g h t l y with spacing. For example, the smallest DBH is 0.4*DBH and the largest i s 1.6*DBH (Smith, 1984). Then average tree 140 height, for each diameter cl a s s , i s found by regression using th i s equation (regression on 44 averages, age 8 to 28): H=-5.116+0.9377*AGE+0.078631*DBH R=0.99 R2=0.99 SE=0.67 Note that height is assumed to be independant of spacing, here. 4. SUBROUTINE PRUNE Subroutine PRUNE asks the user for the number of trees to prune and then assigns these trees into the higher diameter classes, because i t i s assumed that only the fast growing trees w i l l be pruned. In each class a percentage of trees w i l l not be pruned i f a percentage of defective trees was spec i f i e d . Height to l i v e crown i s found for each diameter c l a s s . Four regression equations are used, one for each spacing. A common equation did not work very well due to di f f e r e n t crown l i f t i n g dynamics at each spacing. In dense stands the crown l i f t s f a i r l y early and regularly, while in wider spacings crown closure occurs later and then crowm l i f t s very rapidly to reach almost the same heights to l i v e crown observed in closed stands. I used the following set of equations (each regression on 9 averages from age 12 to 28): For 6 feet spacing: HLC=67.885+12.761*H-0.21433*H2-173.24*Log(H) R=0.99 R2=0.99 SE=0.33 For 9 feet (2.7 m) spacing: HLC=41.555+6.6347*H-0.090771*H2-98.471*Log(H) R=0.99 R2=0.99 SE=0.38 141 For 12 feet (3.6 m) spacing: HLC=22.574+2.1026*H-43.711*Log(H) R=0.99 R2=0.99 SE=0.33 For 15 feet (4.6 m) spacing: HLC=14.395+1.5463*H-29.638*Log(H) R=0.99 R2=0.98 SE=0.49 These equations r e f l e c t well the trend explained above. Crown length i s then found from tree height and height to l i v e crown. The subroutine prints a table showing height to l i v e crown and crown length. This table should be used as a guide to determine the pruning height as i t i s recommended not to prune more than 50% of the l i v e crown or to leave less than 40% of tree height with a l i v e crown. The user is then asked to enter pruning height of the planned l i f t . This pruning height i s used to compute the percentage of l i v e crown removed during the operation, as well as the length of core with dead and or l i v e branches. Length of core i s computed as well for unpruned trees for comparison purposes. This program is set for a maximum of 5 l i f t s , and the subroutine PRUNE does not allow the user to prune higher than i n i t i a l l y s p e c i f i e d . It i s not recommended to prune less than s p e c i f i e d , as f i n a l volumes of clearwood are computed on t h i s length. This check can be used to correct or suppress a l i f t . For example, i f the user realizes that stand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do hot allow him to prune up to the desired height he can enter a pruning height higher than the sp e c i f i e d one and subroutine PRUNE w i l l cancel t h i s l i f t and w i l l ask for new information. 1 42 5. SUBROUTINE CORE Subroutine CORE computes the volume of knotty core for each l i f t . For each diameter class the upper and lower diameter of the pruned log is found using a simple taper equation (Smith and Kozak, 1971). d2/D2=0.94825-1.33651(h/H)+0.38826(h2/H2) d = diameter inside bark at height h,(inches) h = height of d, feet D = DBH, inches H = tree height This formula requires conversion of metric units into imperial units. Bark thickness i s taken into account, and i s estimated to be 7% of d. Branch butt and thickness of wood needed before the f i r s t s h e l l of clearwood i s formed is estimated to be 5 cm (2.5 cm per r a d i i ) . Then volume of knotty core i s found using Smalian's formula: V=(S+s)*L/2, where S and s are the end areas and L is the length of the portion of log pruned during one l i f t . For each l i f t and for each diameter class containing pruned trees, volume of knotty core is computed. About 30 cm of log above ground i s reserved for a stump allowance. 6. SUBROUTINE VOLUME Subroutine VOLUME computes volume of clearwood produced and t o t a l volume at harvest age. It c a l l s subroutine HEIGHT to compute stand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s at harvest age: diameter cl a s s , tree height and number of trees per c l a s s . Then t o t a l volume 143 per tree per class is found using the following volume equation (Forestry Handbook, 1983): Log(v)=-4.319071+1.81382*Log(D)+1.04242*Log(H) where: V=whole tree volume inside bark, cm3 D=DBH, m H=tree height, m The f i n a l volume of each pruned log is found using the same procedure used in subroutine CORE to compute the knotty core volume. The same taper equation i s used to find the upper and lower diameter of the t o t a l length of pruned log and i t s volume is found using Smalian's equation. Final volume per class i s found by multiplying single tree volume per class by the number of trees in each cl a s s . The t o t a l volume at harvest age i s the sum of t o t a l volumes per cl a s s . To find t o t a l clearwood volume per class, volume of knotty core is put into a single column of an array. The f i r s t l i f t w i l l occupy the f i r s t column, the second one the second column, etc. The same method is used to find the f i n a l volume of the pruned log per tree. The columns containing knotty volume are added and then subtracted from columns containing f i n a l volume. This procedure makes i t possible to take into account di f f e r e n t growth rates among trees, p a r t i c u l a r l y when trees move from one diameter class to another. For example, some pruned trees w i l l drop from the higher to the second higher diameter 1 44 c l a s s . F i n a l l y t o t a l volume and percentage of clearwood per class and per hectare are computed. 7. SUBROUTINE HEIGHT Subroutine HEIGHT i s c a l l e d from subroutine VOLUME to find the diameter classes at harvest age and their corresponding height. This subroutine asks the user to provide top height (mean height of the 100 largest stems, by diameter, per hectare), mean height, mean DBH and number of trees per hectare. These data can be obtained from the DFSIM stand simulator (Curtis et a l . , 1981). Then an estimate of tree mortality among pruned trees should be given. Diameter classes are computed as in subroutine DISTRI. Then tree height is computed by i t e r a t i o n . The f i r s t 100 largest trees are found and their mean diameter i s computed. The difference between mean DBH of the 100 largest trees and mean stand DBH is related to the difference between top height and mean height. F i n a l l y , tree height per class can be found. Subroutine HEIGHT also assigns the number of pruned trees per clas s , taking into account the percentage of trees unsuitable for pruning, at harvest age, and reduces this number by the percentage of mortality among pruned trees. 8. SUBROUTINE BRANCH Subroutine BRANCH finds branch diameter inside bark to give an estimate of log qual i t y and to adjust pruning time. It asks for a mean DBH and number of trees at age 20 to 30, to f i t the regression equations found in my analysis on branch diameter. 145 As in subroutine DISTRI, subroutine BRANCH finds the various diameter classes. If dead branches are pruned, their maximum height is used to compute maximum branch diameter inside bark. I used the equation described before: DIB=1 .347 + 0.071642*DBH-0.056797*AGE+0.033284*HBR+0.0301 59*S DIB = maximum diameter inside bark, cm DBH = DBH, cm AGE = tree age from seed HBR = branch height, m S = spacing, feet If l i v e branches are pruned: DIB=0.53706+0.10308*DW DW = l i v e whorl diameter, cm (the pruned highest whorl) This diameter is the smaller maximum l i v e branch diameter, the largest branches of the la s t pruned whorl. Thus DIB of dead and l i v e branches gives the range of knot diameter that can be expected in the knotty core. 9. SUBROUTINE ECONO Subroutine ECONO computes a l l the costs related to pruning. A few data have to be given such as hourly salary, percentage overhead, e f f e c t i v e number of working hours per day and the rate of interest to consider. A regression equation has been developed to find the time required to prune trees at di f f e r e n t height and at di f f e r e n t spacings. Data were co l l e c t e d from various sources. The main ones were given by Polge (1965), who observed some relationships between pruning time and pruning 1 46 height. I have adapted th i s r e l a t i o n to the data I c o l l e c t e d by pruning 53 trees from 2 to 4 m at various spacings. The f i r s t basic equation using Polge's data i s : TIME=0.8405+0.21722*PH2 R=0.99 R2=0.99 SE=0.87 (regression on 12 means) TIME = pruning time, minutes PH = pruning height, m Then pruning time is weighted as a function of spacing: spacing Weighting factor 6 1.15 9 1 .44 12 1.73 15 2.02 These factors were found by comparison with my data. The combination gives the basic pruning time per tree. This basic pruning time i s adjusted again i f l i v e branches, which have a smaller diameter than dead branches, are pruned. The mean knot diameter i s found and pruning time i s adjusted according to the fact that pruning time increases with the branch diameter squared (Polge, 1969). Twenty seconds for traveling time between trees are added plus a f i v e minute break i s allowed for every 25 minutes of work. Total times resulting from these computations seem r e a l i s t i c compared to other sources of l i t e r a t u r e and to experience. To find t o t a l time needed to prune the desired number of trees, t o t a l time i s divided by the e f f e c t i v e number 1 47 of working hours which gives the number of man-days needed to prune. This number of days is multiplied by the costs per man day, which i s the hourly salary multiplied by eight hours plus the percentage allowed for overhead costs. F i n a l l y , costs per pruning operation per tree are computed as well as the t o t a l cost of a l l operations. A l l these costs are discounted to time of stand establishement at the given rate of interest. Discounted value is found using the formula: n Vo=Vn/(1+i) Vo = discounted cost, $ Vn = actual cost, $ i = rate of interest n = number of years to be discounted 10. OUTPUT Two kinds of output are printed, the f i r s t one is echoed on the screen, the other one i s assigned to an output f i l e . The output i s composed of three main parts: Part 1: This part prints an output for each pruning operation and a l l the main stand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are given per diameter c l a s s . Part 2: A table is produced where d e t a i l s are given at each preset harvest age, 40, 60 and 80 years. A summary shows t o t a l volume, t o t a l clear volume, percentage clearwood, number of remaining pruned trees and percentage mortality among pruned trees. Part 3: This l a s t part gives a l l the costs for each l i f t 1 48 and a summary table with t o t a l discounted cost, rate of interest and discounted cost per surviving pruned tree at each harvest age. With th i s output the user can estimate accurately log qua l i t y and top end log diameter, number of logs and costs related to pruning. With such data and comparisons of unpruned and pruned log values i t is possible to find what spacing and what pruning regime w i l l give the best returns. Results produced by PRUNE seem to be accurate enough to be used as a guide. Stand volumes computed by the model come very close to the volumes computed by DFSIM, within 10 m3 for t o t a l volume. The output was designed in order to provide f u l l information to the user. A sample output i s shown in the next pages (Table 14). The program i s included as Appendix B. ••3 tr S P A C I N G : 12 F E E T L E N G T H OF PRUNED L O G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S % D E F E C T T R E E S : 1 0 . 0 0 AGE WHEN P R U N E D : 1 2 H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 3 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 3 5 0 / H A Ul I tn 0) 3 •O t-> n> o c rt *0 C rt rt tr (V 3 o a ro w a 5 5 w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 4 . 5 7 6 . 5 0 14 0 0 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 2 . 2 9 0 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 9 . 6 8 8 . 2 2 1 . 2 5 0 . 8 6 0 . 0 0 6 . 18 6 . 6 2 2 6 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 9 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 3 1 9 . 3 8 1 . 5 7 0 . 9 8 0 . 0 0 7 . 7 9 6 . 7 5 1 0 0 0 0 . 5 2 O . O O 2 . 4 8 0 . 5 2 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 9 4 1 0 . 5 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 10 0 . 0 0 9 . 4 0 6 . 8 8 2 3 6 8 9 0 . 4 3 3 9 . 8 6 2 . 5 7 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 4 14 . 5 7 1 1 . 7 4 2 . 2 2 1 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 0 1 7 . 0 0 2 3 6 2 1 2 0 . 3 5 3 9 . 8 3 2 . 6 5 0 . 3 5 0 . 0 5 1 6 . 2 0 1 2 . 9 6 2 . 5 5 1 . 3 5 0 OO 1 2 . 6 2 7 . 13 4 7 42 0 . 2 8 3 9 . 7 4 2 . 7 2 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 5 1 7 . 8 3 1 4 . 19 2 . 8 8 1 . 4 8 0 , 0 0 1 4 . 2 3 7 . 2 6 8 7 0 . 2 1 3 9 . 6 1 2 . 7 9 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 6 1 9 . 4 7 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 2 0 1 . 6 0 O . 0 0 AGE WHEN P R U N E D : 18 H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER ! OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 3 0 0 / H A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 1 1 12 13 14 8 . 4 0 12 . 4 2 14 0 0 . 8 7 0 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 3 2 1 0 . 7 2 0 . 0 0 1. 12 1 . 2 8 1 1 . 3 7 12 . 6 6 2 6 0 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 9 1 12 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 1 . 3 3 1 5 5 1 4 . 3 3 1 2 . 8 9 9 8 0 1 . 15 0 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 . 5 2 1 4 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 5 1 . 8 2 1 7 . 3 0 1 3 . 12 2 3 1 4 5 3 . 0 0 2 9 . 6 3 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 15 1 7 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 1 . 77 2 . 0 9 2 0 . 2 7 1 3 . 3 6 2 3 1 2 0 7 3 . 0 0 2 8 . 9 7 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 10 22 . 8 0 1 9 . 2 4 0 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 2 . 3 6 2 3 . 2 3 1 3 . 5 9 4 6 41 3 . 0 0 2 8 . 3 3 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 13 2 5 . 4 6 21 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 2 . 22 2 . 6 4 2 6 . 2 0 1 3 . 8 2 8 7 3 . 0 0 2 7 . 7 2 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 16 28 . 14 2 3 . 7 0 O . O O 2 . 4 6 2 . 91 1 " D I A M E T E R C L A S S . D B H . C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T . M . 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S PER C L A S S PER 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED T R E E S PER HA 5 = H E I G H T TO L I V E CROWN. M. 6 = P E R C E N T A G E L I V E CROWN REMOVED HA WITH L I V E B R A N C H E S , M. WITH D E A D B R A N C H E S . M. M * * 3 . OF C O R E . C M . OF KNOTTY C O R E , C M . 12=MAXIMUM D E A D B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 1 3 = L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K . C M . 14=MAXIMUM L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 7 = L E N G T H OF CORE 8 = L E N G T H OF CORE 9 = V 0 L U M E OF CORE 10=LOWER D I A M E T E R 1 1=UPPER D I A M E T E R 10 11 12 H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 8 0 18 21 2 8 . . 8 0 10 0 17 . 6 0 15 . 0 9 0 . 3 1 3 . 0 8 0 . 13 0 OO 0 . 0 0 0 OO 24 6 4 31 . 12 18 0 2 3 . 8 3 2 0 6 9 0 . 5 8 10 . 4 0 0 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 31 0 7 3 3 . , 1 1 7 0 O 3 0 . 0 6 2 6 . 34 O . 9 4 6 5 . 6 7 0 . 3 8 o OO 0 . 0 0 O . O O 3 7 5 0 3 5 . 10 166 1 0 5 3 6 2 9 32 . 0 6 1 . 4 0 2 3 2 . 7 6 0 5 5 4 3 . 4 7 7 4 . 9 2 18 . 6 8 4 3 9 3 3 7 . 0 9 166 134 4 2 . 5 3 3 7 . 8 4 1 9 8 3 2 8 . 4 7 0 7 6 8 1 . 7 6 7 9 9 0 2 4 . 8 9 5 0 3 6 3 9 . . 0 8 3 3 2 6 4 8 . 7 7 4 3 . 6 7 2 . 6 8 8 8 . 3 4 1 . 0 1 21 . 3 7 8 1 3 9 24 . 19 5 6 . . 7 9 4 1 . 4 0 6 4 5 5 . 0 1 4 9 . 5 9 3 . 5 3 21 . 2 1 1 2 9 4 2 7 8 2 . 6 4 2 0 . 14 2 4 5 8 4 3 9 7 7 3 2 3 . 8 2 21 . 6 1 0 . 8 2 5 . 7 7 0 2 4 0 . . 3 7 5 1 18 6 . 4 9 3 3 2 5 4 5 9 6 13 9 32 . 2 3 2 9 3 7 1 4 9 19 . 4 1 0 . 4 5 2 9 6 7 3 . 4 5 1 5 . 2 6 41 9 3 4 7 94 51 3 8 4 0 . 6 4 3 7 . 19 2 . 3 8 121 . 16 0 . . 7 2 2 2 22 81 7 6 18 3 4 5 0 6 0 4 9 7 0 1 2 0 9 1 4 9 . 0 6 4 5 . 0 5 3 4 7 4 1 6 . 34 1 0 5 8 1 4 6 8 5 . 6 4 19 5 6 5 9 . 2 7 51 . . 4 6 1 2 0 9 1 5 7 . 4 8 5 2 . 9 4 4 . 7 9 5 7 5 . 2 5 1. 44 1 16 5 5 8 9 . 0 2 2 0 . 2 6 6 7 9 5 5 3 44 24 17 6 5 . . 9 0 6 0 . 8 9 6 . 3 9 1 5 3 32 1 9 0 2 8 9 7 8 9 8 4 18 . 9 0 7 6 6 2 5 5 . 4 3 4 2 74 . 32 6 8 . 8 8 8 2 5 3 3 . 0 0 2 . 4 2 4 . 3 9 9 0 , 7 3 1 3 . 3 0 2 9 9 7 5 6 10 5 3 2 9 . 0 7 2 6 . 9 7 1 . 5 2 7 . 6 1 0 . . 37 0 . 6 6 5 9 . 4 8 8 . 6 9 4 0 . 5 5 5 7 5 9 10 7 3 9 . 34 3 6 . 5 6 2 . 7 1 2 7 . 0 7 0 . 6 8 3 7 1 7 7 . 91 13 . 6 9 51 . 12 5 9 . 22 3 9 2 8 4 9 . 6 0 4 6 . 2 0 4 . 24 165 . 4 8 1. 0 8 2 6 . 1 1 8 6 . 13 15 . 7 8 6 1 7 0 6 0 . 7 0 9 3 6 6 5 9 . 8 7 5 5 . 8 7 6 12 5 6 9 . 5 0 1. 5 8 9 4 3 7 9 0 . 5 0 16 . 5 7 72 2 8 6 2 18 9 3 6 6 7 0 . 14 6 5 . 5 7 8 . 3 7 7 7 8 . 14 2 17 132 . . 6 0 9 2 . 5 0 17 . 0 4 8 2 8 5 6 3 8 1 18 12 8 0 . 4 1 7 5 . 3 0 1 1 . 0 1 198 . 22 2 8 6 31 . 94 9 3 . 0 9 16 . 12 9 3 . 4 3 6 5 , 3 0 3 1 9 0 . 6 8 8 5 . 0 5 14 . 0 3 4 2 . 0 8 3 6 4 3 . 42 9 3 . 8 4 8 . 12 o 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S , D B H . C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T . M. 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S P E R C L A S S / H A . 4=NUMBER OF P R U N E D T R E E S / H A . 5=L0WER D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 6 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 7 = V 0 L U M E P E R T R E E P E R C L A S S . M * * 3 . 8 = T 0 T A L VOLUME P E R C L A S S , M * * 3 . 9 = V 0 L U M E OF P R U N E D L O G . M * * 3 . 1 0 = T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME P E R C L A S S . ( P R U N E D L O G ) , M * * 3 . 1 1 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R . I N P R U N E D L O G , P E R C L A S S 1 2 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R PER C L A S S H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 T O T A L V O L U M E 7 4 9 . 9 1 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME 1 5 0 . 8 7 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 2 0 . 12 H OF P R U N E D T R E E S 2 6 9 % M O R T . & D E F E C T 1 0 . 0 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 T O T A L VOLUME 1 3 2 4 . 2 5 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME 2 5 6 . 9 3 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 19 4 0 ft OF P R U N E D T R E E S 25 1 % MORT . 8. D E F E C T 15 .OO H A R V E S T A G E : 8 0 T O T A L V O L U M E n u n i n T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R too p i ic i n * OF P R U N E D T R E E S % MORT & D E F E C T 1p T no AA P R U N I N G C O S T * C O S T PER M A N - D A Y : $ 7 8 . O O * $ / H R S : 7 . 5 0 * E F F E C T I V E # OF H R S / D A Y : 7 . 5 * % O V E R H E A D : 3 0 . 0 ******+*************+***************** •PRUNING U P T O : 3 . 0 M E T E R S P R U N I N G T I M E PER T R E E ( M I N ) : 2 . 6 T O T A L P R U N I N G T I M E ( H O U R S ) : 2 0 . 8 T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : 2 1 6 . 2 9 C O S T PER T R E E ( $ ) : 0 . 6 T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : 1 2 0 . 4 4 D I S C . C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : 0 . 3 4 ******************************+******* •PRUNING UP T O : 6 . 0 M E T E R S • P R U N I N G T I M E PER T R E E ( M I N ) : 7 . 8 T O T A L P R U N I N G T I M E ( H O U R S ) : 4 8 . 9 T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : 5 0 8 . 8 1 C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : 1 . 7 T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : 2 1 1 . 4 3 D I S C . " C O S T PER T R E E ( $ ) : 0 . 7 0 D I S C O U N T E D C O S T : $ 3 3 1 . 9 R A T E OF I N T E R E S T : 5 . 0 % ********+*************************+*** • • • D I S C O U N T E D C O S T PER H A R V E S T E D PRUNED T R E E : • • H A R V E S T AGE 4 0 : $ 1 . 2 3 ••HARVEST AGE 6 0 : $ 1 . 3 2 ••HARVEST AGE 8 0 : $ 1 . 8 1 1 52 X. ECONOMICS OF SPACING AND PRUNING To analyse the p r o f i t a b i l i t y of spacing and pruning we must know the probable price/size gradient and the l i k e l y premium paid for pruned logs. The Vancouver log market provides t h i s kind of information. Prices per cubic metre are given by grades. I w i l l use A p r i l 18, 1984 data for my c a l c u l a t i o n . Table 16 - Vancouver Log Market Grades and Prices ($/m 3). A p r i l 18, 1984 Descr ipt ion L(m) Top D Ring Knots Price (cm) width (max. $/m3 max. diam.) (mm) * No. 1 5.2 76.2 3.33 few 4 cm, 129 Peeler 1 >4 cm No. 2 5.2 60.9 3.33 spaced 86 Peeler 4 cm No. 3 5.2 38. 1 4.00 spaced 60 Peeler 4 cm No. 1 4.9 76.2 3.33 few 4 cm 101 Lumber No. 2 4.9 30.5 6.67 few, 5 cm 49 Sawlog on upper 1/3 length ** No. 3 3.7 38. 1 - 8 cm 42 Sawlog No. 4 4.9 10.2 - 6 cm 31 Sawlog Note: *outer 1/3 diam i. (top end);** for min. log radius The main requirements for log grading are l i s t e d in Table 153 16. For my analysis I w i l l use the size s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to evaluate the premium obtained for pruned log. At least 50% clear i s required in logs to be c l a s s i f i e d as a peeler or a No. 1 Lumber. Under normal conditions and rotations no second growth Douglas-fir can meet this requirement unless pruned (Table 17). Table 17 - Percentage log grade d i s t r i b u t i o n by cubic volume recovered for four stands of Douglas-fir. Dobie (1966) Stand age Log grade 63 86 106 145 No. 3 Peeler -- ~ 3 13 No. 4 Peeler 8 18 10 12 or SFP* NO. 2 Sawlog — 6 40 27 No. 3 92 76 47 48 * Suitable for peeling. Also i t i s l i k e l y that very few trees w i l l meet the requirement for ring width. In the following analysis I w i l l not take into account this l a s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n , because i t is most l i k e l y to be relaxed. This analysis remains, however, very conservative, because there i s no information in North America to evaluate the premium paid for pruned logs. Pruned logs may have up to 90% clearwood and probably w i l l command a much higher price as than shown in Table 16. 1 54 1 . DISCOUNTED REVENUE Revenue should be discounted in order to be compared with the output of the model. I have chosen a rate of interest of 5%, which i s widely used for this kind of analysis. Prices shown in Table 16 are discounted for 40, 60 and 80 years to make Table 18. Table 18 - Discounted prices at 5% rate of interest Peeler Lumber & Sawlog No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 $/m 3 88 74 62 67 51 44 32 40 yrs| 18.32 | 12.21 | 8.52 1 4.34 | 6.96 | 5.96 | 4.40 60 yrs | 6.90 | 4.60 | 3.21 5.40 | 2.62 | 2.24 | 1 .65 80 yrs| 2.60 | 1 .73 | 1.21 2.03 | 0.98 | 0.84 | 0.62 2. COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS Table 18 shows the discounted price per cubic metre per log. In the model output we can f i n d the log top diameter, i t s length and i t s volume. For each harvest age we know the number of pruned logs per diameter cl a s s , thus we can c l a s s i f y each log in i t s appropriate grade. Percentage clearwood for the pruned log and maximum knot diameter for unpruned logs are also ava i l a b l e . I w i l l calculate the value obtained at each spacing for each harvest age, for s i t e s 40 and 50 m at 50 years, for the pruned logs only and their equivalent value, i f not pruned. Top logs and residuals trees are assumed to have the same value in both cases. 1 55 This method compares s t r i c t l y the same volume and logs of the same s i z e . In the various simulation runs I have used the same stand parameters for each spacing (percentage defect trees and percentage mortality among pruned trees). The variuos outputs of PRUNE are in Appendix C. Details of calculations for each spacing are given in Appendix D (Tables 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28). A summary of these tables is given in Table 19. Table 19 - Revenue per hectare generated by pruning. Spac ing Age SI 1 40 .8 m SI 50 SI 2 40 . 7 m SI 50 SI 3 40 . 6 m SI 50 SI 4 40 . 6 m SI 50 40 0 .0 60.3 0 .0 53.0 7. 6 208.2 20 .5 227.0 60 23 .9 1 74.3 77 .9 165.6 85. 6 223. 1 96 .7 301 .5 80 52 .0 88.6 49 .7 147.4 74. 6 198.0 1 1 2 .6 281 . 1 From Table 18 on both s i t e s the widest spacings appear to make the highest return. There i s a very clear s i t e e f f e c t on revenue, the higher the s i t e index the better the returns. On the excellent s i t e (SI 50) the higher returns for a l l spacings occur at a rotation age of 60 years. Returns decrease more slowly after reaching their maximum for wide spacing than for close spacing. On the good s i t e (SI 40) the optimum rotation age is at 80 years for the closest and the widest spacings and at 60 years for the two others. On both s i t e s the premium for piece size i s very important. For example at 4.6 m spacing on s i t e 40 at 80 years, the premium, resulting from volume increment between 60 and 80 years, i s such that i t of f s e t s the 1 56 additional cost of interest compounded for 20 years. If we look at the costs, for SI 50, we have the following prices for two pruning regimes, pruning up to 6 m in one l i f t at 18 years or in two l i f t s at 12 and 18 years. An EBAP wage of $300 per week plus 30% overhead was used to find pruning costs. Table 20 - Discounted cost of pruning and pruning regime. Discounted cost of pruning ($/ha) spacing (m) one l i f t two l i f t s 1.8 307.3 376.8 2.7 299.8 374.1 3.6 280.7 331.9 4.6 312.7 353.7 Pruning regime (Number of trees pruned) spacing (m) one l i f t two l i f t s 1 2 1.8 400 450 - 400 2.7 350 400 - 350 3.6 300 350 - 300 4.6 300 350 - 300 It i s interesting to note that pruning costs are f a i r l y similar in a l l spacings. The larger number of trees to be pruned in a f i r s t l i f t in close spacings i s compensated by thicker branches in wider spacings. Costs would have been diminished i f pruning was delayed by 10 or more years, but this would reduce the amount of clear produced and pruning of dead branches do not improve tree form and wood qu a l i t y . This loss 1 57 in quantity and quality, however d i f f i c u l t to evaluate, would probably not be compensated by reduced costs. Only the two widest spacings can generate enough revenue to pay for the cost of pruning. However, th i s approach i s conservative and higher revenue can be expected for pruned logs. In Europe pruned logs command a price double that of unpruned logs. Thus pruning, i f done on the best s i t e s and with widely spaced trees, would probably be a sound investment for the future. This analysis also shows that close spacing w i l l not produce any clearwood and i s the most expensive spacing to prune because of low returns. Considerable returns w i l l be obtained i f we compare a closely spaced stand (2.7 m or 9 f e e t ) , to keep small branch diameters, and a widely spaced and pruned stand (4.6 m or 15 f e e t ) . The difference in log value at a rotation age of 60 years (SI 50) w i l l be $ 266 (Tables 19 and 22) to which we have to add the savings generated from the planting costs which w i l l amount to $ 739 ($ 1164-$425). I assumed a cost of 85 cents per seedling (Smith, 1984). This option results in a p r o f i t of about $700/ha. Compared to a 1.8 m (6 feet) spacing and with the same assumptions the p r o f i t w i l l be about $2200/ha. Widely spaced and pruned trees appear to not only produce a high qu a l i t y wood but also should give the best returns on investment. However, methods used here should be extended to determine s e n s i t i v i t y of returns from pruning investments to interest rates, to costs of pruning, planting, weeding, and 158 juvenile spacing and to change in premiums from current and potential new log grades that would f u l l y r e f l e c t the values from pruning. 159 XI. CONCLUSION High quality clearwood w i l l become scarce in the near future and i t i s l i k e l y that demands for high grade lumber w i l l remain high. Therefore, we can expect the trend in price d i f f e r e n t i a l s between clear and construction grades to continue. To economically produce a large quantity of clearwood, Douglas-fir should be planted at wide spacing and should be pruned early. Wide spacing results in better s i t e u t i l i s a t i o n and better tree growth to achieve large piece size. The disadvantages of wide spacing are r e l a t i v e l y minor compared to the gains. Furthermore, i f these trees are pruned early their form and wood qua l i t y w i l l be greatly improved. Comparison of costs of cl o s e l y spaced stands, to reduce knot diameter, and costs of widely spaced and pruned trees has shown that i t is much more pr o f i t a b l e to grow trees under the second option. In the future Douglas-fir stands on higher quality s i t e s should be planted at wide spacings and pruned to ensure the highest returns. However, new data are needed to quantify the extra costs of stand tending and reduced establishment costs at wide spacings. Analyses of s e n s i t i v i t y of benefits from pruning 160 to various costs and premium structures should be made in order to define optimum regimes. 161 REFERENCES ANDERSON, E. A., 1951. Healing time for pruned Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Madison, Wis. Report No. R1907. 17 pp. BANDROWSKI, S. S., 1979. Canadian Forest Products in the aftermath of the General Agreements on T a r i f f s and Trade. Ottawa, Canada. 18pp. BEBB, D. C , 1984. Regimes and opportunities for thinning and pruning of intensively managed stands on the U.B.C.R.F. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. B.S.F. Thesis. 53 pp. BESSIERES, F., 1983. L'elagage des arbres f o r e s t i e r s . B u l l . Tech. O.N.F. No. 14: 35 - 58. BREDENKAMP, B. V., J. S. J. VENTER and H. HAIGH, 1983. Early respacement and fewer thinnings can increase p r o f i t a b i l i t y of coniferous sawtimber production. South African Forestry Journal No. 124: 36 - 42. BRITISH COLUMBIA FOREST SERVICE, 1963-1981. Annual Reports. BRITISH COLUMBIA FOREST SERVICE, 1957. Continuous Forest Inventory of B r i t i s h Columbia Phase 1957. BRITISH COLUMBIA FOREST SERVICE, 1975. Forest Inventory S t a t i s t i c s of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973. BROSSMANN, 1982. Das Asten von Waldbaumen mittels handgefuhrter Druckluft-Scheren. A.F.Z. 49: 1506. BROWN, G. S., 1962. Stages in branch development and their r e l a t i o n to pruning. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Vol 8(2): 608 - 622. CAMPBELL, R., 1983. Seaboard. Personal communication. CHAPITAL, D., 1983. COFI. Personal communication. 162 CHERNOFF, L. J., 1980. F e a s i b i l i t y of pruning. Univ. of B.C.,Fac. of For. B.S.F. Thesis. 59pp. CHILDS, T. W. and E. WRIGHT, 1956. Pruning and occurrence of heart rot in young Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. and Rang. Expt. Sta. Res. Note No. 132. 5pp. CHINH, L., 1984. Equality of slope t e s t . Univ. of B.C., Computing Centre. 10 pp. COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1982. B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Industry. S t a t i s t i c a l Tables. Vancouver. 6pp. COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1981. Relationships between 1981 B.C. Coast statutory log grades and pre-1981 grades. C.T.G.R.E.F., 1977. Compte-rendu d un essai de materiels d'elagage dans un jeune peuplement de sapins. R.F.F. No. 2: 137 - 142. CURTIS, R. 0., G. W. CLENDENEN and D. J. DEMARS, 1981. A new stand simulator for coast Douglas-fir: DFSIM User's guide. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. and Rang. Exp. Sta. PNW - 128. 79 pp. DIMOCK, E. J. and H. H. Haskel, 1962. Veneer grade y i e l d from pruned Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. Exp. Sta. Res. Paper No. 48. 15 pp. DOBIE, J., 1978. Trends in premium for wood quality , size and species. Regimes (options) for management of plantations and natural stands. Proceedings, Univ. of B.C., Res. For. conf.: 9 24. DOBIE, J., 1966. Product y i e l d and value, f i n a n c i a l rotations and b i o l o g i c a l relationships of good s i t e Douglas-fir. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For., M.F. Thesis. 141 pp. DOBIE, J . , J . B. KASPER and D. M. WRIGHT, 1975. Lumber and chip values from B.C. Coast tree and log classes. Western Forest Products Laboratory. 47 pp. 1 63 ECKSTEIN, E., 1974. Gefahr fur den Astungerfolg bei der Douglasie. A.F.Z. No. 29: 1032 - 1034. ELLIOT, G. K., 1 970. Wood properties, s i l v i c u l t u r e and genetics. Forestry 43, supplement,: 12 - 21. GERISHER, G. F. R. and A. M. DE VILLIERS, 1963. The effect of heavy pruning on timber properties. Forestry in South A f r i c a No. 3: 1 5 - 4 1 . GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 1979. Review of the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Industry Trade and Commerce, Ottawa. 268 pp. HALEY, D., 1964. Past demand and future prospects for Canadian Douglas-fir. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For., M.F. Thesis. 121 pp. HARLOW, W. M., E. S. HARRAR and F. M. WHITE, 1978. Textbook of dendrology. McGraw H i l l . 510 pp . HEDIN, I. B., 1982. Pruning Douglas-fir on coastal B r i t i s h Columbia. . FERIC. Vancouver. IR 383-1. 8 pp. HELMERS, A. E., 1946. Effect of pruning on growth of western white pine. J. of For. 44(9): 673 - 679. HOSIE, R. C , 1969. Native trees of Canada. Can. For. Service, 7 th ed. 380 pp. ISAAC, L. A., 1945. Results of pruning to di f f e r e n t heights in young Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. Exp. Sta. Res Notes No. 33. 2 pp. KACHIN, T., 1940. Natural pruning in second growth Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Pac. N.W. For. Exp. Sta. Res. Note No. 31. 1 pp. KARKKAINEN, M., 1982. Results on sawing pruned pines. F o l i a F o r e s t a l i a No. 520. 19 pp. KELLER,R., 1968. L'elagage a r t i f i c i e l de branches vivantes sur resineux. R.F.F. No. 718: 458 - 473. 1 64 KENK, G. and U. WEISE, 1983. Erste Ergebnisse von Douglasien-Pflanzverbandsversuchen in Baden-Wurttemberg. A.F.J.Z. v o l . 154(3): 41 - 55. KENK, G. and P. UNFRIED, 1980. Astarken in Douglasienbestanden. A.F.J.Z. v o l . 151(11): 201-210'. KENNEDY, R. W., 1982. Stress grading of Canadian softwood lumber. Timber engineering. The i n s t i t u t e of wood science Australian branch. 14 pp. KER, J. W., J . H. G. SMITH and D. B. LITTLE, i960. Reforestration needs in the Vancouver Forest D i s t r i c t . Fac. of For. Univ. of B.C.,. Res. Paper No. 36. 19 pp. KLINKA, K., 1976. Ecosystem units, their c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , interpretation and mapping in the Univ. of B.C.,R.F. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For., PhD Thesis. 622 pp. KOTOCK, E. S. , 1 951 . Shall we prune to provide peelers logs for the future? The Timberman 41(10): 104-109. KRAJINA, V. J., K. KLINKA and J. WORRALL, 1982. Dis t r i b u t i o n and ecological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of trees and shrubs of B r i t i s h Columbia. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 131 pp. KRAMER, H., 1983. Wachstum und Behandlung der Douglasie im pazifischen Nordwesten von Amerika. Schriften aus der For. Fak. Uni. Gottingen Band 75. 113 pp. KRAMER, H., 1976. Grunastung und Dungung bei Fichte. A.F.J.Z. v o l . 147(2/3): 25 - 33. KRAMER, H. and J. H. G. SMITH, 1984. Growth and management of Douglas-fir in B r i t i s h Columbia. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 18 pp dra f t . LEHTPERE, R., 1957. The influence of high pruning on the growth of Douglas-fir. Forestry No. 30: 9 - 2 0 . MANNING, G. H. and H. R. GRINNELL, 1971. Forest resources and u t i l i z a t i o n in Canada to the year 2000. Environment Canada. Forestry Service. 79 pp. 1 65 MAR:MOLLER, C.r 1960. The influence of pruning on the growth of conifers. Forestry No. 32: 37 - 53. MATSON, E. E., 1952a. Lumber grades from young-growth Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. and Ran. Exp Sta. Res. Notes No. 79. 2 pp. MATSON, E. E., 1952b. Lumber grades from Douglas-fir peeler logs. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. and Ran. Exp Sta. Res. Notes No. 83. 5 pp. McBRIDE, C. F., 1961. Lumber grades recovered from pruned Douglas-fir trees. The Forestry Chronicle 37(4): 390-393. Mc CONKEY, T. W., 1 965. White pine pruning and branch growth. U.S.F.S. Research Note N.E. 27. 6 pp. MEGRAW, R. A. and W. T. NEARN, 1972. Detailed DBH density of several trees from Douglas-fir f e r t i l i z e r / t h i n n i n g p l o t s . Proc. of the symposium on the effect of growth acceleration on property of wood. U.S.F.S. For. Pro. Lab. Madison. Wis.: G-1 - G-22. MIDAS, 1976. S t a t i s t i c a l Research Laboratory. Uni. of Michigan. 2 nd edi t i o n . 300 pp. MILLER, C. I., 1984. The effect of spacing on some symptoms of distorted growth in juvenile Douglas-fir. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. B.S.F. Thesis. 64 pp. MITSCHERLICH, G. and K. VON GADOW, 1968. Uber den Zuwachsverlust bei der Astung von Nadelbaumen. A.F.J.Z. v o l . 139(8): 175 - 184. MULLINS, E. J. and T. S. McKNIGHT, 1981. Canadian Woods, their properties and uses. Univ. of Toronto Press, 3 rd ed. 389 pp. NATIONAL LUMBER GRADES AUTHORITY, 1980. NLGA standard grading rules for Canadian lumber. Nat. Lumber Grades Authority, Ganges. 206 pp. NATIONAL LUMBER GRADES AUTHORITY, 1977. Canadian lumber grading manual. Nat. Lumber Authority, Vancouver. 126 pp. 166 OSBORN, J. E., 1967. Plant them wide, George. The Forestry Chronicle D e c : 389 • 392. PARKER, M. L., K. HUNT, W. G. WARREN and R. W. KENNEDY, 1976. Effect of thinning and f e r t i l i z a t i o n on i n t r a - r i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and kraft pulp y i e l d of Douglas-fir. Applied Polymer Symposium No. 28: 1075 - 1086. PARMETER, J. R. and R. F. SCHARPF, 1983. Stem infection by dwarf misttletoe in C a l i f o r n i a f i r s . U.S.F.S. Research paper P.S.W. 165. 6 pp. PECHMANN, VON. H. and H. COURTOIS, 1970. Schnittholzqualitat und Furnierung von Douglasien aus linksrheinischen Anbaugebieten. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt v o l . 89: 210 - 228. PECHMANN, VON. H. and H. COURTOIS, 1970. Untersuchung uber die Holzeigenschaften von Douglasien aus linksrheinischen Anbaugebieten. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt v o l . 89: 88 - 122. POLGE, H., 1976. Interet de l'elagage a r t i f i c i e l et modalites d'application. O.N.F. B u l l e t i n Technique. 27 pp. POLGE,H., 1969. Densite de plantation et elagage de branches vivantes. R.F.F. No. 2 1 : 4 5 1 - 466. POLGE, H., 1967. Premiers resultats de 1'experience d'elagage de branches vivantes d Epinal. R.F.F. No. 8/9: 530 - 546. POLGE, H., 1965. Quelques observations a propos de l'elagage des branches vivantes. R.F.F. No. 11: 718 - 733. POLGE, H., R. KELLER and F. THIERCELLIN, 1973. Influence de l'elagage de branches vivantes sur la structure des accroissements annuels et sur quelques caracteristiques du bois de Douglas et de Grandis. R.F.F. No. 2: 127 - 140. RANDOM LENGTHS, 1974-1983. Yearbook. Random lengths Publications, Eugene Oregon. REEB, D., 1983a. A review of Douglas-fir in France and West Germany and some preliminary impressions for improvment of i t s management in Northwest America. Directed Study Fac. of For. Univ. of B.C.,. 61 pp. 1 67 REEB, D., 1983b. Does the future of clearwood j u s t i f y a r t i f i c i a l pruning? Directed Study Fac. of For. Univ. of B.C.,. 85 pp. REED, F. L. C. and Associates, 1975. Selected s t a t i s t i c s of B r i t i s h Columbia. REUKEMA, D. C , 1959. Missing annual rings in branches of young growth Douglas-fir. Ecology No. 40: 480 - 482. REUKEMA, D. L., 1979. Fifty-year development of Douglas-fir stands planted at various spacings. U.S.F.S. Pac. N.W. For. and Ran. Exp. Sta. 21 pp. ROUSSEL, J. C , 1983. Scie grimpante et elagage des resineux. B u l l . Tech. O.N.F. No. 14: 59 - 68. SACHSSE, H., 1983. Untersuchung iiber die Nebenwirkungen der Klettersage "KS 31" auf Gesundheitszustand und Holzgiite von Douglasien. Forstarchiv (2): 62 - 69; (3): 107 - 114. SACHSSE, H., 1973. Wie reagiert die Douglasie auf maschinelle Wertastung? Forstarchiv v o l . 44(11): 237 -240. SAVILL, P. S. and A. J. SANDELS, 1983. The influence of early respacement on the wood density of sitka spruce. Forestry 56(2): 109 - 120. SHAW, E. W. and G. R. STAEBLER, 1952. An analysis of investment in pruning. Journal of Forestry 50(11): 819-823. SHIELDS, K. A., 1977. The competitive future of the B.C. building material sector. Report of proceedings of the B.C. Forest Industry planning conference: 99-117. SMITH, J. H. G., 1984. Personal communication. SMITH, J. H. G., 1983a. Planning for intensive forest management must use pric e / s i z e gradient. The Forestry Chronicle 59(5): 218. 168 SMITH, J. H. G., 1983b. Graphical summaries and data on the Univ. of B.C., Research Forest spacing t r i a l s (57-5) to age 26 and evaluations of results to date. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 79 pp. SMITH, J. H. G., 1983c. Personal communication. SMITH, J. H. G., 1980. Influences of spacing on ra d i a l growth and percentage latewood of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 10(2): 169 175. SMITH, J. H. G., 1978a. Intensive forestry on the West Coast. The Forestry Chronicle 54(3): 140-146. SMITH, J. H. G., 1978b. Analysis of variation in crown development as a basis for improvment of log and tree q u a l i t y . Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 15 pp. SMITH, J. H. G., 1977. Influence of spacing on bole quality to 20 feet. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 23 pp. SMITH, J. H. G., 1961. Relationship between tree spacing, knot size, and log quality in young Douglas-fir stands. Jour. of For. v o l . 59(9): 682 - 683. SMITH, J . H. G., 1954. The economics of pruning. The Forestry Chronicle 30(2): 197 - 214. SMITH, J . H. G. and R. W. KENNEDY, 1983. Effects of stand management on tree, log, and wood quality of Douglas-fir. Proc. SMITH, J . H. G. and A. KOZAK, 1971. Further analysis of form and taper of young Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, and s i l v e r f i r on the Univ. of B.C.,RF. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 8 pp. SMITH, J . H. G., J. W. KER and J. CSIZMAZIA, 1961. Economics of reforestation of Douglas-fir, Western hemlock and Western Redcedar in the Vancouver Forest D i s t r i c t . Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. For. B u l l e t i n No. 3. 144 pp. •169 SMITH, J. H. G. and J. WALTERS, 1961. Prune large, immature Douglas-fir now. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. Res. Notes No. 30. 6 pp. STAEBLER, G. R., 1964. Height and diameter growth for four years following pruning of Douglas-fir. Jour. of For. 62: 406. STAEBLER, G. R., 1963. Growth along the stems of f u l l crowned Douglas-fir trees after pruning to specified heights. Jour. of For. 61: 124 - 127. ST JOHN, B., 1983. McMillan Bloedel. Personal communication. STATISTICS CANADA, 1963-1982. Exports catalogue 65-202. Ottawa. STATISTICS CANADA, 1966-1982. Production, Shipment and Stocks on hand of sawmills in B.C. Catalogue 35-003. Ottawa. STEIN, W. I., 1955. Pruning to d i f f e r e n t heights in young Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry 53(5). 4 pp. SUTTON, W. R. J., 1984. New Zealand experience with Radiata pine. Univ. of B.C., the H. R. McMillan Lectureship in Forestry, February. SUTTON, W. R. J., 1968. Theoretical clearwood yields in pruning P^ Nigra and Ps. Menziessii . N.Z. Forest Service. S i l v i c u l t u r e Report No. 94. 16 pp. SUTTON, W. R. J. and J . B. CROWE, 1975. Selective pruning of Radiata pine. New Zealand Jour. of For. Science 5(2): 171 - 195. TRAVERS, O.R., 1967. Sachs climbing saw. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. Unpublished. 33 pp. U.B.C. FORESTRY CLUB, 1983. Forestry handbook for B r i t i s h Columbia Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. 611 pp. U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE, 1980. An assessment of the Forest and Range Land sit u a t i o n in the United States. 631 pp. 1 70 WALLIS, G. W., 1976. Phellinus w e i r i i . Root rot. Detection and management proposals in Douglas-fir stands. Env. For. Ser. Tech. Report No. 12. 16 pp. -WALTERS, J. and J. H. G. SMITH, 1973. Review of methods used in establishment and summary of early results from spacing t r i a l s on the Univ. of B.C., Research Forest. Univ. of B.C., Fac. of For. Project 57-5. 39 pp. WELCH, D. C , 1939. Pruning of selected crop trees in Douglas-fir. U.S.F.S. Pac. N. W. For. Exp. Sta. Res. Notes No. 27. 1 pp. WETZEL, J., 1981. Wertastung von Nadelbaumen. Merkblatter der Forstlichen Versuchs-und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Wurttemberg No. 20. 6 pp. WILLIAMS, M. R. W., 1981. Decision making in forest management. Reseach Study Press. 143 pp. WRIGHT, D. M. and J. DOBIE, 1977. Douglas-fir peelers 'very good investment'. B.C. Lumberman June. 2 pp. YOUNG, B., 1983. Canadian Forest Products. Personal communication. ZOBEL, B., E. THORBJORNSEN and F. HENSON, -1960. Geographic, s i t e , and individual tree variation in wood properties of l o b l o l l y pine. Silvae Genetica v o l . 9(6): 149 - 158. 171 APPENDIX A - LOG GRADES. SOURCE:COFI. FIR + PINE CEDAR A B C D H I J X Y 172 No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Peeler-Pee le r Pee le r Lumber Saw!og 3 Sawlog 4 Sawlog r) r) r ) r + r + r + r + r Pine) Pine) Pine) Pine) Pine) No. 5 U t i l i t y ( F i + i ) No. 6 Chipperwood ( F i r + Pine) D No. 1 Lumber F No. 2 Lumber H No. 2 Sawlog I No. 3 Sawlog J No. 4 Sawlog IC No. 1 Sh ing le L No. 2 Sh ing le M No. 3 Sh ing le X No. 5 U t i l i t y Y No. 6 Chipperwood HEMLOCK + BALSAM C 0 H I J X Y Balsam Pee le r No. No. No. No. No. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lumber (Hemlock Sawlog (Hemlock Sawlog (Hemlock Sawlog (Hemlock U t i l i t y (Hemlock Salsam) 3alsam) Balsam) Salsam) 5alsam) Chipperwood (Hemlock + Bals SPRUCE C Spruce Peeler 0 No. 1 Lumber E No. 1 Lumber Short F No. 2 Lumber G No. 2 Lumber Short H No. 2 Sawlog I No. 3 Saw!og — J No. 4 Sawlog X No. 5 U t i l i t y Y No. 6 Chi pperwood 0 No. 1 Lumber £ No. 1 Lumber Short F No. 2 Lumber G No. 2 Lumber Short H No. 2 Sawlog I- No. 3 Sawlog J No. 4 Sawlog X No. 5 U t i l i t y Y No. 6 Chipperwood FIR AND PINE PRESENT STATUTORY FIR PEELER •1(A) i r « j o # OLD INDUSTRY FIR PEELER 13(B) Finn PEELER 18x30* FI2 PEELER H U S O ' FIR PEELER •3(C) FI3 PEELER 18'«24' FM PEELER irni*-»* LUMBER REQUIREMENTS i DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUMS, AND THE LATTER ARE GIVEN IN IMPERIAL MEASURE FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY. SFP IB'lM* MAJORITY SOME FEW OLD STATUTORY AND INDUSTRY PRESENT STATUTORY i i sou CLEAR LUMBER aviso* II LBR(D) SOli CLEAR LUMBER 11'iJO* 12 88* MERCH LUMBER 24H3* (S)'x14* 1 • 2 STUM) 6S* MERCH LUMBER 1«'i12* f J NO MINIMUM IENOTH OR DIAMETER issruq STANOARO SAWLOG 12'i18* • 4S/U.J) OANQ SAWLOd ie ,«4'-14* fS UTILITY (X| WORST f J ' i BESTM'f. 8'*4' •4 LESSTHAN SO* FIRMWOOD NO MINIMUM LENGTH OR DIAMETER M C I UPPER, Y) WORSE THAN •5XX) GENERALLY BETTER THAN ••in 8 «4' li FIHMWOOO REJECT (STATUTORY ONIY) 3 SPECIFIC CATEGORIES ONLY If FIHMWOOO REJECT (Z) 3 SPECIFIC CATEGORIES ONLY 174 APPENDIX B - LISTING OF MODEL PRUNE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 31 32 3 3 34 3 5 3 6 37 3 8 3 9 4 0 41 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 51 5 2 5 3 54 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 $ C 0 M P I L E j I N T E G E R X / 1 / , B , B 6 , B 9 , B 1 2 , B 1 5 , N ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * 0 / , S . P T ( 5 ) I N T E G E R A G E ( 5 ) , P N ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * 0 / , L P T ( 3 ) / 3 * 0 / I N T E G E R Y ( 5 ) / 5 * 0 / , P P ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * 0 / , T , I . G , F N ( 3 , 8 ) , B B R E A L A ( 8 ) . A 6 ( 6 ) , A 9 ( 7 ) , A 1 2 ( 7 ) , A 1 5 ( 8 ) , C L A S ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / R E A L H ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 6 / , D C ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / , P H ( 5 ) / 5 * . 0 / . F L D ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / R E A L F P H , P L C ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / . U D ( 5 . 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / , F D B H ( 3 . 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / R E A L F V 0 L ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / , T V O L ( 6 0 0 . 8 ) / 4 8 0 0 * . 0 / , P C V O L ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / R E A L P T V 0 L ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / , F H ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / , F U D ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / R E A L C T 0 T ( 3 ) / 3 * . 0 / . D B ( 5 . 8 ) / 4 0 + . 0 / . L B ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / R E A L V V ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / . P C ( 3 ) / 3 * . 0 / , H V O L ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / R E A L L C ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / . T H V O L ( 3 , 8 ) , T O T ( 3 ) / 3 * . 0 / , V 0 L ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / R E A L L D ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / , C C V O L ( 3 , 8 ) / 2 4 * . 0 / , F C O S T / . 0 / . T I M ( 5 ) , D T ( 3 ) R E A L T T I M ( 5 ) , R l , C 0 S T ( 5 ) . S C ( 5 ) , H L C ( 5 , 8 ) , C O S T A ( 5 ) , C O . D C 0 ( 5 ) R E A L H S , P O , W O R , C 4 0 ( 3 ) , D E F , M L B ( 5 , 8 ) / 4 0 * . 0 / , R R ( 5 ) C H A R A C T E R * 1 R E S 1 / ' Y ' / , R E S 2 P R I N T 1 1 3 0 0 301 3 0 2 3 0 3 4 1 5 4 1 6 C F O R M A T ( ' 1 ' ) P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , P R I N T , * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **************************+************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * P R I N T , P R I N T , * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ******************+********++*++*************+** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * P R I N T 1 WRITE ( 6 , 3 0 0 ) F O R M A T ( ' ' . ' E N T E R S P A C I N G . F 0 = I 2 ' ) R E A D ( 5 . 3 0 1 ) S F O R M A T ( 1 2 ) W R I T E ( 6 , 3 0 2 ) F O R M A T ( ' ' , ' E N T E R T O T A L PRUNING H E I G H T . F0= F 3 . 0 ' ) READ ( 5 , 3 0 3 ) F P H F O R M A T ( F 3 . 0 ) W R I T E ( 6 , 4 1 5 ) F O R M A T ( ' - ' , ' P E R C E N T A G E OF T R E E S NOT S U I T A B L E FOR P R U N I N G ? ' 1 ' F 0 = 5 . 2 ' ) READ ( 5 , 4 1 6 ) D E F F O R M A T ( F 5 . 2 ) I N I T I A L I Z A T I O N OF D I A M E T E R F R E Q U E N C Y D I S T R I B U T I O N A 6 ( 1 ) = 0 . 7 4 A 6 ( 2 ) = 2 3 . 5 3 A 6 ( 3 ) = 3 9 . 3 3 A 6 ( 4 ) = 2 7 . 7 6 A 6 ( 5 ) = 7 . 5 4 A 6 ( 6 ) = 1 . 1 A 9 ( 1 ) = 0 . 6 3 A 9 ( 2 ) = 9 . 3 8 A 9 ( 3 ) = 2 0 . 9 4 A 9 ( 4 ) = 3 1 . 8 8 5 9 A 9 ( 5 ) = 2 9 . 3 8 6 0 A 9 ( 6 ) = 7 . 8 1 6 1 A 1 2 ( 1 ) = 2 . 2 6 2 A 1 2 ( 2 ) = 3 . 9 6 6 3 A 1 2 ( 3 ) = 1 4 . 9 9 6 4 A 1 2 ( 4 ) = 3 5 . 2 4 6 5 A 1 2 ( 5 ) = 3 5 . 2 4 6 6 A 1 2 ( 6 ) = 7 . 0 5 6 7 A 1 2 ( 7 ) = 1 . 3 2 6 8 A 1 5 ( 1 ) = 0 . 5 4 6 9 A 1 5 ( 2 ) = 4 . 8 6 7 0 A 1 5 ( 3 ) = 1 2 . 9 7 71 A 1 5 ( 4 ) = 2 5 . 4 1 7 2 A 1 5 ( 5 ) = 3 0 . 2 8 7 3 A 1 5 ( 6 ) = 2 0 . 5 4 7 4 A 1 5 ( 7 ) = 4 . 8 6 7 5 A 1 5 ( 8 ) = 0 . 5 4 7 6 B6=6 7 7 B9=6 7 8 B 1 2 = 7 -7 9 B 1 5 = 8 8 0 . I F ( S . E 0 . 6 ) T H E N DO 8 1 DO 2 T = 1 , B 6 8 2 A ( T ) = A 6 ( T ) 8 3 2 C O N T I N U E 8 4 B=B6 8 5 E L S E DO CN 8 6 IF ( S . E 0 . 9 ) T H E N DO 8 7 DO 3 T=1 , B 9 8 8 A ( T ) = A 9 ( T ) 8 9 3 C O N T I N U E 9 0 B=B9 9 1 E L S E DO 9 2 I F ( S . E O . 1 2 ) T H E N DO 9 3 DO 4 T= 1 , B 1 2 9 4 A ( T ) = A 1 2 ( T ) 9 5 4 C O N T I N U E 9 6 B=B12 9 7 E L S E DO 9 8 DO 5 T = 1 , B 1 5 9 9 A ( T ) = A 1 5 ( T ) 1 0 0 5 C O N T I N U E 101 B=B15 102 END IF 1 0 3 . END IF 104 END IF 1 0 5 C A L L D I S T R I ( A , B , X . N . S . A G E , C L A S , H ) 106 WHILE ( X . L E . 5 . A N D . R E S I . E O . ' Y ' ) 0 0 107 C A L L PRUNE ( C L A S , H , N . B . P T , S , F P H , L C . D C , P H , Y , X . P L C , P P , H L C . D E F ) 108 WRITE ( 6 , 3 0 5 ) 1 0 9 3 0 5 F O R M A T ( ' ' , ' I F YOU WANT TO PRUNE ANOTHER T IME T Y P E : Y , IF N O T : N ' ) 1 1 0 READ ( 5 , 3 0 6 ) R E S 1 111 3 0 6 F O R M A T ( A 1 ) 112 I F ( R E S 1 . E Q . ' Y ' ) T H E N DO 1 1 3 X=X+1 114 C A L L D I S T R I ( A , B . X , N , S , A G E , C L A S , H ) 1 1 5 E L S E DO 116 R E S 1 = ' N ' 1 1 7 END IF 1 18 END WHILE 1 19 C A L L CORE ( C L A S , H , N , B , S , P H , L D , U D , V O L , X , Y ) 1 2 0 C A L L BRANCH ( B , X , S , P H , U D , D C , L C . D B . L B , M L B , L D , B B , R R ) 121 C A L L VOLUME ( B , V O L , F V O L , T V O L . P C V O L , H V O L , P T V O L , X . F D B H , F H , F N , F L D , 122 1 F U D , A , F P H . V V , T O T , C T O T , T H V O L . P C . P P . P T , S . P N , C C V O L . D T . L P T . D E F ) 1 2 3 C A L L ECONO ( X . P H , A G E , P T , F C O S T , T I M , T T I M . R l , C O S T . S C . C O S T A . S . C O . D C O . 124 1HS . PO . WOR , DB . L B . MLB , B . RR . BB ) 1 2 5 C * * * * P R I N T T H E OUTPUT * * * * 1 2 6 P R I N T 3 3 7 , ' S P A C I N G : ' , S , ' F E E T ' , ' L E N G T H OF PRUNED L O G : ' . F P U . 127 1 ' M E T E R S ' , ' % D E F E C T T R E E S : ' . D E F 128 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 3 7 ) ' S P A C I N G : ' , S , ' F E E T ' , ' L E N G T H OF PRUNED L O G : ' . 1 2 9 1 F P H , ' M E T E R S ' , ' % D E F E C T T R E E S : ' , D E F 1 3 0 3 3 7 F O R M A T ( ' 1 ' , A 1 0 , 1 2 , A 6 , A 2 5 . F 4 . 1 . A 8 . A 1 8 . F 5 . 2 ) 131 DO 2 0 1 I = 1 . X 132 P R I N T 3 3 8 , ' A G E WHEN P R U N E D : ' , A G E ( I ) 1 3 3 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 3 8 ) ' A G E WHEN P R U N E D : ' , A G E ( I ) 134 3 3 8 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , A 1 7 , 1 2 ) 1 3 5 P R I N T 3 3 9 , ' H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : ' . P H ( I ) , ' M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S PRU 136 1 N E D : ' , P T ( I ) , ' / H A ' 1 3 7 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 3 9 ) ' H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : ' , P H ( I ) , 138 1 ' M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : ' , P T ( I ) , ' / H A ' 1 3 9 3 3 9 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' . A 1 8 . F 4 . 1 , A 3 2 , 1 4 , A 3 ) 1 4 0 P R I N T 3 4 0 , ' 1 ' , ' 2 ' , ' 3 ' , ' 4 ' , ' 5 ' ; ' 6 ' , ' 7 ' , ' 8 ' , ' 9 ' , 141 1 ' 10 ' , ' 1 1 ' . ' 1 2 ' , ' 1 3 ' , ' 1 4 ' 142 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 4 0 ) ' 1 ' , ' 2 ' , ' 3 ' , ' 4 ' , ' 5 ' , ' 6 ' . ' 7 ' , ' 8 ' , 1 4 3 1 ' 9 ' , ' 10 ' . ' 1 1 ' . ' 12 ' . ' 13 ' . ' 1 4 ' 144 3 4 0 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , 1 4 ( 2 X , A 5 ) ) 1 4 5 DO 195 d= 1 , B 1 4 6 P R I N T 34 1 , C L A S ( I , d ) , H ( I , J ) , N ( I , J ) , P P ( I , d ) , H L C ( I . d ) , P L C ( I . d ) , 147 1 L C ( I , J ) , D C ( I , J ) , V O L ( I , J ) , L D ( I , d ) . U D ( I . d ) , D B ( I , J ) . L B ( I , J ) , 148 2 M L B ( I . d ) 1 4 9 WRITE ( 7 , 3 4 1 ) C L A S ( I , d ) , H ( I , d ) , N ( I , d ) , P P ( I , J ) , H L C ( I , d ) , 1 5 0 1 P L C ( I , d ) , L C ( I , d ) , D C ( I , d ) , V O L ( I , d ) . L D ( I , d ) , U D ( I , d ) , D B ( I , d ) , 151 2 L B ( I , d ) , M L B ( I , d ) 152 3 4 1 F O R M A T ( ' ' , 2 ( 2 X , F 5 . 2 ) , 2 ( 2 X , I 5 ) . 1 0 ( 2 X , F 5 . 2 ) ) 1 5 3 1 9 5 C O N T I N U E 154 2 0 1 C O N T I N U E 1 5 5 P R I N T 3 4 3 , ' 1=DIAMETER C L A S S . D B H , C M . ' 156 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 4 3 ) ' 1 =DIAMETER C L A S S . D B H , C M . ' 157 3 4 3 F O R M A T ( ' - ' , A 2 7 ) 158 P R I N T 3 4 4 , ' 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M . ' 159 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 4 4 ) ' 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M . ' 1 6 0 3 4 4 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 1 8 ) 161 P R I N T 3 4 5 , ' 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S PER C L A S S PER H A . ' 162 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 4 5 ) ' 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S PER C L A S S PER H A . ' 1 6 3 3 4 5 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 5 ) 164 P R I N T 3 4 6 , ' 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED T R E E S PER H A . ' 1 6 5 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 4 6 ) ' 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED T R E E S PER H A . ' 166 3 4 6 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 3 ) 167 P R I N T 3 8 8 , ' 5 = H E I G H T TO L I V E CROWN, M . ' 168 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 8 8 ) ' 5=HE IGHT TO L I V E CROWN, M . ' 1 6 9 3 8 8 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 2 7 ) 1 7 0 P R I N T 3 4 7 , ' 6 = P E R C E N T A G E L I V E CROWN R E M O V E D ' 171 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 4 7 ) ' 6 = P E R C E N T A G E L I V E CROWN R E M O V E D ' 172 3 4 7 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 2 ) 1 7 3 P R I N T 3 4 8 , ' 7 = L E N G T H OF CORE WITH L I V E B R A N C H E S . M . ' 174 WRITE ( 7 , 3 4 8 ) ' 7 = L E N G T H OF CORE WITH L I V E B R A N C H E S , M . ' 1 7 5 . 3 4 8 F O R M A T ( ' ' . A 4 0 ) 176 P R I N T 3 4 9 . ' 8 = L E N G T H OF CORE WITH DEAD B R A N C H E S . M . ' 1 7 7 WRITE ( 7 . 3 4 9 ) ' 8 = L E N G T H OF CORE WITH DEAD B R A N C H E S . M . ' 178 3 4 9 F O R M A T C ' . A 4 0 ) 1 7 9 P R I N T 3 5 0 , ' 9 = V 0 L U M E OF C O R E , M * * 3 . ' 1 8 0 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 5 0 ) ' 9 = V 0 L U M E OF C O R E , M * * 3 . ' 181 3 5 0 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 2 4 ) 182 P R I N T 3 5 1 , ' 1 0 = L 0 W E R D I A M E T E R OF C O R E , C M . ' 1 8 3 WRITE ( 7 , 3 5 1 ) ' 1 0 = L 0 W E R D I A M E T E R OF C O R E , C M . ' 184 351 F O R M A T C ' , A 3 0 ) 1 8 5 P R I N T 3 5 2 , ' 1 1 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R OF KNOTTY C O R E , C M . ' 186 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 5 2 ) ' 1 1 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R OF KNOTTY C O R E , C M . ' 187 3 5 2 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 7 ) 188 P R I N T 3 5 3 . ' 1 2 = M A X I M U M DEAD BRANCH D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 1 8 9 WRITE ( 7 . 3 5 3 ) ' 1 2 = M A X I M U M DEAD BRANCH D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 1 9 0 3 5 3 F O R M A T C ' . A 4 8 ) 191 P R I N T 3 5 4 , ' 1 3 = L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 192 WRITE ( 7 , 3 5 4 ) ' 1 3 = L I V E BRANCH D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 193 3 5 4 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 4 0 ) 194 P R I N T 4 2 0 , ' 1 4 = M A X I M U M L I V E BRANCH D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 195 W R I T E ( 7 , 4 2 0 ) ' 1 4 = M A X I M U M L I V E BRANCH D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 196 4 2 0 F O R M A T C ' , A 4 8 ) 197 P R I N T 3 5 5 , ' 1 ' , ' 2 ' , ' 3 ' , ' 4 ' , ' 5 ' , ' 6 ' , ' 7 ' , ' 8 ' , ' 9 ' , 198 1 ' 1 0 ' , ' 1 1 ' , ' 12 ' 199 WRITE ( 7 , 3 5 5 ) ' 1 ' , ' 2 ' , ' 3 ' , ' 4 ' , ' 5 ' , ' 6 ' , ' 7 ' , ' 8 2 0 0 1 ' 9 ' , ' 1 0 ' , ' 1 1 ' , ' 1 2 ' 2 0 1 3 5 5 F O R M A T ( ' 1 ' , 1 5 X , 1 2 ( 2 X , A 7 ) ) 2 0 2 G = 2 0 2 0 3 DO 2 1 0 1 = 1 . 3 2 0 4 G=G+20 2 0 5 P R I N T 3 5 6 , ' H A R V E S T A G E : ' , G 2 0 6 WRITE ( 7 , 3 5 6 ) ' H A R V E S T A G E : ' , G 2 0 7 3 5 6 F O R M A T C - ' , A 1 2 , 1 3 ) 2 0 8 DO 2 0 6 d=1 , B 2 0 9 P R I N T 3 5 7 , F D B H ( I , d ) , F H ( I , J ) , F N ( I , J ) , P N ( I , d ) , F L D ( I , d ) , FUD( I , d ) 2 1 0 1 F V O L ( I , d ) , H V O L ( I , d ) . V V ( I , d ) , P T V O L ( I , d ) , C C V 0 L ( I , d ) , P C V O L ( I , d ) 2 1 1 WRITE ( 7 . 3 5 7 ) F D B H ( I , d ) , F H ( I , d ) , FN( I , d") . PN( I . d ) . F L D ( I , d ) 2 1 2 1 F U D ( I , d ) , F V O L ( I , d ) , H V O L ( I , d ) , V V ( I , d ) , P T V O L ( I , d ) . C C V O L ( I , d ) . 2 1 3 2 P C V O L ( I , d ) 2 1 4 3 5 7 F O R M A T C ' , 1 5 X , 2 ( 2 X , F 7 . 2 ) , 2 ( 2 X , 1 7 ) , 8 ( 2 X , F 7 . 2 ) ) 2 1 5 2 0 6 C O N T I N U E 2 1 6 2 1 0 C O N T I N U E 2 1 7 P R I N T 3 5 8 , ' 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S , D B H , C M . ' 2 1 8 WRITE ( 7 , 3 5 8 ) ' 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S , D B H , C M . ' 2 1 9 3 5 8 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' . A 2 7 ) 2 2 0 P R I N T 3 5 9 , ' 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M . ' 2 2 1 WRITE ( 7 , 3 5 9 ) ' 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M . ' 2 2 2 3 5 9 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 1 8 ) 2 2 3 P R I N T 3 6 0 , ' 3 = N U M B E R OF T R E E S PER C L A S S / H A . ' 2 2 4 WRITE ( 7 , 3 6 0 ) '3=NUMBER OF T R E E S PER C L A S S / H A . ' 2 2 5 3 6 0 F O R M A T C ' . A 3 3 ) 2 2 6 P R I N T 3 8 0 , ' 4 = N U M B E R OF PRUNED T R E E S / H A . ' 2 2 7 WRITE ( 7 , 3 8 0 ) '4=NUMBER OF PRUNED T R E E S / H A . ' 2 2 8 3 8 0 F O R M A T C ' . A 3 0 ) 2 2 9 P R I N T 3 6 1 , ' 5 = L 0 W E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 2 3 0 WRITE ( 7 , 3 6 1 ) ' 5 = L 0 W E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 2 3 1 361 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 4 ) 2 3 2 P R I N T 3 6 2 , ' 6 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 2 3 3 W R I T E ( 7 . 3 G 2 ) ' 6 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . ' 2 3 4 3 S 2 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 4 ) 2 3 5 P R I N T 3 6 3 , ' 7 = V 0 L U M E PER T R E E PER C L A S S , M * * 3 . ' 2 3 6 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 6 3 ) ' 7 = V 0 L U M E PER T R E E PER C L A S S , M * * 3 . ' 2 3 7 3 6 3 F O R M A T ( ' ' , A 3 5 ) 2 3 8 P R I N T 3 6 4 ; ' 8 = T 0 T A L VOLUME PER C L A S S . M * " 3 . ' 2 3 9 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 6 4 ) ' 8 = T O T A L VOLUME PER C L A S S , M * * 3 . ' 2 4 0 3 6 4 F O R M A T C ' , A 3 2 ) 2 4 1 P R I N T 7 0 0 . ' 9 = V 0 L U M E OF PRUNED L O G . M * * 3 . ' 2 4 2 W R I T E ( 7 , 7 0 0 ) ' 9 = V 0 L U M E OF PRUNED L O G . M * * 3 . ' 2 4 3 7 0 0 F O R M A T C ' , A 3 0 ) 2 4 4 P R I N T 3 6 5 . ' 1 0 = T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME PER C L A S S . ( P R U N E D L O G ) . M * * 3 . ' 2 4 5 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 6 5 ) ' 1 0 = T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME PER C L A S S . ( P R U N E D L O G ) , M * * 3 . 2 4 6 1 ' 2 4 7 3 6 5 F O R M A T C ' , A 5 1 ) 2 4 8 P R I N T 3 6 6 . ' 1 1 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R , IN PRUNED L O G , PER C L A S S ' 2 4 9 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 6 6 ) ' 1 1 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R , IN PRUNED L O G , PER C L A S S ' 2 5 0 3 6 6 F O R M A T C ' . A 4 5 ) 2 5 1 P R I N T 381 , ' 1 2 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R PER C L A S S ' 2 5 2 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 8 1 ) ' 1 2 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R PER C L A S S ' 2 5 3 3 8 1 F O R M A T ( ' ' . A 2 9 ) 2 5 4 G = 2 0 2 5 5 DO 2 1 5 1 = 1 , 3 2 5 6 G=G+20 2 5 7 P R I N T 3 6 7 , ' H A R V E S T A G E : ' , G 2 5 8 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 6 7 ) ' H A R V E S T A G E : ' , G ^ 2 5 9 3 6 7 F O R M A T ( ' O ' , A 1 3 , 1 2 ) ^ 2 6 0 P R I N T 3 6 8 , ' T O T A L V O L U M E ' , ' T O T A L C L E A R V O L U M E ' , ' P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R ' 2 6 1 1 , ' # OF PRUNED T R E E S ' , ' % MORT. & D E F E C T ' 2 6 2 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 6 8 ) ' T O T A L V O L U M E ' , ' T O T A L C L E A R V O L U M E ' , 2 6 3 1 ' P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R ' , 'H OF PRUNED T R E E S ' , ' % MORT. & D E F E C T ' 2 6 4 3 6 8 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , 5 ( A 2 0 ) ) 2 6 5 P R I N T 3 6 9 , T 0 T ( I ) , C T O T ( I ) , P C ( I ) . L P T ( I ) , D T ( I ) 2 6 6 WRITE ( 7 . 3 6 9 ) T O T ( I ) , C T O T ( I ) , P C ( I ) , L P T ( I ) , D T ( I ) 2 6 7 3 6 9 F O R M A T C ' . 3 ( 4 X . F 1 2 . 2 . 4 X ) , 4 X . 1 1 2 . 8 X , F 1 2 . 2 , 4 X ) 2 6 8 2 1 5 C O N T I N U E 2 6 9 P R I N T 3 8 9 , ' P R U N I N G C O S T ' 2 7 0 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 8 9 ) ' * * * P R U N I N G C O S T PER H E C T A R E * * * ' 2 7 1 3 8 9 F O R M A T ( ' 1 ' , A 4 5 ) 2 7 2 P R I N T 4 0 0 , ' * C O S T PER M A N - D A Y : $ ' , C O , ' * $ / H R S : ' , H S . 2 7 3 1 ' * E F F E C T I V E H OF H R S / D A Y : ' , W O R , ' * % O V E R H E A D : ' , P O 2 7 4 W R I T E ( 7 , 4 0 0 ) ' * COST PER M A N - D A Y : $ ' , C O , ' * $ / H R S : ' , H S . 2 7 5 1 ' * E F F E C T I V E H OF H R S / D A Y : ' , W O R , ' * % O V E R H E A D : ' , P O 2 7 6 4 0 0 F O R M A T ( ' O ' , A 3 4 , F 6 . 2 , A 1 2 , F 6 . 2 , A 2 9 , F 3 . 1 , A 1 6 , F 4 . 1) 2 7 7 P R I N T 4 0 8 2 7 8 W R I T E ( 7 , 4 0 8 ) 2 7 9 DO 2 3 5 1 = 1 , X 2 8 0 P R I N T 3 8 2 , ' * P R U N I N G UP T O : ' , P H ( I ) , ' M E T E R S ' 2 8 1 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 8 2 ) ' * P R U N I N G UP T O : ' , P H ( I ) , ' M E T E R S ' 2 8 2 3 8 2 F O R M A T C O ' . A 1 8 . F 4 . 1 . A 7 ) 2 8 3 P R I N T 3 8 3 , ' P R U N I N G T I M E PER T R E E ( M I N ) : ' , T I M ( I ) 2 8 4 W R I T E ( 7 . 3 8 3 ) ' P R U N I N G T I M E PER T R E E ( M I N ) : ' . T I M ( I ) 2 8 5 3 8 3 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , A 3 0 , F 6 . 1 ) 2 8 6 P R I N T 3 8 4 , ' T O T A L P R U N I N G T IME ( H O U R S ) : ' , T T I M ( I ) 2 8 7 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 8 4 ) ' T O T A L PRUNING T I M E ( H O U R S ) : ' , T T I M ( I ) 2 8 8 3 8 4 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , A 3 0 , F 6 . 1 ) 2 8 9 P R I N T 3 8 5 , ' T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : ' , C O S T A ( I ) 2 9 0 W R I T E ( 7 , 3 8 5 ) ' T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : ' , C O S T A ( I ) 2 9 1 P R I N T 3 8 6 , ' C O S T PER T R E E ( $ ) : ' , S C ( I ) 2 9 2 WRITE ( 7 . 3 8 6 ) ' C O S T PER T R E E ( $ ) : ' . S C ( I ) 2 9 3 3 8 6 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , A 3 0 , F 6 . 1 ) 2 9 4 P R I N T 3 8 5 , ' T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : ' , C O S T ( I ) 2 9 5 WRITE ( 7 . 3 8 5 ) ' T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : ' , C O S T ( I ) 2 9 6 P R I N T 3 8 5 , ' D I S C . C O S T PER T R E E ( $ ) : ' , D C O ( I ) 2 9 7 WRITE ( 7 , 3 8 5 ) ' D I S C . C O S T PER T R E E ( $ ) : ' , D C O ( I ) 2 9 8 3 8 5 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' . A 3 0 . F 7 . 2 ) ;! , 2 9 9 W R I T E ( 7 , 4 0 8 ) j 3 0 0 P R I N T 4 0 8 3 0 1 4 0 8 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) * 3 0 2 2 3 5 C O N T I N U E 3 0 3 P R I N T 3 8 7 , ' D I S C O U N T E D C O S T : $ ' , F C O S T , ' R A T E OF I N T E R E S T : ' , R l , ' % ' 3 0 4 WRITE ( 7 , 3 8 7 ) ' D I S C O U N T E D C O S T : $ ' , F C O S T , ' R A T E OF I N T E R E S T : ' , R l 3 0 5 1 , ' % ' 3 0 6 3 8 7 F O R M A T ( ' - ' , A 1 8 , F 6 . 1 . A 2 0 . F 4 . 1 , A 2 ) 3 0 7 P R I N T 4 0 8 3 0 8 W R I T E ( 7 , 4 0 8 ) 3 0 9 P R I N T 4 1 0 . ' * * * D I S C O U N T E D C O S T PER H A R V E S T E D PRUNED T R E E : ' 3 1 0 WRITE ( 7 , 4 1 0 ) ' * * * D I S C O U N T E D C O S T PER H A R V E S T E D PRUNED T R E E : ' 3 1 1 4 1 0 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , A 4 6 ) 3 1 2 C * * * * COMPUTE D I S C O U N T E D COST PER T R E E AT H A R V E S T AGE * * * * 3 1 3 DO 5 0 0 1 = 1 , 3 3 1 4 C 4 0 ( I ) = F C O S T / L P T ( I ) 3 1 5 5 0 0 C O N T I N U E 3 1 6 P R I N T 4 1 1 , ' * * H A R V E S T AGE 4 0 : $ ' , C 4 0 ( 1 ) , ' * * H A R V E S T AGE 6 0 : $ ' . 3 1 7 1 C 4 0 ( 2 ) , ' * * H A R V E S T AGE 8 0 : $ ' , C 4 0 ( 3 ) 3 1 8 WRITE ( 7 , 4 1 1 ) ' * * H A R V E S T AGE 4 0 : $ ' , C 4 0 ( 1 ) , ' * * H A R V E S T AGE 6 0 : $ ' , 3 1 9 1 C 4 0 ( 2 ) , ' * * H A R V E S T AGE 8 0 : $ ' . C 4 0 ( 3 ) 3 2 0 4 1 1 F O R M A T ( ' 0 ' , 3 ( A 2 1 , F 5 . 2 ) ) 3 2 1 R E T U R N 3 2 2 END 3 2 3 C ********************************************************** 3 2 4 C * * ********************************************************* 3 2 5 C * * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E D I S T R I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 2 6 C ***************************************************+++*+** 3 2 7 C ********************************************************** 3 2 8 S U B R O U T I N E D I S T R I ( A , B , X , N , S , A G E . C L A S . H ) 3 2 9 I N T E G E R B , N T , C , D , N ( 5 , 8 ) , A G E ( 5 ) , X , S 3 3 0 R E A L A ( 8 ) , D B H , H ( 5 , 8 ) , M A D B H , M I D B H . C L , D I F , C L A S ( 5 , 8 ) 3 3 1 WRITE ( 6 , 3 0 7 ) 3 3 2 3 0 7 F O R M A T ( ' - ' , ' E N T E R AGE OF STAND AT AGE OF P R U N I N G : F 0 = I 2 ' ) 3 3 3 READ ( 5 , 3 0 8 ) A G E ( X ) 3 3 4 3 0 8 F O R M A T ( 1 2 ) 3 3 5 WRITE ( 6 , 3 0 9 ) 3 3 6 3 0 9 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R MEAN D B H . F 0 = F 5 . 2 ' ) 3 3 7 READ ( 5 , 3 1 0 ) DBH 3 3 8 3 1 0 F O R M A T ( F 5 . 2 ) 3 3 9 WRITE ( 6 , 3 1 1 ) 3 4 0 31 1 F O R M A T ( ' ' . ' E N T E R NUMBER OF T R E E S PER H E C T A R E . F 0 = I 4 ' » 3 4 1 READ ( 5 , 3 1 2 ) NT 3 4 2 3 1 2 F O R M A T ( 1 4 ) 3 4 3 C * * * * COMPUTE D I A M E T E R C L A S S * * * * 3 4 4 M I D B H = D B H * 0 . 4 3 4 5 IF ( S . G T . 9 ) T H E N DO 3 4 6 M A D B H = D B H * 1 . 6 3 4 7 E L S E DO 3 4 8 IF ( S . E Q . 6 ) T H E N DO 3 4 9 M A D B H = D B H * 1 . 7 7 3 5 0 E L S E DO 3 5 1 M A D B H = D B H * 1 . 4 7 3 5 2 END IF 3 5 3 END I F 3 5 4 D I F = MADBH - MI.DBH 3 5 5 C L = D I F / B 3 5 6 C L A S ( X , 1 ) = M I D B H + ( C L / 2 ) 3 5 7 DO 10 C = 2 , B 3 5 8 C L A S ( X , C ) = C L A S ( X , C - 1 ) + C L 3 5 9 10 C O N T I N U E 3 6 0 P R I N T 3 7 0 , ' 0 . C L A S S ' , ' H E I G H T ' , ' N U M B E R OF T R E E S ' 3 6 1 3 7 0 F O R M A T ( ' - ' , A 8 . 2 X , A 8 . 2 X , A 1 5 ) 3 6 2 C * * * * COMPUTE H E I G H T AND NUMBER OF T R E E S PER C L A S S * * * * 3 6 3 DO 2 0 C = 1 , B 3 6 4 N ( X , C ) = ( N T * A ( C ) ) / 1 0 0 3 6 5 H ( X , C ) = - 5 . 1 1 6 1 + . 9 3 7 7 7 * A G E ( X ) + . 0 7 8 6 3 1 * C L A S ( X , C ) 3 6 6 P R I N T 3 1 3 , C L A S ( X , C ) , H ( X , C ) , N ( X , C ) 3 6 7 3 1 3 F O R M A T C ' , 2 ( F 8 . 2 , 2 X ) , 1 1 0 . 5 X ) 3 6 8 2 0 C O N T I N U E 3 6 9 R E T U R N 3 7 0 END 3 7 1 C ********************************************************** 3 7 2 C ********************************************************** 3 7 3 C * * * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E PRUNE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 7 4 C ********************************************************** 3 7 5 C ********************************************************** 3 7 6 S U B R O U T I N E PRUNE ( C L A S , H , N . B , P T , S , F P H , L C , D C , P H , Y , X , P L C , P P , H L C 3 7 7 1DEF ) 3 7 8 I N T E G E R B , P T ( 5 ) , Y ( 5 ) , P , A , P P ( 5 , 8 ) , S , J , D , X , 0 , N ( 5 , 8 ) 3 7 9 R E A L C L A S ( 5 , 8 ) , H ( 5 , 8 ) , H L C ( 5 , 8 ) , C L ( 5 , 8 ) , P H ( 5 ) , P L C ( 5 , 8 ) 3 8 0 R E A L F P H , L C ( 5 , 8 ) , D C ( 5 , 8 ) , D E F 3 8 1 P=0 3 8 2 W R I T E ( 6 , 3 1 4 ) 3 8 3 3 1 4 F O R M A T ( ' - ' , ' H O W MANY T R E E S DO YOU WANT TO P R U N E ? F 0 = I 4 ' ) 3 8 4 READ ( 5 , 3 1 5 ) P T ( X ) 3 8 5 3 1 5 F O R M A T ( 1 4 ) 3 8 6 C * * * * F IND THE NUMBER OF PRUNED T R E E S PER C L A S S * * * * 3 8 7 D = B+1 3 8 8 WHILE ( P . L T . P T ( X ) ) DO I 3 8 9 D = D - 1 | 3 9 0 Y ( X ) = D I 3 9 1 P = P + ( N ( X , D ) * ( 1 - ( D E F / 1 0 0 ) ) ) 3 9 2 I F ( P . G T . P T ( X ) ) T H E N DO 3 9 3 A = P - P T ( X ) 3 9 4 P P ( X , D ) = ( N ( X , D ) * ( 1 - ( D E F / 1 0 0 ) ) ) - A 3 9 5 E L S E DO 3 9 6 P P ( X . D ) = N ( X , D ) * ( 1 - ( D E F / 1 0 0 ) ) 3 9 7 END IF 3 9 8 END WHILE 3 9 9 C * * * * F I N D H E I G H T TO L I V E CROWN PER C L A S S * * * * 4 0 0 DO 7 0 J = 1 , B 4 0 1 I F ( S . E Q . 6 ) THEN DO 4 0 2 H L C ( X , J ) = 6 7 . 8 8 5 + ( 1 2 . 7 6 1 * H ( X , J ) ) - ( . 2 1 4 3 3 + ( H ( X , d ) t + 2 ) ) 4 0 3 1 - ( 1 7 3 . 2 4 * ( A L 0 G 1 O ( H ( X , J ) ) ) ) 4 0 4 E L S E DO 4 0 5 IF ( S . E 0 . 9 ) T H E N DO 4 0 6 H L C ( X , J ) = 4 1 . 5 5 5 + ( 6 . 6 3 4 7 * H ( X , > J ) ) - ( . 0 9 0 7 7 1 * (H ( X . J ) * ' 2 ) ) 4 0 7 1 - ( 9 8 . 4 7 1 * ( A L 0 G 1 O ( H ( X , d ) ) ) ) 4 0 8 E L S E DO 4 0 9 IF ( S . E O . 1 2 ) T H E N DO 4 1 0 H L C ( X , d ) = 2 2 . 5 7 4 + 2 . 1 0 2 6 * H ( X , J ) - 4 3 . 7 1 1 * ( A L O G 1 0 ( H ( X . d ) ) ) 4 1 1 E L S E DO 4 1 2 H L C ( X . J ) = 1 4 . 3 9 5 + 1 . 5 4 6 3 * H ( X . J ) - 2 9 . 6 3 8 * ( A L O G 1 0 ( H ( X , d ) ) ) 4 1 3 END I F 4 1 4 END IF 4 1 5 END IF 4 1 6 I F ( H L C ( X , J ) . L T . 0 ) T H E N DO 4 1 7 H L C ( X , J ) = 0 4 1 8 END IF 4 1 9 C * * * * C O R R E C T H L C IF P R E V I O U S PRUNING IS H I G H E R THAN H L C * * + + 4 2 0 I F ( X . E O . 1 ) T H E N DO 4 2 1 D C ( X , J ) = H L C ( X , d ) 4 2 2 E L S E DO 4 2 3 D C ( X , J ) = H L C ( X , d ) - P H ( X - 1 ) 4 2 4 I F ( D C ( X . J ) . L T . 0 ) T H E N DO 4 2 5 D C ( X . d ) = 0 4 2 6 END IF 4 2 7 END IF 4 2 8 I F ( X . G T . 1) T H E N DO 4 2 9 I F ( H L C ( X . J ) . L T . P H ( X - 1 ) . A N D . P P ( X , J ) . G T . 0 ) T H E N DO 4 3 0 H L C ( X , J ) = P H ( X - 1 ) 4 3 1 E L S E DO 4 3 2 H L C ( X , d ) = H L C ( X , d ) 4 3 3 END IF 4 3 4 E L S E DO 4 3 5 H L C ( X , J ) = H L C ( X , d ) 4 3 6 END IF 4 3 7 C * * * * F IND CROWN L E N G T H * * * * 4 3 8 C L ( X , d ) = H ( X , d ) - H L C ( X , J ) 4 3 9 WRITE ( 6 , 3 1 6 ) d , H L C ( X , d ) , C L ( X . d ) 4 4 0 3 1 6 F O R M A T C ' , ' D . C L A S S = ' , I 1 , ' H L C = ' , F 4 . 1 . ' CROWN L E N G T H = ' . F 4 . 1 ) 4 4 1 7 0 C O N T I N U E 4 4 2 WRITE ( 6 , 3 1 7 ) 4 4 3 3 1 7 F O R M A T ( ' - ' , ' U P TO WHAT H E I G H T DO YOU WANT TO P R U N E ? ' ) 4 4 4 WRITE ( 6 , 3 1 8 ) 4 4 5 3 1 8 F O R M A T C ' , ' I T IS NOT RECOMMANDED TO PRUNE MORE T H A N 5 0 % OF THE ' ) 4 4 6 W R I T E ( 6 , 3 1 9 ) 4 4 7 3 1 9 F O R M A T ( ' ' , ' L I V E CROWN AND YOU SHOULD L E A V E AT L E A S T 4 0 % OF THE ' ) 4 4 8 W R I T E ( 6 , 3 2 0 ) 4 4 9 3 2 0 F O R M A T ( ' ' , ' T O T A L H E I G H T . ENTER PRUNING H E I G H T . F 0 = F 4 . 1 ' ) 4 5 0 READ ( 5 , 3 2 1 ) P H ( X ) 4 5 1 3 2 1 F O R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 4 5 2 C * * * * F IND % OF L I V E CROWN R E M O V E D , L E N G T H OF DEAD AND L I V E CORE * 4 5 3 IF ( P H ( X ) . L E . F P H ) T H E N DO 4 5 4 0 = Y ( X ) 4 5 5 DO 7 5 d = 0 , B 4 5 6 I F ( P H ( X ) . L E . H L C ( X . J ) ) T H E N DO 4 5 7 P L C ( X , d ) = 0 4 5 8 IF ( X . G T . 1 ) T H E N DO 4 5 9 D C ( X , d ) = P H ( X ) - P H ( X - 1 ) 4 6 0 E L S E DO 4 6 1 D C ( X , d ) = P H ( X ) 4 6 2 END IF 4 6 3 E L S E DO 4 6 4 P L C ( X , d ) = ( ( P H ( X ) - H L C ( X . d ) ) / C L ( X . d ) ) * 1 0 0 4 6 5 I F ( X . G T . 1 ) T H E N DO 4 6 6 D C ( X , J ) = H L C ( X . d ) - P H ( X - 1 ) 4 6 7 E L S E DO 4 6 8 D C ( X , J ) = H L C ( X . J ) 4 6 9 END IF 4 7 0 END IF 4 7 1 7 5 C O N T I N U E 4 7 2 DO 6 0 0 d = 1 , B 4 7 3 I F ( X . G T . 1 ) T H E N DO 4 7 4 IF ( H L C ( X . d ) . G T . P H ( X - 1 ) . A N D . H L C ( X , d ) . L T . P H ( X ) ) THEN DO 4 7 5 L C ( X , d ) = P H ( X ) - H L C ( X , d ) 4 7 6 E L S E DO 4 7 7 I F ( H L C ( X . d ) . G T . P H ( X ) ) T H E N DO 4 7 8 L C ( X , d ) = 5 4 7 9 E L S E DO 4 8 0 L C ( X , d ) = P H ( X ) - P H ( X - 1 ) 4 8 1 END IF 4 8 2 END IF 4 8 3 E L S E DO 4 8 4 I F ( H L C ( X . d ) . L T . P H ( X ) ) T H E N DO 4 8 5 L C ( X , d ) = P H ( X ) - H L C ( X , d ) 4 8 6 E L S E DO 4 8 7 L C ( X , d ) = 5 4 8 8 END IF 4 8 9 END IF l_i 4 9 0 6 0 0 C O N T I N U E » 4 9 1 C : * * * * R E S E T THE PROGRAM I F PRUNING WAS TO H I G H * * * * 4 9 2 E L S E DO 4 9 3 P R I N T , ' * * W A R N I N G * * YOU HAVE PRUNED H IGHER THAN R E Q U I R E D ! ' 4 9 4 X = X - 1 4 9 5 END I F 4 9 6 R E T U R N 4 9 7 END 4 9 8 q ******************************************** 499 c ***********************************^********************^**** 5 0 0 C * * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E CORE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 0 1 C ***********************************************************+* 5 0 2 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 0 3 S U B R O U T I N E CORE ( C L A S , H , N , B , S , P H , L D . U D , V O L , X , Y ) 5 0 4 I N T E G E R N ( 5 , 8 ) , B . S , X , Y ( 5 ) , I , d , A , D , 0 5 0 5 R E A L C L A S ( 5 , 8 ) , H ( 5 , 8 ) . P H ( 5 ) , L D ( 5 , 8 ) , U D ( 5 , 8 ) , V 0 L ( 5 , 8 ) 5 0 6 R E A L I C L A S ( 5 , 8 ) , I H( 5 , 8 ) , I PH( 5 ) , IUD< 5 , 8 ) , I LD ( 5 . 8 ) , L S ( 5 , 8 ) , US ( 5 , 8 ). 5 0 7 C * * * * C O N V E R S I O N INTO E N G L I S H S Y S T E M * * * * 5 0 8 DO 8 5 d=1 ,X 5 0 9 DO 8 0 1 = 1 , B 5 1 0 I C L A S ( d , I ) = C L A S ( d , I ) * 0 . 3 9 3 7 0 0 8 5 1 1 I H ( d , I ) = H ( d , I ) * 3 . 2 8 0 8 4 0 5 1 2 I P H ( d ) = P H ( d ) * 3 . 2 8 0 8 4 0 5 1 3 8 0 C O N T I N U E 5 1 4 8 5 C O N T I N U E 5 1 5 . C * * * * COMPUTE LOWER AND U P P E R D I A M E T E R * * * * 5 1 6 DO 9 0 1 = 1 , B 5 1 7 I L D ( 1 , I ) = S Q R T ( ( . 9 4 8 2 5 - 1 . 3 3 6 5 1 * ( 1 / I H ( 1 , I ) ) + . 3 8 8 2 6 * ( 1 / ( I H ( 1 . I ) ' 1 2 5 1 8 1 ) ) ) * I C L A S ( 1 , I ) * * 2 ) 5 1 9 I U D ( 1 , I ) = S Q R T ( ( . 9 4 8 2 5 - 1 . 3 3 6 5 1* ( IPH( 1 ) / I H ( 1 . I ) ) + . 3 8 8 2 G * ( ( I P H ( 1 ) * * 2 5 2 0 1 ) / ( I H ( 1 , I ) * * 2 ) ) ) * I C L A S ( 1 , I ) * * 2 ) 5 2 1 I L D ( 1 ,I ) = ( I L D ( 1 , I ) * 1 . 0 7 ) + 2 5 2 2 I U D ( 1 , I ) = ( I U D ( 1 , I )*1 . 0 7 ) + 2 5 2 3 L D ( 1 , I ) = I L D ( 1 , I ) * 2 . 5 4 5 2 4 U D ( 1 . I ) = I U D ( 1 , I )*2 . 5 4 5 2 5 9 0 C O N T I N U E 5 2 6 I F ( X . G T . 1 ) T H E N DO 5 2 7 DO 1 0 0 d = 2 , X 5 2 8 DO 9 5 I = 1 . B 5 2 9 I L D ( J , I ) = S Q R T ( ( . 9 4 8 2 5 - 1 . 3 3 6 5 1 * ( I P H ( J - 1 ) / I H ( d , I ) ) + . 3 8 8 2 6 * ( ( I P H ( J - 1 5 3 0 1 ) * * 2 ) / ( I H ( d . I ) * * 2 ) ) ) * I C L A S ( d . I ) * * 2 ) 5 3 1 I U D ( d , I ) = S Q R T ( ( . 9 4 8 2 5 - 1 . 3 3 6 5 1 * ( I P H ( d ) / 1 H ( d , I ) ) + . 3 8 8 2 6 * ( ( I P I I ( d 1 * * 2 5 3 2 1 ) / ( I H ( d , I ) * * 2 ) ) ) * I C L A S ( d , I ) * * 2 ) 5 3 3 I L D ( d , I ) = ( I L D ( d , I ) * 1 . 0 7 ) + 2 5 3 4 I U D ( d , I ) = ( I U D ( d , I ) * 1 . 0 7 ) + 2 5 3 5 L D ( d , I ) = I L D ( d . I ) * 2 . 5 4 5 3 6 U D ( d , I ) = I U D ( d , I ) * 2 . 5 4 5 3 7 9 5 C O N T I N U E 5 3 8 1 0 0 C O N T I N U E 5 3 9 END I F 5 4 0 C * * * * COMPUTE VOLUME OF CORE OF PRUNED LOG * * * * 5 4 1 DO 1 1 0 d = 1 , X 5 4 2 0 = Y ( d ) 5 4 3 DO 105 I = 0 , B 5 4 4 L S ( d , I ) = 3 . 1 4 1 6 * ( ( L D ( d . I ) / 2 0 0 ) * * 2 ) 5 4 5 U S ( d , I ) = 3 . 1 4 1 6 * ( ( U D ( d , I ) / 2 0 0 ) * * 2 ) 5 4 6 IF ( d . E O . 1 ) T H E N DO 5 4 7 V O L ( d , I ) = ( ( L S ( d , I ) + U S ( d , I ) ) / 2 ) * ( P H ( d ) - 0 . 3 2 ) 5 4 8 E L S E DO 5 4 9 V O L ( d , I ) = ( ( L S ( d . I ) + U S ( d , I ) ) / 2 ) * ( P H ( d ) - P H ( d - 1 ) ) 5 5 0 END IF 5 5 1 105 C O N T I N U E 5 5 2 1 10 C O N T I N U E 5 5 3 R E T U R N 5 5 4 END 5 5 5 C ************************************************************** 5 5 6 C ************************************************************** 5 5 7 C * * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E VOLUME * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 5 8 C ************************************ *************************** 5 5 9 C ************************************* *********************** * + 5 6 0 S U B R O U T I N E VOLUME ( B , V O L , F V O L , T V O L , P C V O L , H V O L , P T V O L , X . F O B H , F H . 5 6 1 I F N . F L D . F U D . A . F P H . V V . T O T . C T O T . T H V O L . P C . P P . P T . S . P N . C C V O L . D T . L P T , 5 6 2 1DEF ) 5 6 3 I N T E G E R B , C , D , I . d , X , K , W , Z / 2 0 / , 0 , P T ( 5 ) , F N T ( 3 ) , P P ( 5 . 8 ) , F N ( 3 . 8 ) , S 5 6 4 I N T E G E R P N ( 3 , 8 ) , F F ( 3 ) / 3 * 0 / , L P T ( 3 ) . F N D ( 3 , 8 ) , F F D ( 3 ) / 3 * 0 / 5 6 5 R E A L V O L ( 5 , 8 ) , F V O L ( 3 , 8 ) , T V O L ( 6 0 0 . 8 ) , P C V O L ( 3 , 8 ) , I F D B H ( 3 , 8 ) , D E F 5 6 6 R E A L H V O L ( 3 , 8 ) , T H V O L ( 3 , 8 ) , P T V O L ( 3 . 8 ) , V ( 7 0 0 , 8 ) , F D B H ( 3 , 8 ) . F H ( 3 , 8 ) 5 6 7 R E A L F U D ( 3 , 8 ) . F L D ( 3 , 8 ) , A ( 8 ) , I F H ( 3 , 8 ) . F P H , I F P , C C V O L ( 3 . 8 ) , D T ( 3 ) 5 6 8 R E A L S L ( 3 , 8 ) , S U i 3 , 8 ) , V V ( 3 , 8 ) , P C ( 3 ) , T 0 T ( 3 ) , C T 0 T ( 3 ) , H H V O L ( 3 , 8 ) 5 6 9 C * * * * REARRANGE VOLUME DATA IN S I N G L E COLUMN FOR E A C H P R U N I N G * * 5 7 0 DO 1 2 0 I = 1 . X 5 7 1 C = 0 5 7 2 D=B 5 7 3 WHILE ( C . L T . P T ( X ) ) DO 5 7 4 0 = P P ( I , D ) 5 7 5 DO 115 d = 1 . 0 5 7 6 C=C+1 5 7 7 V ( C , I ) = V O L ( I , D ) 5 7 8 1 15 C O N T I N U E 5 7 9 D = D - 1 5 8 0 END WHILE 5 8 1 1 2 0 C O N T I N U E 5 8 2 W R I T E ( 6 , 3 2 2 ) 5 8 3 3 2 2 F O R M A T ( ' ' , ' P L E A S E ENTER D B H , H E I G H T AT AGE 4 0 , 6 0 AND 8 0 ' ) 5 8 4 DO 125 1 = 1 , 3 5 8 5 C A L L H E I G H T ( F D B H , F H , F N , F U D , F L D , B , I , A , Z . F N T , S , P N , P T , X , F F . D T . 5 8 6 1 L P T , D E F , F N D , F F D ) 5 8 7 125 C O N T I N U E 5 8 8 C * * * * COMPUTE T O T A L VOLUME PER T R E E PER C L A S S * * * * 5 8 9 DO 135 1 = 1 . 3 5 9 0 DO 1 3 0 J = 1 , B 5 9 1 F V O L ( I , d ) = - 4 . 3 1 9 0 7 1 + ( 1 . 8 1 3 8 2 * A L O G 1 0 ( F D B H ( I , J ) ) ) + ( 1 . 0 4 2 4 2 * 5 9 2 1 A L 0 G 1 0 ( F H ( I , J ) ) ) 5 9 3 F V O L ( I , J ) = 1 0 * * ( F V 0 L ( I , J ) ) 5 9 4 I F D B H U , d ) = F D B H ( I , d ) * 0 . 3 9 3 7 0 0 8 5 9 5 I F H ( I , d ) = F H ( I , d ) * 3 . 2 8 0 8 4 0 5 9 6 1 3 0 C O N T I N U E 5 9 7 135 C O N T I N U E 5 9 8 C * * * * COMPUTE U P P E R AND LOWER D I A M E T E R OF H A R V E S T E D PRUNED LOG * 5 9 9 C * * * * C O N V E R S I O N INTO E N G L I S H S Y S T E M AND BACK INTO M E T R I C * * * * 6 0 0 I F P = F P H * 3 . 2 8 0 8 4 0 6 0 1 DO 145 1 = 1 , 3 6 0 2 DO 1 4 0 d = 1 , B 6 0 3 F L D ( I , d ) = S O R T ( ( . 9 4 8 2 5 - 1 . 3 3 6 5 1 * ( 1 / I F H ( I , d ) ) 6 0 4 1 + . 3 8 8 2 6 * ( 1 / I F H ( I , d ) * * 2 ) ) * I F D B H ( I , d ) * * 2 ) 6 0 5 F U D ( I . d ) = S O R T ( ( . 9 4 8 2 5 - 1 . 3 3 6 5 1 * ( I F P / I F H ( I , d ) ) 6 0 6 1 + . 3 8 8 2 6 * ( ( I F P * * 2 ) / I F H ( I , d ) * * 2 ) ) * I F D B H ( I , d ) * * 2 ) 6 0 7 F L D ( I , d ) = ( F L D ( I , d ) ) * 2 . 5 4 6 0 8 F U D ( I , d ) = ( F U D ( I , d ) ) * 2 . 5 4 6 0 9 S L ( I , d ) = 3 . 1 4 1 6 * ( ( F L D ( I , d ) / 2 0 0 ) * * 2 ) 6 1 0 S U ( I , d ) = 3 . 1 4 1 6 * ( ( F U D ( I , d ) / 2 0 0 ) * * 2 ) 6 1 1 V V ( I , d ) = ( ( S L ( I , d ) + S U ( I , d ) ) / 2 ) * F P H 6 1 2 1 4 0 C O N T I N U E 6 1 3 145 C O N T I N U E 6 1 4 C * * * * REARRANGE F I N A L VOLUME OF PRUNED LOG * * * * 6 1 5 DO 155 1 = 1 , 3 6 1 6 C = 0 6 1 7 D = B 6 1 8 W H I L E ( C . L T . P T ( X ) . A N D . C . L T . F F ( I ) ) DO 6 1 9 0 = F N ( I , D ) 6 2 0 DO 150 d = 1 , 0 6 2 1 C=C+1 6 2 2 V ( C , I + X ) = V V ( I , D ) 6 2 3 1 5 0 C O N T I N U E 6 2 4 D = D - 1 6 2 5 END WHILE 6 2 6 155 C O N T I N U E 6 2 7 DO 2 0 5 1 = 1 , 3 6 2 8 DO 2 0 0 d = 1 , B 6 2 9 H V O L ( I , d ) = F V O L ( I , d ) * F N ( I , d ) 6 3 0 2 0 0 C O N T I N U E 6 3 1 2 0 5 C O N T I N U E 6 3 2 C * * * * COMPUTE VOLUME AND P E R C E N T A G E OF C L E A R / C L A S S AT H A R V E S T * * * 6 3 3 DO 165 1 = 1 , 3 63.4 d = 0 6 3 5 D=B+1 6 3 6 WHILE ( d . L T . P T ( X ) . A N D . d . L T . F F D ( I ) ) DO 6 3 7 D = D - 1 6 3 8 K=0 OCX 6 3 9 I F ( F N D ( I . D ) . G T . O ) T H E N DO 6 4 0 WHILE ( K . L T . F N D ( I . D ) . A N D . d . L T . P T ( X ) ) DO 6 4 1 d = d+1 6 4 2 K=K+1 6 4 3 DO 1 6 0 W=1,X 6 4 4 T V O L ( I , D ) = V ( d . W ) + T V 0 L ( I , D ) 6 4 5 1 6 0 C O N T I N U E 6 4 6 END WHILE 6 4 7 H H V O L ( I , D ) = V V ( I , D ) * K 6 4 8 P T V O L ( I , D ) = H H V O L ( I , D ) - T V O L ( I , D ) 6 4 9 P T V O L ( I , D ) = ( P T V O L ( I , ~ D ) / K ) * P N ( I , D ) 6 5 0 I F ( P T V O L ( I . D ) . L T . O ) T H E N DO 6 5 1 P T V O L ( I . D ) = 0 6 5 2 END IF 6 5 3 I F ( P N ( I , D ) . L E . 0 ) T H E N DO 6 5 4 P C V O L ( I , D ) = 0 6 5 5 C C V O L ( I , D ) = 0 6 5 6 E L S E DO 6 5 7 P C V O L ( I , D ) = ( P T V O L ( I , D ) / H V O L ( I , D ) ) * 1 0 0 6 5 8 C C V O L ( I , D ) = ( P T V 0 L ( I , D ) / ( ( H H V O L ( I , D ) / K ) * P N ( I . D ) ) ) * 1 0 0 6 5 9 END I F 6 6 0 E L S E DO 6 6 1 H H V O L ( I , D ) = 0 6 6 2 P T V O L ( I , D ) = 0 6 6 3 P C V 0 L ( I , D ) = 0 6 6 4 C C V O L ( I , D ) = 0 6 6 5 END IF 6 6 6 END WHILE 6 6 7 165 C O N T I N U E 6 6 8 C * * * * COMPUTE T O T A L VOLUME AND P E R C E N T A G E * * * * 6 6 9 DO 1 7 5 1 = 1 , 3 6 7 0 DO 170 J = 1 , B 6 7 1 T H V 0 L ( I , J ) = F V O L ( I , J ) * F N ( I , J ) 6 7 2 T O T ( I ) = T O T ( I ) + T H V O L ( I , d ) 6 7 3 C T O T ( I ) = P T V O L ( I , J ) + C T O T ( I ) 6 7 4 P C ( I ) = ( C T O T ( I ) / T O T ( I ) ) * 1 0 0 6 7 5 1 7 0 C O N T I N U E 6 7 6 175 C O N T I N U E 6 7 7 R E T U R N 6 7 8 END 6 7 9 C *******************************************************+*i*fc 6 8 0 C ************************************************************ 6 8 1 C * * * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E H E I G H T * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 8 2 C ************************************************************ 6 8 3 C ***************************************+*****************+** 6 8 4 S U B R O U T I N E H E I G H T ( F D B H , F H , FN j FUD , F L D , B , I , A , Z,, FNT , S , P N , PT , X . F F , 6 8 5 1 D T , L P T , D E F , F N D , F F D ) 6 8 6 I N T E G E R I , B , C , D , F N T ( 3 ) , F N ( 3 , 8 j , N H / O / , N N ( 8 ) , 0 / 0 / , E , F . Z . S . P N ( 3 . 8 ) 6 8 7 I N T E G E R P , G , P T ( 5 ) , X , F F ( 3 ) , L P T ( 3 ) , F N D ( 3 . 8 ) , F F D ( 3 ) 6 8 8 R E A L F D B H ( 3 , 8 ) , F H ( 3 , 8 ) , F U D ( 3 , 8 ) , F L D ( 3 , 8 ) , H 1 , D B H 1 , H 2 , D B H 2 6 8 9 R E A L H H , D B H , D I F , A ( 8 ) , D M / . 0 / , H M , H 4 0 , D T ( 3 ) , D E F 6 9 0 P=0 6 9 1 Z = Z + 2 0 6 9 2 WRITE ( 6 . 3 3 1 ) Z 6 9 3 3 3 1 F O R M A T C ' , ' F O R H A R V E S T AGE= ' , 1 2 ) 6 9 4 WRITE ( 6 , 3 2 3 ) 6 9 5 3 2 3 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R TOP H E I G H T . F 0 = F 4 . 1 ' ) 6 9 6 READ ( 5 , 3 2 4 ) H 4 0 CO-6 9 7 3 2 4 F 0 R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 6 9 8 W R I T E ( 6 , 3 2 5 ) 6 9 9 3 2 5 F 0 R M A T ( ' ' , ' E N T E R MEAN H E I G H T . F 0 = F 4 . 1 ' ) 7 0 0 READ ( 5 , 3 2 6 ) HH 7 0 1 3 2 6 F 0 R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 7 0 2 W R I T E ( 6 , 3 2 7 ) 7 0 3 3 2 7 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R MEAN D B H . F 0 = F 5 . 2 ' ) 7 0 4 R E A D ( 5 , 3 2 8 ) DBH 7 0 5 3 2 8 F O R M A T ( F 5 . 2 ) 7 0 6 WRITE ( 6 , 3 2 9 ) 7 0 7 3 2 9 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R NUMBER OF T R E E S . F 0 = I 4 ' ) 7 0 8 R E A D ( 5 , 3 3 0 ) F N T ( I ) 7 0 9 3 3 0 F O R M A T ( 1 4 ) 7 1 0 W R I T E ( 6 , 4 0 1 ) 7 1 1 4 0 1 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R E X P E C T E D % M O R T A L I T Y OF PRUNED T R E E S . F 0 = F 4 . 7 1 2 READ ( 5 , 4 0 2 ) D T ( I ) 7 1 3 4 0 2 F 0 R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 7 1 4 C * * * * F IND D I A M E T E R C L A S S AT H A R V E S T AGE * * * * 7 1 5 D B H 1 = D B H * 0 . 4 7 1 6 I F ( S . G T . 9 ) T H E N DO 7 1 7 D B H 2 = D B H * 1 . 6 7 1 8 E L S E DO 7 1 9 I F ( S . E Q . 6 ) T H E N DO 7 2 0 D B H 2 = D B H * 1 . 7 7 7 2 1 E L S E DO 7 2 2 D B H 2 = D B H * 1 . 4 7 7 2 3 END IF 7 2 4 END I F 7 2 5 D I F = D B H 2 - D B H 1 7 2 6 D I F = D I F / B 7 2 7 F D B H ( I , 1)=DBH1 + ( D I F / 2 ) 7 2 8 D = B - 1 7 2 9 DO 125 C = 2 , D 7 3 0 F D B H ( I ; C ) = F D B H ( I , C - 1 ) + D I F 7 3 1 125 C O N T I N U E 7 3 2 F D B H ( I , B ) = F D B H ( I , B - 1 ) + D I F 7 3 3 C * * * * F I N D NUMBER OF T R E E S AND " P R U N A B L E " T R E E S PER C L A S S * * * * 7 3 4 C * * * * AND C O R R E C T I O N OF T O T A L NUMBER DUE TO ROUNDING ERROR * * * * 7 3 5 DO 1 3 0 C = 1 , B 7 3 6 F N ( I , C ) = ( F N T ( I ) * A ( C ) ) / 1 0 0 7 3 7 F N D ( I , C ) = F N ( I , C ) * ( 1 - ( D E F / 1 0 0 ) ) 7 3 8 1 3 0 C O N T I N U E 7 3 9 DO 2 2 0 C = 1 , B 7 4 0 F F ( I ) = F F ( I ) + F N ( I , C ) 7 4 1 F F D ( I ) = F F D ( I ) + F N D ( I , C ) 7 4 2 2 2 0 C O N T I N U E 7 4 3 C * * * * F IND NUMBER OF PRUNED T R E E S PER C L A S S AT H A R V E S T * * * * 7 4 4 D=B+1 7 4 5 WHILE ( P . L T . P T ( X ) . A N D . P . L T . F F D ( I ) ) DO 7 4 6 D = D - 1 7 4 7 P = P + F N D ( I , D ) 7 4 8 I F ( P . G T . P T ( X ) ) T H E N DO 7 4 9 G = P - P T ( X ) 7 5 0 P N ( I , D ) = ( F N D ( I , D ) - G ) * ( 1 - ( D T ( I ) / 1 0 0 ) ) 7 5 1 E L S E DO 7 5 2 P N ( I , D ) = F N D ( I , D ) * ( 1 - ( D T ( I ) / 1 0 0 ) ) 7 5 3 END IF 7 5 4 L P T ( I ) = L P T ( I ) + P N ( I , D ) 7 5 5 END WHILE 7 5 6 C * * * * F I N D T R E E H E I G H T BY I T T E R A T I O N * * * * 7 5 7 d = B+1 7 5 8 W H I L E ( N H . L T . 9 9 ) DO 7 5 9 d = d - 1 7 6 0 F = J 7 6 1 N H = N H + F N ( I , J ) 7 6 2 IF ( N H . G T . 9 9 ) T H E N DO 7 6 3 E = N H - 9 9 7 6 4 N N ( d ) = F N ( I , d ) - E 7 6 5 E L S E DO 7 6 6 N N ( d ) = F N ( I , d ) 7 6 7 END I F 7 6 8 END WHILE 7 6 9 DO 135 d = F , B 7 7 0 D M = ( F D B H ( I , d ) * N N ( d ) ) + D M 7 7 1 1 3 5 C O N T I N U E 7 7 2 D M = ( D M / 9 9 ) - D B H 7 7 3 H M = H 4 0 - H H 7 7 4 DO 1 4 0 d = 1 , B 7 7 5 E = F D B H ( I , d ) - D B H 7 7 6 F H ( I , d ) = H H + ( ( H M / D M ) * E ) 7 7 7 1 4 0 C O N T I N U E 7 7 8 R E T U R N 7 7 9 END 7 8 0 C ***********************************************************+*** 7 8 1 C *********************************************************t***** 7 8 2 C * * * * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E BRANCH * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 3 C *******************************************************+*+***+* 7 8 4 C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 5 S U B R O U T I N E BRANCH ( B , X , S , P H , U D , D C . L C , D B , L B , M L B , L D . B B , R R ) 7 8 6 I N T E G E R A 2 0 . B . D , I , X , d , S , B B 7 8 7 R E A L D 2 0 . D 1 , D 2 , D I F , C L ( 8 ) , C . D B ( 5 , 8 ) , L B ( 5 , 8 ) , P H ( 5 ) , D C ( 5 . 8 ) 7 8 8 R E A L L C ( 5 , 8 ) , U D ( 5 , 8 ) , U , L , M L B ( 5 . 8 ) , R R ( 5 ) , L D ( 5 , 8 ) 7 8 9 WRITE ( 6 , 3 3 4 ) 7 9 0 3 3 4 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R MEAN DBH B E T W E E N AGE 2 0 AND 3 0 ' ) 7 9 1 WRITE ( 6 . 3 3 5 ) 7 9 2 3 3 5 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R C H O O S E N A G E . F 0 = I 2 . ' ) 7 9 3 READ ( 5 , 3 3 6 ) A 2 0 7 9 4 3 3 6 F O R M A T ( 1 2 ) 7 9 5 WRITE ( 6 , 3 3 2 ) A 2 0 7 9 6 3 3 2 F O R M A T C ' , ' E N T E R MEAN DBH AT AGE ' . 1 2 , ' . F 0 = F 5 . 2 ' ) 7 9 7 READ ( 5 , 3 3 3 ) D 2 0 7 9 8 3 3 3 F O R M A T ( F 5 . 2 ) 7 9 9 C * * * * F I N D D I A M E T E R C L A S S * * * * 8 0 0 D 1 = D 2 0 * 0 . 4 8 0 1 IF ( S . G T . 9 ) T H E N DO 8 0 2 D 2 = D 2 0 * 1 . 6 8 0 3 E L S E DO 8 0 4 IF ( S . E Q . 6 ) T H E N DO 8 0 5 0 2 = 0 2 0 * 1 . 7 7 8 0 6 E L S E DO 8 0 7 0 2 = 0 2 0 * 1 . 4 7 8 0 8 END IF 8 0 9 END I F 8 1 0 D I F = D 2 - D 1 8 1 1 C = D I F / B 8 1 2 C L ( 1)=D1 + ( C / 2 ) ; 8 1 3 D = B - 1 8 1 4 DO 1 8 0 1 = 2 . D 8 1 5 C L ( I ) = C L ( I - 1 ) + C 8 1 6 1 8 0 C O N T I N U E 8 1 7 C L ( B ) = C L ( B - 1 ) + C 8 1 8 C * * * * COMPUTE B R A N C H D I B , DEAD AND L I V E * * * * 8 1 9 I F ( S . E 0 . 6 ) T H E N DO 8 2 0 B B = 4 8 2 1 E L S E DO 8 2 2 BB = 5 8 2 3 END IF 8 2 4 DO 1 9 0 1 = 1 , X 8 2 5 R R ( I ) = 1 . 3 4 7 + . 0 7 1 6 4 2 * C L ( B B ) - . 0 5 6 7 9 7 * A 2 0 + . 0 3 3 2 8 4 * P H ( I ) + . 0 3 0 1 5 9 * S 8 2 6 DO 185 d=1 , B 8 2 7 I F ( D C ( I . d ) . G T . O ) THEN DO 8 2 8 L = I 8 2 9 IF ( I . E Q . 1 ) T H E N DO 8 3 0 DB( I , d ) = 1 . 3 4 7 + . 0 7 1 6 4 2 * C L ( d ) - . 0 5 6 7 9 7 * A 2 0 8 3 1 1 + . 0 3 3 2 8 4 * D C ( I , d ) + . 0 3 0 1 5 9 * S 8 3 2 E L S E DO 8 3 3 D B ( I , d ) = 1 . 3 4 7 + . 0 7 1 6 4 2 * C L ( d ) - . 0 5 6 7 9 7 * A 2 0 8 3 4 1 + . 0 3 3 2 8 4 * ( P H ( L - 1 ) + D C ( I , d ) ) + . 0 3 0 1 5 9 * S 8 3 5 END IF 8 3 6 E L S E DO 8 3 7 D B ( I , d ) = 0 8 3 8 END I F 8 3 9 I F ( L C ( I . d ) . G T . O ) T H E N DO 8 4 0 U = U D ( I , d ) - 5 . 0 8 8 4 1 L B ( I , d ) = 0 . 5 3 7 0 6 + 0 . 1 0 3 0 8 * U 8 4 2 IF ( P B ( I , d ) . E Q . O ) T H E N DO 8 4 3 L = L D ( I , d ) - 5 . 0 8 8 4 4 M L B ( I , d ) = 0 . 5 3 7 0 6 + 0 . 1 0 3 0 8 * L 8 4 5 END I F 8 4 6 E L S E DO 8 4 7 L B ( I , d ) = 0 8 4 8 END IF 8 4 9 185 C O N T I N U E 8 5 0 1 9 0 C O N T I N U E 8 5 1 R E T U R N 8 5 2 END 8 5 3 C ft************************************ k********************* 8 5 4 C ************************************************ 8 5 5 C * * * * * S U B R O U T I N E ECONO ***+**************++******* 8 5 6 C *********************************************************** 8 5 7 C *********************************************************** 8 5 8 S U B R O U T I N E ECONO ( X , P H , A G E , P T , F C O S T , T I M . T T I M , R l , C O S T , S C , C O S T A , S 8 5 9 1 C O , D C O , H S , P O , W O R , D B , L B , M L B , B , R R , B B ) 8 6 0 I N T E G E R X , I , A G E ( 5 ) , P T ( 5 ) , S , d , B B , B 8 6 1 R E A L P H ( 5 ) , T I M ( 5 ) , T T I M ( 5 ) . C O , W 0 R , C 0 S T ( 5 ) , R I , S C ( 5 ) , C O S T A ( 5 ) 8 6 2 R E A L D C 0 ( 5 ) , H S , P O , D B ( 5 , 8 ) , L B ( 5 , 8 ) , M L B ( 5 . 8 ) , B R , R R ( 5 ) 8 6 3 C * * * * COMPUTE T I M E R E Q U I R E D FOR E A C H P R U N I N G * * * * 8 6 4 DO 2 2 5 I = 1 . X 8 6 5 T I M ( I ) = . 8 4 0 5 + . 2 1 7 2 2 * ( P H ( I ) * * 2 ) 8 6 6 IF ( S . E 0 . 6 ) T H E N DO 8 6 7 T I M ( I ) = T I M ( I ) * 1 . 15 8 6 8 E L S E DO 8 6 9 IF ( S . E Q . 9 ) THEN DO 8 7 0 T I M ( I ) = T I M ( I ) * 1 . 4 4 8 7 1 E L S E DO 8 7 2 I F ( S . E Q . 1 2 ) T H E N DO 8 7 3 T I M ( I ) = T I M ( I ) * 1 . 7 3 8 7 4 E L S E DO 8 7 5 T I M ( I ) = T I M ( I ) * 2 . 0 2 8 7 6 END I F 8 7 7 END IF 8 7 8 END IF 8 7 9 I F ( I . G T . 1 ) T H E N DO 8 8 0 DO 2 4 0 J = 2 , I 8 8 1 T I M ( I ) = T I M ( I ) - T I M ( J - 1 ) 8 8 2 2 4 0 C O N T I N U E 8 8 3 END IF 8 8 4 C * * * * A D J U S T T I M E A C C O R D I N G TO BRANCH D I A M E T E R * * * * 8 8 5 I F ( D B ( I . B ) . G T . O . A N D . L B ( I . B ) . G T . 0 ) T H E N DO 8 8 6 B R = ( D B ( I , B B ) + L B ( I , B B ) ) / 2 8 8 7 E L S E DO 8 8 8 I F ( D B ( I . B ) . E Q . O ) T H E N DO 8 8 9 B R = ( M L B ( I , B B ) + L B ( I . B B ) ) / 2 8 9 0 E L S E DO 8 9 1 B R = D B ( I , B B ) 8 9 2 END IF 8 9 3 END IF • 8 9 4 T I M ( I ) = ( T I M ( I ) / ( R R ( I ) * * 2 ) ) * ( B R * * 2 ) 8 9 5 C * * * * COMPUTE T O T A L T I M E ( P R U N I N G + B R E A K S + T R A V E L L I N G T I M E ) * 8 9 6 T T I M ( I ) = T I M ( I ) * P T ( I ) 8 9 7 T T I M ( I ) = T T I M ( I ) + ( P T ( I ) * . 3 3 ) 8 9 8 T T I M ( I ) = ( ( ( T T I M ( I ) / 2 5 ) * 5 ) + T T I M ( I ) ) / 6 0 8 9 9 2 2 5 C O N T I N U E 9 0 0 WRITE ( 6 , 3 7 5 ) 9 0 1 3 7 5 F O R M A T C ' , ' W H A T IS YOUR HOURLY S A L A R Y ? F 0 = F 6 . 2 ' ) 9 0 2 READ ( 5 , 3 7 6 ) HS 9 0 3 3 7 6 F O R M A T ( F 6 . 2 ) 9 0 4 W R I T E ( 6 , 4 0 5 ) 9 0 5 4 0 5 F O R M A T C ' , ' W H A T I S YOUR O V E R H E A D IN P E R C E N T A G E ? F 0 = F 4 . 1 ' ) 9 0 6 READ ( 5 , 4 0 6 ) PO 9 0 7 4 0 6 F O R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 9 0 8 . WRITE ( 6 , 3 7 7 ) 9 0 9 3 7 7 F O R M A T C ' , ' H O W MANY E F F E C T I V E WORKING HOURS PER DAY? F 0 = F 4 . 1 ' 9 1 0 R E A D ( 5 , 3 7 8 ) WOR 9 1 1 3 7 8 F O R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 9 1 2 WRITE ( 6 , 3 7 9 ) 9 1 3 3 7 9 F O R M A T ( ' ' , ' W H A T RATE OF I N T E R E S T DO YOU WANT TO U S E ? F 0 = F 4 . 1 ' 9 1 4 READ ( 5 , 3 8 0 ) R l 9 1 5 3 8 0 F 0 R M A T ( F 4 . 1 ) 9 1 6 C * * * * COMPUTE C O S T S AND D I S C O U N T E D C O S T S PER T R E E AND T O T A L + + 9 1 7 C 0 = ( H S * 8 ) * ( 1 + ( P 0 / 1 O O ) ) 9 1 8 DO 2 3 0 I = 1 . X 9 1 9 C O S T A ( I ) = ( T T I M ( I ) / W O R ) * C O 9 2 0 S C ( I ) = C O S T A ( I ) / P T ( I ) 9 2 1 C O S T ( I ) = C O S T A ( I ) / ( ( 1 + ( R I / 1 0 0 ) ) * * A G E ( I ) ) 9 2 2 D C O ( I ) = S C ( I ) / ( ( 1 + ( R l / 1 0 0 ) ) * * A G E ( I ) ) 9 2 3 F C O S T = F C O S T + C O S T ( I ) 9 2 4 2 3 0 C O N T I N U E 9 2 5 R E T U R N 9 2 6 END 9 2 7 $ D A T A 191 APPENDIX C - OUTPUT OF MODEL PRUNE S P A C I N G : 6 F E E T L E N G T H OF P R U N E D L O G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S % D E F E C T T R E E S : 1 0 . 0 0 S I . 5o A G E WHEN P R U N E D : 1 2 H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 3 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 4 5 0 / H A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4 . 0 6 6 . 4 6 19 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 1 . 9 8 1 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 9 . 17 7 . 8 7 0 . 7 5 0 . 8 2 0 , . 0 0 5 . 8 7 6 . 6 0 6 0 4 O 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 2 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 9 9 9 . 15 1 . 0 1 0 . 9 6 0 . . 0 0 7 . 6 7 6 . 7 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 0 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 8 2 1 0 . 4 6 1 . 2 8 1 . 0 9 0 , , 0 0 9 . 4 7 6 . 8 8 7 1 3 2 5 2 0 . 4 3 3 9 . 8 4 2 . 5 7 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 4 14 . 6 4 11 . 8 0 1 . 5 4 1 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 11 . 2 8 7 . 0 2 1 9 3 173 0 . 2 8 4 0 . 32 2 . 7 2 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 5 1 6 . 4 7 1 3 . 16 1 . 8 0 1 . 3 7 0 . , 0 0 1 3 . 0 8 7 . 1 7 2 8 2 5 0 . 16 4 0 . 5 7 2 . 8 4 O . 16 0 . 0 6 1 8 . 3 0 1 4 . 5 4 2 . 0 7 1 . 5 1 0 . , 0 0 AGE WHEN P R U N E D : 18 H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 4 0 0 / H A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 6 . 0 2 1 2 . 2 4 17 0 3 . 5 2 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 8 0 . 5 2 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 2 5 9 . 0 8 0 . 8 3 0 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 8 . 6 9 1 2 . 4 5 5 6 2 0 3 . 8 1 0 . 0 0 2 . 19 0 . 8 1 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 5 7 1 0 . 9 2 1 . 1 1 1 . 14 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 3 6 1 2 . 6 6 9 3 9 0 4 . 10 0 . 0 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 10 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 9 0 1 2 . 7 9 1 . 3 9 1 . 3 3 0 , . 0 0 14 . 0 3 1 2 . 8 7 6 6 3 2 1 5 4 . 3 9 1 8 . 9 9 1 . 6 1 1 . 3 9 0 . 0 6 1 7 . 2 6 14 . 6 9 1 . 6 7 1 . 5 3 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 7 0 1 3 . 0 8 1 8 0 162 4 . 6 8 1 5 . 6 7 1 . 3 2 1 . 6 8 0 . 0 8 1 9 . 6 2 1 6 . 6 2 1 . 9 5 1 . 7 3 0 , . 0 0 1 9 . 3 7 1 3 . 2 9 2 6 2 3 4 . 9 8 1 2 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 1 . 9 8 0 . 10 2 2 . 0 0 1 8 . 5 8 2 . 2 3 1 . 9 3 0 , . 0 0 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S . D B H , C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M . C\j 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S P E R C L A S S PER HA 4=NUMBER OF P R U N E D T R E E S P E R H A . 1 - 1 5 = H E I G H T TO L I V E CROWN, M. 6 = P E R C E N T A G E L I V E CROWN REMOVED 7 = L E N G T H OF C O R E WITH L I V E B R A N C H E S , M. 8 = L E N G T H OF C O R E WITH D E A D B R A N C H E S , M . 9 = V 0 L U M E OF C O R E , M * * 3 . 10=L0WER D I A M E T E R OF C O R E , C M . 11=UPPER D I A M E T E R OF KNOTTY C O R E , C M . 12=MAXIMUM D E A D B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 1 3 = L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 14=MAXIMUM L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 8 0 1 5 . , 12 2 7 . 9 4 5 0 14 , . 6 1 21 8 3 3 0 . 8 2 187 0 21 , . 1 1 2 8 . . 5 4 3 3 . 7 0 3 1 2 127 27 , . 6 2 3 5 . 2 6 3 5 . 7 6 2 2 0 178 34 , . 12 4 1 . , 9 7 3 8 . 6 4 5 9 4 7 4 0 . . 6 4 4 8 . 6 8 41 . 5 1 8 6 4 7 . . 16 21 . 4 9 4 2 , . 4 8 3 0 2 0 , 8 2 31 . . 0 4 4 5 , . 2 9 109 74 3 0 , . 0 8 4 0 . , 5 8 4 7 , . 8 2 182 138 3 9 , , 34 5 0 . , 13 5 0 . 3 5 128 9 7 4 8 , . 6 0 5 9 . , 6 7 5 2 . 8 7 34 2 5 5 7 , , 8 7 6 9 . . 2 1 5 5 . 6 8 5 3 6 7 . . 14 2 6 . . 7 4 5 3 , . 8 7 2 0 2 5 , . 9 3 3 8 . , 6 1 5 6 . 3 3 7 8 5 6 37 , . 4 5 5 0 . 4 8 5 8 . 7 9 1 3 0 9 3 • 4 8 , 9 8 6 2 . . 3 6 6 1 . 0 5 9 2 6 5 6 0 , , 5 1 74 . 2 3 6 3 . 5 1 2 5 17 7 2 , . 0 4 8 6 . 10 6 5 . 9 7 3 1 8 3 , . 5 7 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S . D B H . C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M. 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S P E R C L A S S / H A . 4=NUMBER OF P R U N E D T R E E S / H A . 5=L0WER D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 6 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 7 = V 0 L U M E P E R T R E E P E R C L A S S , M * * 3 . 8 = T 0 T A L VOLUME P E R C L A S S , M * * 3 . 9 = V 0 L U M E OF P R U N E D L O G . M * * 3 . 1 0 = T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME P E R C L A S S . ( P R U N E D L O G ) , M * * 3 . 1 1 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R . I N PRUNED L O G , PER C L A S S 1 2 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R PER C L A S S H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 T O T A L V O L U M E 7 5 7 . 2 3 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME 1 2 6 . 0 3 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 1 6 . 6 4 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 T O T A L VOLUME 1 1 9 6 . 4 6 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME 2 2 5 . 5 5 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 18 . 8 5 H A R V E S T A G E : 8 0 T O T A L VOLUME 1 5 6 5 . 2 0 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME 2 5 2 . 3 9 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 1 6 . 12 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 1 2 . 4 6 0 . , 2 1 1 . 0 6 0 . 0 9 0 . , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 3 0 0 . , 4 6 8 5 . 8 1 0 . 18 0 . . 0 0 O . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 4 . 2 6 0 . , 8 2 2 5 5 . 5 7 0 . 32 2 8 , , 0 3 6 9 . 32 1 0 . 9 7 3 0 . 2 2 1. . 2 8 281 . 18 0 . 4 9 6 6 . . 6 2 7 6 . 4 4 2 3 . 6 9 3 6 . 3 5 1. 9 0 1 1 2 , . 14 0 . 7 0 2 6 . ,61 8 0 . 8 3 2 3 . 7 3 42 . 5 3 2 . , 6 8 21 . 4 5 0 . 9 5 4 , , 7 7 8 3 . 6 7 22 . 24 1 8 . 8 3 0 . . 6 2 1 . 8 7 0 . 19 0 , . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 7 . 3 8 1 . , 3 0 141 . 4 5 0 . 3 9 21 , . 6 1 74 . 9 3 15 . 2 8 3 5 . 9 9 2 . , 2 3 4 0 6 . 4 9 0 . 6 7 7 8 . , 0 3 8 4 . 41 1 9 . 2 0 44 . 6 8 3 . , 4 6 4 4 2 , . 4 9 1 . 0 3 8 7 , . 5 2 8 7 . 8 6 1 9 . 7 8 5 3 . 4 2 4 . , 9 9 1 6 9 . . 6 9 1 . 4 6 3 2 , 92 9 0 . 10 1 9 . 4 0 6 2 . 2 4 6 . 8 9 34 . 4 7 1 . 9 7 5 , . 4 6 9 2 . 14 1 5 . 8 4 2 3 . 9 8 1 . . 19 2 . 3 7 0 . 2 9 0 , . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 4 . 7 6 2 . . 4 2 188 . 8 2 0 . 6 2 28 . 9 8 84 . 12 1 5 . 3 5 4 5 . 6 0 4 . . 12 5 3 5 . 14 1 . , 0 6 8 7 . 2 6 8 8 . 9 2 1 6 . 31 5 6 . 4 9 6 . . 2 8 5 7 7 . 7 6 1 . 61 9 6 . 8 3 9 2 . 2 7 1 6 . 7 6 6 7 . 4 4 8 . 9 8 2 2 4 . 4 3 2 . , 2 9 3 6 . 3 8 9 3 . 2 8 16 . 21 7 8 . 4 4 1 2 . 22 36 . 6 7 3 . , 10 2 . 9 4 9 4 . 9 9 8 . 0 2 # OF PRUNED T R E E S % MORT. & D E F E C T 3 5 8 1 0 . 0 0 ff OF PRUNED T R E E S % MORT. & D E F E C T 3 3 7 1 5 . 0 0 H OF PRUNED T R E E S % MORT. & D E F E C T 2 3 2 2 0 . 0 0 * * * P R U N I N G C O S T P E R H E C T A R E * * * CN * C O S T PER M A N - D A Y : $ 7 8 . O O * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * •PRUNING UP T O : 3 . 0 M E T E R S P R U N I N G T I M E P E R T R E E ( M I N ) : T O T A L P R U N I N G T I M E ( H O U R S ) : T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : D I S C . C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • P R U N I N G UP T O : 6 . 0 M E T E R S P R U N I N G T I M E P E R T R E E ( M I N ) : T O T A L P R U N I N G T I M E ( H O U R S ) : T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : D I S C . C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : * $ / H R S : 7 . 5 0 2 . 3 2 4 . 0 2 4 9 . 2 9 0 . 6 1 3 8 . 8 2 0 . 3 1 6 . 6 5 5 . 1 5 7 2 . 8 0 1 . 4 2 3 8 . 0 1 0 . 6 0 ************************************** D I S C O U N T E D C O S T : $ 3 7 6 . 8 R A T E OF I N T E R E S T : 5 . 0 % * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • D I S C O U N T E D C O S T P E R H A R V E S T E D P R U N E D T R E E : • • H A R V E S T A G E 4 0 : $ 1 . 0 5 • • H A R V E S T AGE 6 0 : $ 1 . 1 2 ••HARVEST E F F E C T I V E H OF H R S / D A Y : 7 . 5 • % O V E R H E A D : 3 0 . O AGE 8 0 : $ 1 . 6 2 S P A C I N G : A G E WHEN 6 F E E T L E N G T H OF P R U N E D L O G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S % D E F E C T T R E E S : 1 0 . 0 0 P R U N E D : 1 5 ' SI iio H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 3 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 4 5 0 / H A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 3 . 4 7 9 . 2 2 2 2 0 O . 19 0 . 0 0 2 . 8 1 0 . 19 0 . 0 0 8 . 6 1 7 . 8 4 0 . 6 2 0 . 8 2 0 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 9 . 3 4 7 0 2 0 0 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 2 . 7 2 0 . 28 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 17 9 . 0 8 0 . 8 5 0 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 6 . 5 4 9 . 4 6 1 1 7 3 0 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 2 . 6 4 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 7 4 1 0 . 3 4 1 . 0 8 1 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 8 . 0 8 9 . 5 9 8 2 8 221 0 . 4 6 2 7 . 8 5 2 . 5 4 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 3 1 3 . 3 1 11 . 6 0 1 . 3 0 1 . 2 1 0 . . 0 0 9 . 6 2 9 . 7 1 2 2 4 2 0 1 0 . 5 6 2 6 . 6 9 2 . 4 4 0 . 5 6 0 . 0 4 14 . 8 8 12 . 8 7 1 . 5 3 1 . 3 4 0 . 0 0 11 . 16 9 . 8 3 3 2 2 8 0 . 6 6 2 5 . 5 0 2 . 3 4 0 . 6 6 0 . 0 5 1 6 . 4 5 1 4 . 15 1 : 76 1 . 4 7 0 . . 0 0 A G E WHEN P R U N E D : 2 3 H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 4 0 0 / H A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 . 3 5 , 1 6 . 9 5 18 0 9 . 6 7 o.op 5 . 0 0 6 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 8 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 9 4 1 . 0 4 0 . . 0 0 9 . 17 1 7 . 17 6 0 1 0 9 . 9 0 o.op 0 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 4 4 1 2 . 2 1 1 . 1 7 1 . 2 7 0 . . 0 0 1 1 . 9 9 1 7 . 4 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 . 12 5 . 0 0 7 . 1 2 O . O O 1 6 . 0 4 1 4 . 4 5 1 . 4 0 1 . 5 0 0 , . 0 0 14 . 8 1 1 7 . 6 2 7 0 9 2 0 3 1 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 7 1 8 . 6 4 1 6 . 7 0 1 . 4 9 1 . 7 4 0 , . 0 0 17 . 6 3 1 7 . 8 4 192 172 1 0 . 5 3 0 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 10 21 . 2 5 1 8 . 9 8 1 . 7 1 1 . 9 7 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 4 5 1 8 . 0 6 2 8 2 5 1 0 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 12 2 3 . 8 6 21 . 2 6 1 . 9 4 2 . 2 1 0 . . 0 0 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S . D B H , C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M. 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S P E R C L A S S P E R HA 4=NUMBER OF P R U N E D T R E E S PER H A . 5 = H E I G H T TO L I V E CROWN, M . 6 = P E R C E N T A G E L I V E CROWN REMOVED 7 = L E N G T H OF C O R E WITH L I V E B R A N C H E S , M . 8 = L E N G T H OF C O R E WITH D E A D B R A N C H E S , M . 9 = V 0 L U M E OF C O R E , M * * 3 . 10=L0WER D I A M E T E R OF C O R E , C M . 1 1 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R OF K N O T T Y C O R E , C M . 12=MAXIMUM D E A D B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 1 3 = L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 14=MAXIMUM L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 10 11 12 H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 8 0 11 . 6 7 2 0 . 8 3 8 0 1 1 . 2 5 9 . 0 1 0 , . 10 0 . 7 8 0 . , 0 5 0 , . 0 0 O, . 0 0 0 . , 0 0 16 . 8 5 2 3 . 4 3 2 7 8 0 16 . 2 6 13 . 3 9 0 . 2 2 5 9 . 9 7 0 . , 10 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 2 2 . 0 4 2 5 . 6 0 4 6 6 12 21 . 2 8 17 . 8 5 0 , . 3 8 179 . 2 9 0 . , 18 0 , . 9 0 41 , . 3 7 0 . , 5 0 2 7 . 2 2 2 7 . 3 3 3 2 8 2 6 5 26 . 3 0 22 . 3 4 0 . 6 0 198 . 2 0 0 . , 2 8 4 3 . 0 4 5 7 , 8 9 21 . 72 3 2 . 4 0 2 9 . 5 0 8 9 7 2 31 . 3 2 26 . 9 7 0 , . 9 0 7 9 . 8 8 0 . , 4 0 18 . 7 2 6 4 , . 5 9 2 3 . 4 3 3 7 . 5 9 31 . 6 7 13 9 3 6 . 3 5 31 . 6 5 1, . 2 6 16 . 4 4 0 . , 5 5 3 . 4 0 6 8 . . 9 6 2 0 , , 6 6 16 . 9 5 31 . . 0 3 4 0 16 , 3 9 14 . 2 2 0 , . 29 1 . 17 0 . , 11 0 , . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 , . 0 0 2 4 . 4 7 3 3 . 7 1 156 0 2 3 6 8 2 0 . 8 0 0 , 6 2 9 6 . 7 1 0 . , 2 3 0 , . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 , , 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 6 . 4 0 2 6 2 155 3 0 , 9 8 2 7 , . 5 0 1. 0 9 2 8 6 . 15 0 . , 4 0 4 6 , . 0 5 7 3 . 5 0 16 , . 0 9 3 9 . 5 2 3 8 . 4 2 1 8 5 141 3 8 , . 2 7 34 . 2 1 1, . 6 9 3 1 3 , . 5 1 0 . 62 6 8 , . 6 8 7 8 . 4 6 21 , . 9 1 4 7 . 0 5 41 , . 10 5 0 3 8 4 5 , . 5 8 41 . 0 6 2 . 4 9 124 . 7 3 0 . 8 9 27 . 9 5 8 2 . 9 6 22 . 4 1 5 4 . 5 8 4 3 . 4 5 7 5 5 2 , . 8 8 47 . 9 2 3 , . 4 6 2 4 , . 2 2 1 . . 2 0 5 . 15 8 5 . 8 4 21 . 2 7 2 1 . 4 1 3 8 . 5 8 3 0 2 0 , . 7 3 18 . 5 4 0 . . 5 6 1 . 6 8 0 . , 18 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 9 2 4 1 . . 3 9 1 10 6 7 2 9 . , 9 5 27 . 0 0 1 . , 17 1 2 9 , . 0 5 0 . , 3 8 18 . . 5 3 7 2 , . 18 14 , . 3 6 4 0 . 4 3 4 3 . , 9 2 184 132 3 9 , , 17 3 5 , . 5 4 2 . , 0 3 3 7 3 , , 4 7 0 . . 6 6 71 . 6 4 8 2 . 3 4 1 9 , . 18 4 9 . . 9 3 4 6 , , 4 5 129 9 2 4 8 , , 4 0 44 , . 16 3 . . 16 4 0 7 . . 18 1 . , 0 1 8 0 . 5 0 8 6 . 5 2 1 9 , . 7 7 5 9 . 4 4 4 8 . 9 8 3 5 24 5 7 . 6 3 52 . 8 4 4 . , 5 8 1 6 0 . . 17 1 . 44 3 0 . 7 3 8 8 . 9 0 19 . 19 6 8 9 5 51 , , 7 9 5 3 6 6 . . 8 6 61 . . 6 2 6 . , 3 5 31 , , 7 4 1 . 9 5 5 , . 3 3 91 , . 28 1 6 , . 8 0 ON 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S . D B H , C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M . 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S P E R C L A S S / H A . 4=NUMBER OF P R U N E D T R E E S / H A . 5=L0WER D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K . C M . 6 = U P P E R D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 7 = V 0 L U M E P E R T R E E P E R C L A S S , M * * 3 . 8 = T 0 T A L V O L U M E P E R C L A S S , M * * 3 . 9 = V 0 L U M E OF P R U N E D L O G . M * * 3 . 1 0 = T 0 T A L C L E A R V O L U M E PER C L A S S . ( P R U N E D L O G ) , M * * 3 . 1 1 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R . I N P R U N E D L O G , P E R C L A S S 12 = P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R P E R C L A S S H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 T O T A L V O L U M E 5 3 4 . 5 7 T O T A L C L E A R V O L U M E 6 6 . 0 6 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 1 2 . 3 6 ff OF PRUNED T R E E S 3 5 8 % MORT. S D E F E C T 1 0 . 0 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 T O T A L V O L U M E 8 4 6 . 4 8 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME 1 4 7 . 8 4 P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 1 7 . 4 7 H OF PRUNED T R E E S 3 3 9 % MORT. & D E F E C T 1 5 . 0 0 H A R V E S T A G E : 8 0 T O T A L V O L U M E 1 1 0 3 . 2 9 T O T A L C L E A R VOLUME P E R C E N T A G E C L E A R 2 0 6 . 7 4 1 8 . 7 4 H OF PRUNED T R E E S % MORT. & D E F E C T 3 1 8 2 0 . 0 0 * * * P R U N I N G C O S T PER H E C T A R E * * * * C O S T P E R M A N - D A Y : $ 7 8 . 0 0 * $ / H R S : 7 . 5 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • P R U N I N G UP T O : 3 . 0 M E T E R S P R U N I N G T I M E PER T R E E ( M I N ) : 2 . 6 T O T A L P R U N I N G T I M E ( H O U R S ) : 2 6 . 6 T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : 2 7 7 . 1 6 C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : 0 . 6 T O T A L D I S C . C 0 S T ( $ ) : 1 3 3 . 3 2 D I S C . C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : 0 . 3 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • P R U N I N G UP T O : 6 . 0 M E T E R S P R U N I N G T I M E P E R T R E E ( M I N ) : 8 . 6 T O T A L P R U N I N G T I M E ( H O U R S ) : 7 1 . 4 T O T A L C O S T ( $ ) : 7 4 2 . 1 9 C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : 1 . 9 T O T A L D I S C . C O S T ( $ ) : 2 4 1 . 6 4 D I S C . C O S T P E R T R E E ( $ ) : 0 . 6 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D I S C O U N T E D C O S T : $ 3 7 5 . 0 R A T E OF I N T E R E S T : 5 . 0 % * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D I S C O U N T E D C O S T P E R H A R V E S T E D P R U N E D T R E E : • • H A R V E S T AGE 4 0 : $ 1 . 0 5 • • H A R V E S T A G E 6 0 : $ 1 . 1 1 * * H A R V E S T E F F E C T I V E # OF H R S / D A Y : 7 . 5 * % O V E R H E A D : 3 0 . O AGE 8 0 : $ 1 . 1 8 SPACING: 6 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:18 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 400/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 6.02 12.24 17 0 3.52 0.00 2.48 3.52 0.00 1 1 .24 9.08 0.83 0.95 0, .00 8 .69 12 .45 562 0 3.81 0.00 2. 19 3.81 0.00 13.98 10.92 1.11 1.14 0. .00 1 1 .36 12.66 939 0 4 . 10 0.00 1 .90 4 . 10 0.00 16.71 12.79 1 .39 1 .33 0. .00 14 .03 12 .87 663 215 4.39 18.99 1.61 4.39 0. 13 19.45 14.69 1 .67 1 .53 0. .00 16.70 13.08 180 162 4 .68 15.67 1 . 32 4.68 0.17 ,22.20 16.62 1 .95 1 .73 0. .00 19.37 13.29 26 23 4.98 12.29 1 .02 4.98 0. 22 24 .94 18.58 2.23 1 .93 0. .00 to ON 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 15 . 12 27 .94 5 0 14, 61 21 .83 30 .82 187 0 21 . 11 28. .54 33 .70 312 127 27, .62 35 .26 35 .76 220 178 34. , 12 41 .97 38 .64 59 47 40, ,64 48 . 68 41 . 51 8 6 47 , . 16 21 . 49 42. .48 3 0 20, 82 31 . 04 45. . 29 109 74 30. .08 40. , 58 47 . 82 182 138 39, .34 50 . 13 50. . 35 128 97 48. ,60 59 .67 52 , .87 34 25 57 , .87 69 .21 55. 68 5 3 67 , 14 26 .74 53. ,87 2 0 25, 93 38. .61 56, . 33 78 56 37 , 45 50 .48 58 , 79 130 93 48. .98 62. 36 61 . 05 92 65 60. ,51 74. , 23 63. .51 25 17 72. .04 86. 10 65. ,97 3 1 83. ,57 ON 1=DIAMETER CLASS, DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG). M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR. IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12 = PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME 757 .23 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 1 1 1 .43 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 14.72 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME 1 196.46 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 211.81 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 17.70 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME 1565.20 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR 242.44 15.49 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 12.46 0. .21 t .06 0. .09 0. .00 0. 00 0. 00 18.30 0. .46 85 .81 0. . 18 0. ,00 0. 00 0. 00 24.26 0, 82 255 .57 0. 32 23. .61 58. 38 9. 24 30.22 1, 28 281 . 18 0. 49 59. . 18 67 . 91 21 . 05 36.35 1. .90 1 12 . 14 0. 70 24. .23 73. 61 21 . 61 42.53 2. 68 21 .45 0. 95 4. ,41 77 . 30 20. 54 18.83 0. 62 1 .87 0. 19 0. ,00 0. 00 0. 00 27.38 1 . .30 141 .45 0. ,39 19. ,04 66 . 00 13 . 46 35.99 2. .23 406 .49 0. ,67 72. ,97 78 . 93 17 . 95 44 .68 3. .46 442 .49 1 . ,03 82 .98 83. 30 18 . 75 53.42 4. 99 169 .69 1 . .46 31 . ,55 86 . 35 18. 59 62.24 6. 89 34 .47 1 . ,97 5. .28 89 . 08 15 . 31 23.98 1 . . 19 2 .37 0. ,29 0. ,00 0. 00 0. 00 34.76 2. .42 188 .82 0. ,62 27, ,03 78. 46 14 . 31 45.60 4. 12 535 . 14 1 . .06 83. .36 84 . 95 15. 58 56.49 6. 28 577 .76 1 . ,61 93. ,80 89. 38 16. ,23 67.44 8. 98 224 .43 2. 29 35, .37 90. 69 15 . 76 78.44 12. 22 36 .67 3. , 10 2. ,88 93 . 03 7 . ,85 H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 358 10.00 # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 337 15.00 H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 232 20.00 •••PRUNING COST PER H E C T A R E t + + * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 8.6 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 71.1 TOTAL COST($): 739.66 COST PER TREE($): 1.8 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 307.35 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.77 ************************************** O o DISCOUNTED COST: $ 307.3 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** •*• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 0.86 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 0.91 7.50 • EFFECTIVE # OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.0 ••HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1.32 SPACING: 6 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:23 S T *T O HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 400/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 6.35 16.95 18 0 9.67 0.00 5.00 9.67 0.00 11.61 10.00 0.94 1 .04 0. .00 9. 17 17. 17 601 0 9.90 0.00 5.00 9.90 0.00 14.51 12.21 1 . 17 1 .27 0. .00 1 1 .99 17.40 1005 0 10. 12 0.00 5.00 10. 12 0.00 17.42 14.45 1 .40 1 .50 0. .00 14.81 17.62 709 203 10. 33 0.00 5.00 6.00 0. 15 20.32 16.70 1 .49 1 .74 0. ,00 17 .63 17.84 192 172 10.53 0.00 5.00 6.00 0.20 23.23 18.98 1.71 1 .97 0. .00 20.45 18.06 28 25 10.73 0.00 5.00 6 .00 0.25 26. 13 21 .26 1 .94 2.21 0. .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES. M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES. M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=LOWER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. T H O CM HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 11. .67 20 .83 8 0 1 1 .25 16 , 85 23 ,43 278 0 16, .26 22 .04 25 .60 466 12 21 .28 27 .22 27 ,33 328 265 26. .30 32 .40 29. .50 89 72 31 . 32 37 .59 31 , .67 13 9 36. .35 16 .95 31 .03 4 0 16 .39 24 , .47 33. .71 156 0 23 .68 32 . 00 36. .40 262 155 30 .98 39. .52 38 .42 185 141 38 .27 47 .05 41 . 10 50 38 45 .58 54 .58 43 .45 7 5 52 .88 21 .41 38 .58 3 0 20 .73 30. .92 41 . 39 1 10 67 29 .95 40 .43 43. .92 184 132 39. . 17 49 .93 46. .45 129 92 48 .40 59 .44 48. .98 35 24 57. .63 68 .95 51 . 79 5 3 66. .86 O C\i 1=DIAMETER CLASS, DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 534.57 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 45.88 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 8.58 TOTAL VOLUME 846.48 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 128.72 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 15.21 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME 1103.29 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR 188.83 17.12 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 9.01 0. . 10 0. 78 0. 05 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 13.39 0. 22 59. 97 0. 10 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 17.85 0. 38 179. 29 0. 18 0. 33 15. 09 0. 18 22.34 0. 60 198. 20 0. 28 29. 04 39. 05 14.65 26.97 0. 90 79. 88 0. 40 13. 87 47. 87 17.37 31 .65 1. 26 16. 44 0. 55 2. 65 53. 74 16. 10 14.22 0. 29 1 . 17 0. 11 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 20.80 0. 62 96. 71 0. 23 0. .00 0. 00 0.00 27.50 1. 09 286. 15 0. 40 38. 73 61 . 82 13.54 34.21 . 1. 69 313. .51 0. 62 60. .03 68 . 58 19. 15 41 .06 2 . 49 124. .73 0. 89 25. .22 74 . 87 20. 22 47.92 3. 46 24. 22 1 . .20 4. ,73 78 . 90 19.55 18.54 0. 56 1 . 68 0. 18 0. ,00 0. 00 0.00 27.00 1 . 17 129. 05 0. 38 15. ,33 59. 71 1 1 .88 35.54 2. 03 373. 47 0. 66 64 . ,93 74. 62 17 . 39 44. 16 3. . 16 407 . 18 1 . 01 74 . 59 80. 16 18 . 32 52.84 4. 58 160. 17 1 . 44 28. .90 83. 60 18 .04 61 .62 6. 35 31 . 74 1 . 95 5, ,08 87 . 00 16.02 tf OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 358 10.00 H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 339 15.00 H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 318 20.00 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 11.7 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 96.0 TOTAL COST($): 998.80 COST PER TREE($) : 2.5 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 325.19 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.81 ************************************** O CNJ DISCOUNTED COST: $ 325.2 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *** DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 0.91 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 0.96 7.50 • EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.0 ••HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1.02 SPACING: 9 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:12 SX SO HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 3.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 400/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 4.89 6.52 7. O 0.77 0.00 2.23 0. 77 0.00 10.01 8.45 1 .02 0.88 0. ,00 6 .67 6 .66 112 O 0.63 0.00 2 . 37 0.63 0.00 11.81 9.74 1 .30 1 .02 0. ,00 8.46 6.80 251 0 0.49 0.00 2.51 0.49 0.00 13.61 1 1 .04 1 .59 1.15 0. ,00 10. 24 6.94 382 1 0.38 39.96 2.62 0. 38 0.04 15.42 12.38 1 .88 1 .29 0. ,00 12.03 7 .08 352 316 0.27 40.04 2 . 73 0.27 0.05 17.23 13.73 2 . 16 1 .43 0. .00 13.81 7.22 93 83 0. 18 40.01 2.82 0. 18 0.06 19.04 15. 10 2.45 1 .57 0. ,00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:18 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 .58 12 . 36 7 0 2 . 16 O.OO 3.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 .60 10. 15 0.00 1 .06 1 . .21 10 .35 12 .58 106 O 2.37 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 14.02 12 .07 0.00 1 .26 1 , ,46 13 . 1 1 12 . 79 238 0 2.57. 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 16.44 14.03 0.00 1 .46 1 . .71 15 .87 13.01 363 0 2.79 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 18.89 16.02 0.00 1 .66 1 . .96 18 .64 13.23 334 270 3.00 29.31 3.00 0.00 0.09 21 .35 18.03 2.25 1 .87 0. ,00 21 .40 13.45 89 80 3.22 27 . 17 2.78 0.22 0.11 23.82 20.08 2.55 2 .08 0. ,00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA C\f 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 1O=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 16 .53 27 . 83 3 0 15. .98 13. 62 0. 25 0. 75 0. 10 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 22 .56 30. 15 59 0 21 . 81 18 . 84 0. 48 28. 09 0. 20 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 28 . 59 32. 47 132 0 27, .66 24. 17 0. 79 104. 31 0. 32 0. ,00 0. 00 0.00 34 .62 34. 40 201 126 33, .50 29. 51 1. 19 238. 70 0. 47 41 . , 15 69. 54 17.24 40 .64 36. 72 185 149 39, .35 34. 97 1. 70 314. 65 0. 65 74. 86 76. 95 23.79 46 .67 39 . 04 49 39 45, .20 40. ,47 2. 33 114. 16 0. 87 26. ,94 79. 65 ' 23.60 22 .89 43. 39 2 0 22 . 18 20. . 10 0. 71 1 . 43 0. 21 0. ,00 0. 00 0.00 31 .24 45. 38 37 28 30, .28 27 . 56 1 . 32 48. 68 0. 39 7 . 05 63 . 78 14 .49 39 .58 47 . 36 82 62 38 .37 35. ,08 2. 1 1 173. 34 0. 64 30. .61 77 . 53 17 .66 47 .93 49. 35 125 95 46, ,47 42 . 64 3. 12 390. 19 0. 94 75. ,45 84 . 74 19.34 56 .28 51 . 33 1 16 88 54 , .57 50. 25 4 . 35 504. 80 1 . 30 99. ,99 87 . 63 19.81 64 .62 53. 32 30 22 62, .67 57 . ,90 5. 82 174. 54 1 . 72 33. .86 89 . 71 19.40 28 .03 54. 82 1 0 27 . 19 25. 17 1 . 32 1 . 32 0. 32 0, ,00 0. 00 0.00 38 . 25 56. 61 27 19 37 , . 10 34 . 44 2 . 39 64 . 58 0. 60 8 .76 76. 31 13.56 48 .47 58. 57 60 43 47 , .02 43 . ,77 3. 81 228 . 47 0. 97 35. .66 85. 29 15.61 58 .68 60. 18 92 65 56, .94 53 . 10 5. 54 509. 83 1 . 43 83, .55 89. 98 16.39 68 .90 61 . 96 85 60 66 .86 62. 49 7 . 64 649. 75 1 . 97 108, . 19 91 . 37 16 .65 79 • 12 . 63. 75 22 15 76. .79 71 . 91 10. 12 222 . 61 2. 61 36. .47 93 . 23 16 . 38 g 1=DIAMETER CLASS, DBH, CM. CM 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME ' PERCENTAGE CLEAR H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 800.66 142.95 17.85 314 10.00 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR tt OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 1292.96 246.96 19.10 295 15.00 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 1676.56 272.61 16.26 202 20.00 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** O CM * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 2.6 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 23.1 TOTAL COST($): 240.08 COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.6 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 133.68 DISC. COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.33 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN) : 7.6 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 55.6 TOTAL COST($): 578.65 COST PER TREE($ ) : 1.7 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 240.45 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.69 ************************************** * $/HRS: 7.50 DISCOUNTED COST: $ 374.1 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *** DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1 . 1 9 **HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.27 ••HAF • EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.0 ST AGE 80: $ 1.85 SPACING: 9 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG1: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES: 10.00 f i\ 0 AGE WHEN PRUNED: 15 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 3.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 400/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 3.95 9.26 8 0 0.03 O.OO 2.97 0.03 0.00 9. 10 8.23 0.79 0.86 0 .00 5.39 9.37 124 0 0.07 0.00 2.93 0.07 0.00 10.56 9.39 1 .00 0.98 0 .00 6.83 9.49 278 0 0.11 0.00 2 .89 0. 11 0.00 12 .03 10.57 1 .22 1 . 10 0. .00 8.27 9.60 423 0 0. 16 0.00 2.84 0. 16 0.00 13.50 1 1 .75 1 .43 1 .22 0 .00 9.70 9.71 390 308 0.21 29.37 2.79 0.21 0.04 14 .97 12 .94 1 .65 1 .35 0, .00 11.14 9.83 103 92 0.26 28.61 2.74 0.26 0.05 16.44 14. 13 1 .86 1 .47 0. .00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:21 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 6.71 15. 10 8 0 4.95 0.00 1 .05 1 .95 0.00 1 1 .08 10.05 0.95 1 .05 0. .00 9. 16 15.30 123 0 5. 16 O.OO 0.84 2. 16 0.00 13.28 1 1 .90 1 . 17 1 .24 0 .00 1 1 .60 15.49 274 0 5.36 O.OO 0.64 2.36 0.00 15.50 13.76 1 . 39 1 .43 0 .00 14 .05 15.68 418 0 5.57 0.00 0.43 2.57 0.00 17.72 15.64 1.61 1 .63 0. .00 16.50 15.87 385 259 5.77 2.29 0.23 2 . 77 0.08 19.95 17.54 1 .83 1 .82 0. .00 18.95 16.07 102 , 91 5.97 0.27 0.03 2.97 0. 10 22. 19 19.46 2.05 2 .02 0, .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH. CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. £- 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA £ 3 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN. M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES. M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=LOWER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 12 .84 20 76 5 0 12 .37 17 .52 22 93 82 0 16 .90 22 . 19 24 . 66 183 0 21 .42 26 .87 26 .40 279 52 25 .96 31 .55 28 .57 257 207 30 .50 36 .23 30. .30 68 54 35, .03 18 .09 30. ,81 3 0 17 .50 24 .69 32. .94 52 0 23, .89 31 .29 35. ,42 1 17 2 30, .28 37 .88 37 . 20 179 136 36 .68 44 .48 39. ,69 165 125 43 .08 51 .08 42 . 17 43 32 49 .48 22 .46 37 . :97 2 0 21 , 75 30 .65 40. ,41 38 17 29. .69 38 .84 42 . 86 85 60 37 , .63 47 .03 45. 31 130 93 45, ,58 55 .22 47 . 75 120 86 53, .53 63 .41 50. 20 31 21 61 , .48 «0 o CNJ 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT. M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS. M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG). M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG. PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 536.03 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 78.86 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 14.71 910.09 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 171.41 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 18 .83 TOTAL VOLUME 1190.61 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR 230.74 19.38 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 9.90 0. 12 0 .58 0. 06 0. .00 0. 00 O.OO 13.85 0. 23 18 .54 0. 11 0. ,00 0. 00 0.00 17 .84 0. 37 68 .60 0. 18 0, .00 0. 00 0.00 21.91 0. 57 158 .85 0. 27 7 , .67 54 . 26 4 .83 26 . 1 1 0. 83 212, .58 0. 38 52, . 12 66 . 30 24.52 30.29 1 . 13 76 , 87 0. 51 19. ,08 69. 91 24 .82 15. 17 0. 33 0, .98 0. 13 0. ,00 0. 00 0.00 20.92 0. 61 31 , 98 0. 24 0 .00 0. 00 0.00 26.79 1 . 02 1 19, .25 0. 39 0. ,52 67 . 71 0.44 32 .65 1 . 52 271 .63 0. 57 60, .36 78 . 1 1 22 . 22 38 .65 2. 17 358 .38 0. ,79 81 . 87 82. 98 22 .84 44.70 2. 97 127. .87 1. 05 28. .66 85. 49 22.42 19.41 0. 60 1 . ,20 0. 20 0. ,00 0. 00 0.00 26 .69 1 . 13 42 , .81 0. 38 4 , 27 66 . 89 9.98 34 .06 1 . 84 156, ,43 0. 61 28 .96 79 . 51 18.51 41 .48 2. 76 358. .64 0. 89 71 , 67 86 . 1 1 19.98 48.97 3. 90 467 . ,90 1. 24 94, ,54 88 . 64 20. 21 56.50 5. 28 163. 63 1. 64 31 , 31 90. 74 19.13 # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 313 10.00 H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 295 15.00 # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 277 20.00 •••PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*^ • COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 • $/HRS: 7.50 o CM ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 3.0 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 26.5 TOTAL COST($): 275.41 COST PER TREE($) : 0.7 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 132.48 DISC. COST PER TREE($) : 0.33 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 9.4 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 67.8 TOTAL COST($): 705.50 COST PER TREE($ ) : 2.0 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 253.24 DISC. COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.72 ************************************** DISCOUNTED COST: $ 385.7 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *•• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1.23 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.31 ••HARVEST EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.O AGE 80: $ 1.39 SPACING: 9 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 S I 5 * AGE WHEN PRUNED:18 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 7 .58 12.36 7 0 2 . 16 0.00 3.84 2. 16 0.00 12.84 10. 15 1 .07 1 .06 0. .00 10 .35 12.58 106 0 2 . 37 O.OO 3.63 2.37 0.00 15.68 12.07 1 .36 1 .26 0 .00 13 . 11 12.79 238 0 2.57 0.00 3.43 2.57 0.00 18.51 14 .03 1 .66 1 .46 0. .00 15 .87 13.01 363 0 2.79 0.00 3.21 2.79 0.00 21 .35 16.02 1 .96 1 .66 0 .00 18 .64 13.23 334 270 3.00 29.31 3.00 3.00 0.20 24. 18 18.03 2 .25 1 .87 0 .00 21 .40 13.45 89 80 3.22 27. 17 2.78 3.22 0.25 27.02 20.08 2.55 2 .08 0. .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=LOWER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE. CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 10 11 12 HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST"AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 16 .53 27 83 3 0 15, 98 13, .62 0. 25 0, .75 0. , 10 0, .00 0. 00 0. ,00 22 .56 30 . 15 59 0 21 . 81 18, .84 0. .48 28. .09 0. .20 0, .00 0. 00 0, ,00 28 .59 32 .47 132 0 27, 66 24, . 17 0. .79 104, .31 0. 32 0, .00 0. ,00 0. .00 34 .62 34 . 40 201 126 33. .50 29, .51 1 , 19 238. .70 0. ,47 33, .60 56. .77 14 , .08 40 .64 36 . 72 185 149 39. . 35 34. .97 1 , .70 314 , .65 0. ,65 65, .43 67 . ,25 20, .79 46 .67 39 .04 49 39 45. , 20 40, .47 2 .33 114, . 16 0. ,87 23 .96 70. ,85 20, .99 22 .89 43 . 39 2 0 22 . 18 20. . 10 0, ,71 1 .43 0. ,21 0, .00 0. .00 0 .00 31 . 24 45, .38 37 28 30, 28 27 . 56 1 . .32 48, .68 0. ,39 5 .37 48. .60 1 1 .04 39 .58 47 . 36 82 62 38. ,37 35. .08 2 , 1 1 173 .34 0. ,64 26, .90 68 . 12 15 .52 47 .93 49. 35 125 95 46, ,47 42. .64 3. , 12 390, . 19 0. ,94 69, .75 78. .34 17 ,88 56 .28 51 . 33 1 16 88 54. ,57 50. . 25 4. ,35 504, .80 1 . ,30 94, .01 82. . 39 18 .62 64 .62 53. . 32 30 22 62. ,67 57 . 90 5. 82 174 . 54 1 . ,72 32, . 18 85 . 26 18 .44 28 .03 54 . 82 1 0 27 . , 19 25. . 17 1 . 32 1 , .32 0. 32 0, .00 0, ,00 0 .00 38 .25 56 . 61 27 19 37. . 10 34, .44 2. .39 64 , .58 0. ,60 7, .62 66 . 38 1 1 . 79 48 .47 58 .57 60 43 47 . 02 43, ,77 3. 81 228 .47 0. .97 33 .08 79, . 12 14 .48 58 .68 60 . 18 92 65 56. .94 53, . 10 5. ,54 509, .83 1 . ,43 79 .65 85, .79 15 .62 68 .90 61 . 96 85 60 66. 86 62. .49 7. .64 649, . 75 1 . ,97 103, .83 87 . 69 15 .98 79. . 12 63 . 75 22 15 76. ,79 71 . ,91 10. , 12 222 , .61 2. ,61 35 .32 90, .30 15 .87 CM 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME 800.66 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 122.99 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 15.36 H OF PRUNED TREES 314 % MORT. & DEFECT 10.00 HARVEST AGE: 60 1292.96 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 228.21 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 17.65 H OF PRUNED TREES 295 % MORT. & DEFECT 15.00 TOTAL VOLUME 1676.56 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR 259.49 15.48 U OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 202 20.00 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 9.6 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 69.4 TOTAL COST($): 721.60 COST PER TREE($): 2.1 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 299.84 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.86 ************************************** CM DISCOUNTED COST: $ 299.8 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *** DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 0.95 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.02 7.50 • EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.0 ••HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1.48 SPACING: 9 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:21 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6.71 15. 10 8 0 4 .95 O.OO 1 .05 4 .95 0.00 11 .97 10.05 0.95 1 .05 0 .00 9. 16 15.30 123 0 5. 16 0.00 0.84 5. 16 0.00 14.49 1 1 .90 1 . 17 1 .24 0 .00 1 1 .60 15.49 274 0 5.36 O.OO 0.64 5.36 0.00 17 .OO 13.76 1 .39 1 .43 0 .00 14 .05 15.68 418 0 5.57 0.00 0.43 5.57 0.00 19.52 15.64 1 .61 1 .63 0 .00 16.50 15.87 385 259 5.77 2.29 0.23 5.77 0. 18 22.04 17.54 1 .83 1 .82 0 .00 18.95 16.07 102 91 5 .97 0.27 0.03 5.97 0.22 24.56 19.46 2.05 2 .02 0 .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE- HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 1O=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 10 11 12 HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 12 .84 20 . 76 5 0 12 .37 9. ,90 0, . 12 0 .58 0, .06 0, .00 0, ,00 0. .00 17 .52 22 .93 82 0 16 .90 13, 85 0, .23 18 .54 0. . 1 1 0. .00 0, OO 0, ,00 22 . 19 24 .66 183 0 21 .42 17 . 84 0, .37 68 .60 0. . 18 0, .00 0. .00 0. .00 26 .87 26 .40 279 52 25 .96 21 , .91 0 .57 158 .85 0, .27 4 .93 34, .89 3 , . 10 31 .55 28 .57 257 207 30 .50 26. , 1 1 0, .83 212 .58 0, . 38 40, .84 51 , 96 19. ,21 36 .23 30 . 30 68 54 35 .03 30. 29 1 , . 13 76, .87 0. .51 15, .46 56 . 67 20, , 12 18 .09 30 .81 3 0 17 .50 15. 17 0, .33 0 .98 0, , 13 0, .00 0, .00 0. .00 24 .69 32 . 94 52 0 23 .89 20. 92 0. ,61 31 , .98 0, ,24 0, .00 0. .00 0, .00 31 . 29 35 .42 1 17 2 30 .28 26. 79 1 . .02 1 19, .25 0. , 39 0, ,42 54 , 05 0. . 35 37 .88 37. .20 179 136 36 .68 32. 65 1 , ,52 271 , .63 0. ,57 53, . 20 68 .85 19, .58 44 . 48 39. 69 165 125 43, .08 38. 65 2. , 17 358, .38 0. .79 74, .66 75, .67 20, .83 51 . 08 42 . 17 43 32 49 .48 44. 70 2 .97 127 .87 1 . .05 26, .52 79 . 10 20, , 74 22. .46 37. 97 2 0 21 , .75 19. 41 0, ,60 1 .20 0. ,20 0, .00 0, .00 0 .00 30 .65 40. ,41 38 17 29 69 26. 69 1 . 13 42, .81 0. .38 3 . 38 52 , 88 7 , .89 38 .84 42. 86 85 60 37 , .63 34 . 06 1 . .84 156 .43 0. 61 25, ,80 70, .84 16 , .49 47 . 03 45. ,31 130 93 45, ,58 41. 48 2. .76 358, .64 0. 89 66, ,77 80. .23 18 , .62 55 . 22 47 . ,75 120 86 53, ,53 48. 97 3. 90 467. .90 1 , .24 89, ,29 83 .72 19, .08 63. .41 50. . 20 31 21 61 , 48 56. 50 5. 28 163, .63 1 . .64 29. ,90 86. ,67 18 , .27 -4- 1=DIAMETER CLASS, DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG). M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 536.03 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 61 .24 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 1 1 .42 ft OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 313 10.00 910.09 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 154.79 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 17.01 H OF PRUNED TREES 295 % MORT. & DEFECT 15.00 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 1190.61 215.14 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 18 .07 U OF PRUNED TREES 277 % MORT. & DEFECT 20.00 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.OO * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 12.3 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 88.4 TOTAL COST($): 919.49 COST PER TREE($): 2.6 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 330.05 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.94 ************************************** CM DISCOUNTED COST: $ 330.O RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** ••• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $.1.05 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.12 .50 • EFFECTIVE tt OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD : 30.0 •HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1 . 1 9 SPACING: 12 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:12 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 3.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 4 .57 6.50 14 0 0.71 0.00 2.29 0.71 0.00 9 .68 8.22 1 .25 0.86 0 .00 6 . 18 6.62 26 0 0.61 0.00 2.39 0.61 0.00 11.31 9.38 1 .57 0.98 0. .00 7 .79 6.75 100 0 0.52 0.00 2.48 0.52 0.00 12 .94 10.55 1 .90 1 . 10 0. .00 9 .40 6.88 236 89 0.43 39.86 2.57 0.43 0.04 14.57 1 1 .74 2.22 1 .22 0. .00 1 1 .01 7.00 236 212 0.35 39.83 2.65 0.35 0.05 16 . 20 12.96 2.55 1 .35 0 .00 12 .62 7. 13 47 42 0.28 39.74 2. 72 0.28 0.05 17 .83 14. 19 2.88 1 .48 0. .00 14 .23 7.26 8 7 0.21 39.61 2.79 0.21 0.06 19.47 15.43 3.20 1 .60 0. .00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:18 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 8 .40 12.42 14 0 0.87 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 12.32 10.72 0.00 1 . 12 1 . 28 1 1 .37 12 .66 26 0 1 .00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 14.91 12.79 0.00 1 .33 1 .55 14 . 33 12.89 98 0 1 . 15 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 17.52 14 .90 0.00 1 .55 1 .82 17 .30 13. 12 231 45 3 .00 29.63 3.00 0.00 0.08 20. 15 17 .05 0.00 1 .77 2 .09 20 .27 13.36 231 207 3.00 28.97 3.00 0.00. 0. 10 22.80 19.24 0.00 2.00 2 .36 23 .23 13.59 46 41 3.00 28.33 3.00 0.00 0.13 25.46 21 .45 0.00 2.22 2. .64 26 .20 13.82 8 7 3.00 27.72 3.00 0.00 0. 16 28 . 14 23.70 0.00 2.46 2 .91 ^ 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH. CM. -C\j 2 = TREE HEIGHT. M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN. M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES. M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE. M**3. 10=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE. CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 c -H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 HARVEST A G E : 8 0 18. .21 28 .80 10 0 17 .60 ' 15 .09 0 .31 3 .08 0. . 13 0. .00 0. .00 0. OO 24. .64 ' 31 . 12 18 0 23 .83 20 .69 0 .58 10 . 40 0. .23 0. .00 0 .00 0. 00 31 . 07 33 . 1 1 70 0 30 .06 26 . 34 0 . 94 65 .67 0. . 38 0. .00 0 .00 0. 00 37 . 50 35 . 10 166 105 36 .29 32 .06 1 .40 232 . 76 0. .55 43 . 47 74 .92 18. 68 43. .93 37 .09 166 134 42 .53 37 . 84 1 . 98 328 .47 0. .76 81 . 76 79 .90 24 . 89 SO. 36 39 .08 33 26 48 .77 43 .67 2 . 68 88 .34 1 . 01 21 . 37 81 .39 24. 19 56. .79 4 1 .40 6 4 55 .01 49 . 59 3 .53 21 .21 1 . .29 4 . .27 82 .64 20. 14 24. 58 43 .97 7 3 23 .82 21 .61 0 .82 5 . 77 0. .24 0. .37 51 . 18 6. 49 33 . 25 45 .96 13 9 32 .23 29. . 37 1 .49 19 . 4 1 0 . 45 2 . 96 73 . 45 15. .26 4 1 . 93 47 .94 51 38 40 .64 37 . 19 2 . 38 121 . 16 0. .72 22 . 22 8 1 . 76 18. .34 50. .60 49 .70 120 91 49 .06 45. .05 3 . 47 4 16 . 34 1 . .05 81 . 46 85 . 64 19. . 56 59. 27 51 .46 120 9 1 57 .48 52 .94 4 . 79 575 .25 1 . . 44 116. .55 89 .02 20. .26 67 . 95 53 .44 24 17 65 .90 60 .89 6 .39 • 153 . 32 1 . .90 28 . 97 89 . 84 18 . 90 76 . 62 55 .43 4 1 2 74 .32 68 88 8 . 25 33 .00 2 .42 4 . 39 90 . 73 13. .30 29 . .97 56 . 10 5 3 29 .07 26 .97 1 .52 7 .61 0. . 37 0. .66 59 .48 8 . 69 40. 55 ' 57 .59 10 7 39 . 34 36 .56 2 .71 27 .07 0 .68 3 .71 77 .91 13. .69 51 . 12 .59 .22 39 28 49 .60 46 .20 4 .24 165 . 48 1 .08 26 . 1 1 86 . 13 15. .78 61 . 70 60 .70 93 66 59 .87 55 .87 6 . 12 569 .50 1 .58 94. .37 90 .50 16. .57 72. .28 62 . 18 93 66 70 . 14 65 .57 8 . 37 778 . 14 2. . 17 132 .60 92 .50 17 . .04 82. .85 63 .81 18 12 80 .41 75 .30 1 1 .01 198 .22 2 . 86 31 .94 93 .09 16 . 12 93. .43 65 .30 3 1 90 .68 85 .05 14 .03 42 .08 3 . 64 3 .42 . 93 .84 8 . 12 1=DIAMETER C L A S S , D B H , C M . 2=TREE H E I G H T , M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER C L A S S / H A . 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES / H A . 5 -LOWER DIAMETER INS IDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER C L A S S , M«*3. 8 = T 0 T A L VOLUME PER C L A S S . M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED L O G . M ' * 3 . 10=T0TAL C L E A R VOLUME PER C L A S S . ( P R U N E D L O G ) . M « "3 . 1 1=PERCENTAGE C L E A R , IN PRUNED LOG. PER C L A S S 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER C L A S S H A R V E S T A G E : 4 0 TOTAL VOLUME 749.91 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 1 5 0 . 8 7 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 2 0 . 12 # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 269 10.00 H A R V E S T A G E : 6 0 1 3 2 4 . 2 5 HARVEST A G E : 8 0 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 256.93 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 1788.10 292.81 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 19 . 40 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 16 . 38 * OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 25 1 15.00 H OF PRUNED TREES */. MORT. 8 DEFECT 183 20.00 to CM ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.OO * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 2.6 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 20.8 TOTAL C0ST($): 216.29 COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.6 TOTAL DISC. C0ST($): 120.44 DISC. COST PER TREE($) : 0.34 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 7.8 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 48.9 TOTAL COST($) : 508.81 COST PER TREE($ ) : 1.7 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 211.43 DISC. COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.70 ************************************** DISCOUNTED COST: $ 331.9 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** ••• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1.23 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.32 7.50 • EFFECTIVE # OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.0 ••HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1.81 SPACING: 12 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: G.O METERS % DEFECT TREES: 10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:14 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 3.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 3 .78 8.31 16 0 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 8.92 7 .99 0.00 0.84 0 .93 5 . 12 8 .42 29 0 O.OO 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.28 9.03 0.00 0.94 1 .07 G .45 8.52 1 1 1 O 0.00 O.OO 3.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 .64 10.09 0.00 1 .05 1 .21 7 .79 8.63 263 60 0.00 34.78 3.00 0.00 0.03 12.99 11.15 0.00 1 . 16 1 . .35 9 . 13 8 . 73 263 236 0.00 34.36 3.00 0.00 0.04 14.35 12.22 0.00 1 .27 1 . .49 10 .46 8.84 52 46 0.00 33 .95 3.00 0.00 0.04 15.71 13.30 0.00 1 .38 1 .63 1 1 .80 8.94 9 8 0.00 33.56 3.00 0.00 0.05 17.08 14.39 0.00 1 .50 1 .77 AGE WHEN PRUNED:20 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 7 .30 14.21 16 O 2.07 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 .53 10. 34 0.00 1 .08 1 , .20 9 .87 14.42 29 0 2.23 0.00 3.00 0.00 O.OO 13.83 12. 24 0.00 1 .27 1 . .44 12 .45 14 .62 111 0 2.39 O.OO 3.00 0.00 0.00 16. 14 14. 16 0.00 1 .47 1 .68 15 .02 14 .82 263 10 3.00 25.38 3.00 0.00 0.07 18.46 16. 1 1 0.00 1 .67 1 . .92 17 . 59 15.02 263 236 3.00 24.95 3.00 0.00 0.09 20.80 18 . 07 0.00 1 .88 2 . 16 20 . 17 15 . 23 52 46 3.00 24.54 3.00 0.00 0. 11 23. 14 20. 06 0.00 2.08 2 .40 22 . 74 15.43 9 8 3.07 23.71 2 .93 0.07 0.13 25.49 22. 07 2.40 2.29 o: .00 ^ 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. CM 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES. M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES. M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: SO HARVEST AGE: 80 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 14 .60 21 .31 13 0 14 .07 1 1 . 34 0. 15 1 . 96 0. 08 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 19 .75 23 .21 24 0 19 .06 15. 66 0. 28 6. 84 0. 14 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 24 .91 25 . 10 90 0 24 .05 20. 10 0. 47 42. 36 0. 23 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 30 .06 27 .00 213 58 29 .04 24 . 6 1 • 0. 7 1 152. 12 0. 34 12 . 67 63. 99 8 . 33 35 .21 28 .90 213 171 34 .03 29. 20 1. 02 217. 55 0. 47 59. 08 72. 92 27 . 15 40. . 37 30 .79 42 33 39 .03 33. 83 1. 40 58. 72 0. 63 15 . 60 75 . 20 26.57 45. 52 32 .69 8 6 44 .03 38. 52 1. 85 14 . 80 0. 81 3. 72 76. 89 25. 13 20. . 19 30 .97 9 0 19 . 52 16 . 94 0. 40 3 . 60 0. 16 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 27 . .31 33 .25 17 0 26 . 42 23 . 17 0. 75 12 . 68 0. 29 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 34 . . 44 35 .52 66 0 33 . 33 29 . 49 1. 22 80. 28 0. 47 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 41 . .56 37 .80 156 109 40 . 24 35. 89 1. 83 284 . 74 0. 69 6 1 . 06 81 . 77 21 .45 48 . .68 40 .08 156 1 19 47 . 15 42 . 35 2 . 58 403 . 23 0. 95 97 . OO 86 . 1 1 24 .05 55. 81 42 . 35 31 22 54 .07 48 . 87 3 . 51 108 . 74 1 . 25 24. 02 87 . 24 22 .09 €2. 93 44 .63 5 3 60 .99 55. 42 4 . 61 23. 03 1 . 60 4 . 24 88 . 35 18.42 24 . .67 38 .42 7 0 23 .89 21 . 35 0. 72 5 . 05 0. 24 0. OO 0. 00 0.00 33. 38 40 .94 13 8 32 . 34 29 . 12 1 . 33 17. 33 0. 45 2 . 76 77. 23 15.91 42. 09 43 .46 52 36 40 . 79 36 . 96 2. 16 1 12. 33 0. 71 2 1 . 13 82 . 23 18.81 50. 80 45 .70 123 88 49 .24 44. 85 3. 20 393. 81 1 . 05 80. 81 87 . 86 20.52 59. 51 47 .94 123 88 57 .69 52. 79 4 . 48 551 . 57 1 . 44 1 14. 96. 90. 66 20.84 68. 22 50 . 46 24 16 66 . 15 60. 82 6 . 06 •145 . 44 1 . 90 27 . 84 91 . 46 19. 14 76 . .93 52 .98 4 2 74 .60 68 . 88 7 . 93 31 . 7 1 2 . 43 4 . 49 92 . 33 14.15 1=DIAMETER CLASS, DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS. M*«3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG). M**3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR. IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 494.35 91.07 18.42 268 10.00 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. 8 DEFECT 916.30 186.32 20.33 253 15.00 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME 1257.24 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE- CLEAR 251.98 20.04 # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. 8 DEFECT 238 20.00 0*2 C\2 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** *PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN); TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): TOTAL COST($) : COST PER TREE($): TOTAL DISC. COST($): DISC. COST PER TREE($): ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS) TOTAL COST($): COST PER TREE($): TOTAL DISC. COST($): DISC. COST PER TREE($) : ************************************** 2.5 19.5 203.01 0.6 102.54 0.29 2.7 17.9 185.97 0.6 70.09 0. 23 DISCOUNTED COST: $ 172.6 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *** DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 0.64 **HARVEST AGE 60: $ 0.68 .50 * EFFECTIVE ft OF HRS/DAY:7.5 * % OVERHEAD : 30.0 •HARVEST AGE 80: $ 0.73 SPACING: 12 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED: 18 5 1 <5o HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 8 .40 12 .42 14 0 0.87 0.00 5 . 13 0.87 0.00 13.68 10.72 1 .25 1 . 12 0, .00 11 .37 12 .66 26 0 1 .00 0.00 5.00 1 .00 0.00 16.72 12.79 1 .58 1 .33 0. ,00 14 .33 12 .89 98 0 1 . 15 0.00 4 .85 1 . 15 0.00 19.77 14.90 1 .92 1 .55 0. .00 17 .30 13. 12 231 45 1 .30 39.77 4.70 1 .30 0. 18 22.81 17 .05 2.25 1 .77 0 ,00 20 .27 13.36 231 207 1 .45 38.20 4 .55 1 .45 0.23 25.86 19.24 2.59 2.00 0, .00 23 .23 13.59 46 41 . 1.61 36.62 4.39 1.61 0.29 28 .90 21 .45 2 .92 2.22 0. .00 26 .20 13.82 8 7 1 . 78 35.03 4.22 1 .78 0.35 31 .95 23.70 3.26 2.46 0. .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH. CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES. M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=LOWER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH 01AMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: SO HARVEST AGE: 80 CM CNJ 18. 21 28 .80 10 0 17 .60 15 .09 0 .31 3 .08 0 . 13 0, 00 0, 00 0. 00 24 . .64 31 . 12 18 0 23 .83 20 .69 0 .58 10 .40 0, 23 0 .00 0, .00 0. 00 3 1 . .07 33 . 1 1 70 0 30 .06 26 .34 0 . 94 65 . 67 0, .38 0, .00 0 .00 0 .00 37 50 35 . 10 166 105 36 . 29 32 .06 1, .40 232 . 76 0, 55 35, 75 61 . 61 15 .36 43 . .93 37 .09 166 134 42 .53 37 . 84 1, .98 328 .47 0. 76 70, 56 68 . 96 21 . .48 50. 36 39 .08 33 26 48 .77 43 .67 2 .68 88 .34 1 . .01 18, 63 70. 94 21 . .09 56. 79 4 1 .40 6 4 55 .01 49 .59 3 .53 2 1 .21 1 , . 29 3 , , 76 72 . 69 17 . . 72 24 . 58 43 .97 7 3 23 .82 21 , .61 0, .82 5 .77 0. 24 0. , 19 25. 75 3 , ,26 33 . .25 45 .96 13 9 32 . 23 29 .37 1 .49 19 . 4 1 0. 45 2, 40 59 , 62 12, 39 4 1 . .93 47 .94 51 38 40 .64 37 . 19 2, .38 12 1 . 16 0. 72 19 , ,66 72 , 34 16 ,23 50. 60 49 .70 120 91 49 .06 45 .05 3 .47 4 16 . 34 1 . .05 74 , ,04 77 , .84 17 , 78 59. 27 5 1 .46 120 9 1 57 .48 52 .94 4 .79 575 .25 1 . ,44 108 . .69 83 , .01 18 . 89 67. 95 53 .44 24 17 65. 90 60. 89 6 39 153 .32 1 . 90 27 , 13 84 . 12 17 , ,69 76. 62 55 .43 4 2 74, .32 68 88 8. 25 33 .00 2. ,42 4 , 13 85. 4 1 12 . .52 29. 77 56 .07 5 3 28, .88 26. 79 1 . 50 7 . 52 0. 37 0. 40 36 . 65 5 .35 40. 28 57 .57 10 7 39 , .08 36 . .33 2 . 67 26 . 74 0. 67 3. 07 65 . 46 1 1 . 4950. 79 59 . 2 1 39 28 49 .28 45, .90 4 , 19 163 .51 1 , 07 23. 44 78 . 32 14 . .33 61 . .30 60 .70 93 66 59, . 48 55, .51 6 . .05 562 .82 1 . 56 87 . 64 85 . 15 15. 57 71 . .81 62 . 19 93 66 69, 68 65. . 14 8 . 27 769 . 14 2 . 14 124 . ,84 88. 23 16. 23 82 . 32 63 .83 18 12 79, . 89 74 82 10. 89 195 .96 2 . 82 30. , 16 89 . .05 15 .39 92 . 83 65. 33 3 1 90, 09 84 . 51 13. 87 4 1 . .60 3. 60 3 . 24 90. 18 7. 79 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M*»3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS. M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M'"3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG). M'*3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR. IN PRUNED LOG. PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR * OF PRUNED TREES */. MORT. & DEFECT 749.91 128.70 17.16 269 10.00 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR # OF PRUNED TREES '/. MORT . & DEFECT 1324.25 236.24 17.84 251 15.00 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME 1767.30 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR 272.81 15.44 * OF PRUNED TREES 183 •/. MORT . & DEFECT 20.00 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 10.5 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 64.9 TOTAL COST($): 675.48 COST PER TREE($ ) : 2.3 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 280.68 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.94 ************************************** CM CM DISCOUNTED COST: $ 280.7 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** ••• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1.04 **HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1 . 1 2 7.50 * EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 * % OVERHEAD:30.O ••HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1.53 SPACING: 12 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:20 Ho HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 7 .30 14.21 16 O 2.07 O.OO 3.93 2.07 0.00 12.57 10.34 1 .00 1 .08 0 .00 9 .87 14.42 29 0 2.23 O.OO 3.77 2.23 0.00 15.21 12.24 1 . 23 1 .27 0, .00 12 .45 14.62 111 0 2.39 0.00 3.61 2 . 39 0.00 17 .86 14. 16 1 .47 1 .47 0, .00 15 .02 14.82 263 10 • 2.56 28.08 3.44 2 . 56 0. 15 20.50 16. 11 1 . 70 1 .67 0. .00 17 . 59 15.02 263 236 2.72 26.64 3.28 2.72 0. 19 23 . 15 18 .07 1 .93 1 .88 0. .00 20 . 17 15 . 23 52 46 2.90 25. 18 3. 10 2.90 0.24 25.80 20.06 2. 16 2 .08 0. .00 22 .74 15.43 9 8 3.07 23.71 2.93 3.07 0.29 28.45 22.07 2.40 2.29 0. ,00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH. CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN. M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES. M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 HARVEST AGE: 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 c I 10 1 1 12 14 . .60 2 1 . 3 1 13 0 14 . 07 1 1 . 34 0. 15 1 . 96 0. 08 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 19 . .75 23. 21 24 0 19 . 06 15 . 66 0. 28 6 . 84 0. 14 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 24 . .91 25. 10 90 0 24 . 05 20. 10 0. 47 42. 36 0. 23 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 30 .06 27 . 00 213 58 29. 04 24 . 61 0. 71 152. 12 0. 34 9. 01 45. 48 5 . 92 35. 21 28. 90 213 171 34 . 03 29 . 20 1 . 02 217. 55 0. 47 47. 7 1 58. 88 2 1 . 93 40 . 37 30. 79 42 33 39 . 03 33 . 83 1 . 40 58 . 72 0. 63 12. 84 6 1 . 89 2 1 . 87 45. . 52 32 . 69 8 6 44 . 03 38 . 52 1 . 85 14 . 80 0. 8 1 3 . 10 64 . 15 20.97 20 . 19 30. 97 9 0 19. 52 16 . 94 0. 40 3 . 60 0. 16 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 27 .31 33. 25 17 0 26. 42 23 . 17 0. 75 12 . 68 0. 29 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 34 . 44 35. 52 66 0 33. 33 29 . 49 1 . 22 80. 28 0. 47 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 4 1 , .56 37. 80 156 109 40. 24 35. 89 1 . 83 284 . 74 0. 69 54 . 05 72 . 38 18 . 98 48 . .68 40. 08 156 1 19 47 . 15 42 . 35 2 . 58 403 . 23 0. 95 88 . 85 78 . 88 22 .03 55 .81 42 . 35 31 22 54 . 07 48 . 87 3 . 5 1 108 . 74 1. 25 22. 13 80. 36 20. 35 62 .93 44 . 63 5 3 60. 99 55 . 42 4 . 6 1 23 . 03 1. 60 3 . 93 8 1 . 93 17 .08 24 .67 38. 42 7 0 23. 89 21 . 35 0. 72 5. 05 0. 24 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 33 .38 40. 94 13 8 32 . 34 29 . 12 1. 33 17 . 33 0. 45 2 . 36 66 . 01 13 . 59 42 .09 43. 46 52 36 40. 79 36. 96 2 . 16 112. 33 0. 7 1 18 . 77 73 . 05 16.71 50 .80 45. 70 123 88 49. 24 44 . 85 3 . 20 393 . 81 1. OS 75. 04 8 1 . 59 19.05 59 .51 47 . 94 123 88 57. 69 52. 79 4 . 48 551 . 57 1. 44 108 . 76 85 . 78 19.72 68 .22 50. 46 24 16 66. 15 60. 82 6 . 06 145. 44 1. 90 26. 43 86 . 84 18.17 76 .93 52 . 98 4 2 74 . 60 68 . 88 7. 93 31 . 71 2. 43 4 . 28 88. 10 13 . 50 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIOE BARK. CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS, M»»3. 8 = T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M<*3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M»-3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M«*3. 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR. IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME 494.35 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 72 . 66 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 14.70 PRUNED TREES 268 % MORT. 6 DEFECT 10.00 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME 916.30 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 168.96 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 18.44 U OF PRUNED TREES 253 % MORT. & DEFECT 15.00 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME 1257.24 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR 235.64 18.74 H OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 238 20.00 ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 13.1 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 80.3 TOTAL COST($): 834.92 COST PER TREE($ ) : 2.8 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 314.68 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 1.05 ************************************** * $/HRS: 7.50 CN) CM DISCOUNTED COST: $ 314.7 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *** DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1 . 1 7 **HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.24 **HAF EFFECTIVE U OF HRS/DAY: 7. 5 * % OVERHEAD:30.0 AGE 80: $ 1.32 SPACING: 15 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:12 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 3.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA S X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 4 .61 6.50 2 O 0.35 0.00 2.65 0.35 0.00 9.72 8.25 1 .40 0.86 0, .00 6 .06 6.61 20 0 0.31 O.OO 2 .69 0.31 0.00 11.19 9.29 1 .72 0.97 0 .00 7 .52 6.73 55 42 0. 26 42.35 2.74 0. 26 0.03 12.66 10.35 2.03 1 .08 0 .00 8 .97 6.84 107 96 0.22 41 .96 2.78 0. 22 0.03 14. 13 1 1 .43 2 . 35 1 . 19 0. .00 10 .43 6.96 128 1 15 0. 18 4 1 . 57 2.82 0. 18 0.04 15.61 12.52 2.67 1 .30 0. .00 1 1 .88 7 .07 87 78 0.15 41.16 2 .85 0. 15 0.05 17 .08 13.62 2.98 1 .42 0. .00 13 .34 7.19 20 18 0.12 40.74 2.88 0.12 0.06 18.56 14.74 3.30 1 . 53 0. .00 14 . 79 7.30 2 1 0. 10 40. 31 2.90 0. 10 0.07 20.04 15.87 3.62 1 .65 0. .00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:18 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA <0 CM CM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 8 . 79 12.45 2 0 1 . 19 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 12 .65 10.99 0.00 1 . 15 1 .32 1 1 .56 12 .67 20 0 1 .30 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 15.08 12 .93 0.00 1 .35 1 .57 14 . 34 12.89 55 0 1 .42 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 17.53 14.91 0.00 1 .55 1 .82 17 . 1 1 13.11 107 88 3.00 29.68 3 .00 0.00 0.08 19.99 16.92 0.00 1 .76 2 .07 19 .89 13 . 33 128 1 15 3 .00 29.05 3.00 0.00 0. 10 22.46 18.96 0.00 1 .97 2 .33 22 .66 13 . 55 87 78 3.00 28.45 3 .00 0.00 0.13 24.95 21 .03 0.00 2 . 18 2 .59 25 .44 13.76 20 18 3.00 27.87 3.00 0.00 0.15 27.45 23. 12 0.00 2 .40 2 .84 28 .21 13.98 2 1 3 .00 27.32 3.00 0.00 0. 18 29.96 25.25 0.00 2.62 3 . 10 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES. M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 cn CM CM HARVEST AGE: GO HARVEST AGE: 80 19 . 8 1 30 . 18 1 0 19 . 15 26 .06 3 1 . 73 17 1 25 .21 32 . 32 33 . 28 46 36 31 .27 38 .57 34 .83 90 72 37 .33 44 .83 36 . 37 107 86 43 .39 51 .08 37 .92 73 58 49 .46 57 . 34 39 . 47 17 13 55 .53 63 .59 4 1 .02 1 0 61 .60 26 .50 45 .60 1 0 25 .69 34 .87 47 .06 13 9 33 .81 43 . 24 48 .36 35 26 41 .92 51 .61 49 .65 69 52 50 .04 59 98 50 .95 82 62 58 . 17 68 .35 52 . 24 56 42 66 .29 76 .72 53 .54 13 9 74 .41 85 .09 55 .00 1 0 82 .54 31 . .78 58 .28 1 0 30 83 4 1 . .81 59. 20 1 1 7 40 .57 51 . .85 60 . 12 29 20 50 .31 6 1 . . 88 61 .04 57 40 60 .05 7 1 . .92 61 .96 68 48 69 .79 81 .95 62. . 88 46 32 79 .53 91 99 63 .80 1 1 7 89 .27 102. 02 64 .72 1 0 99 .02 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 6=UPPER 01AMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS. M**3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M« 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME 661.88 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 162.85 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 24 .60 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME 1223.61 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 242.97 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 19.86 HARVEST AGE: 80 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 16 . 55 0 .38 0 .38 0 . 15 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21 .95 0 .65 1 1 .09 0 . 26 0. 15 56. 1 1 1 . 33 27 .42 1 .01 46 . 59 0 . 4 1 10. 51 7 1 . 65 22. 56 32.95 1 .46 131 .74 0 .58 32 . .83 78 . 06 24 . 92 38 . 52 2 .01 215 .24 0 . 79 55. 36 81 . 15 25 . 72 44 . 14 2 .66 194 .36 1 .04 49 . 74 82 . 83 25. 59 49.79 3 .42 58 . 19 1 .31 14 . 26 83 . 7 1 24 . 51 55.48 4 . 30 4 .30 1 .62 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 23.40 0 . 98 0 .98 0 . 28 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30. 88 1 . 67 21 .69 0 .49 3. 4 1 76 . 6 1 15. 70 38.40 2 .54 88 .76 0 . 76 16 . 42 82 . 91 18 . 49 45.95 3 .59 247 .93 1 .09 49 . 07 86 . 77 19 . 79 53.53 4 .85 397 .49 1 .47 8 1 . 39 89 . 16 20. 47 61.13 6 .31 353 . 15 1 .92 72 . 86 90. 54 20. 63 68.77 7 . 98 103 . 7 1 2 .42 19. 84 91 . 14 19 . 13 76.45 9 .90 9 .90 2 .98 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 28.68 1 . 76 1 .76 0 . 42 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 37 . 79 2 .95 32 .40 0 .72 4 . 06 80. 13 12 . 54 46.91 4 .42 128 . 24 1 . 1 1 19 . 42 87 . 09 15 . 14 56.06 6 . 19 352 .97 1 . 59 57 . 85 90. 95 16 . 39 65.22 8 .26 561 .73 2 . 15 95 . 1 1 92 . 17 16 . 93 74 .40 10 .63 489 .04 2 .79 83. 53 93. 4 1 17 . 08 83.60 13 .31 146 .40 3 .52 23. 17 93. 90 15. 82 92.82 16 .30 16 .30 4 .34 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ' OF PRUNED TREES 4 MORT. & DEFECT 266 10 .00 ' OF PRUNED TREES 1, MORT . &DEFECT 200 15.00 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR # OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 1728.86 283.14 16.38 154 20.00 O C\! 0 ^ ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 2.9 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 22.8 TOTAL COST($): 236.69 COST PER TREE($): 0.7 TOTAL DISC. CDST($): 131.80 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.38 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 8.2 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 51.3 TOTAL COST($): 533.97 COST PER TREE($): 1.8 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 221.88 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.74 ************************************** DISCOUNTED COST: $ 353.7 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *•* DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1.33 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.77 7.50 * EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 • % OVERHEAD:30.0 ••HARVEST AGE 80: $ 2.30 SPACING: 15 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:14 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 3.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 350/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 3 .98 8.33 2 0 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 9.12 8. 14 0.00 0.85 0. .95 5 .24 8.42 23 0 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.40 9. 13 0.00 0.95 1 . .09 6 .49 8.52 61 4 0.00 35.20 3.00 0.00 0.03 1 1 .68 10. 12 0.00 1 .06 1 , . 22 7 .75 8.62 121 108 0.00 34.79 3.00 1 0.00 0.03 12.95 11 . 12 0.00 1 . 16 1 . . 35 9 .01 8.72 144 129 0.00 34.37 3.00 0.00 0.04 14.23 12 . 13 2 .07 1 .26 0. .00 10 .27 8.82 98 88 0.01 33.93 2.99 0.01 0.04 15.52 13. 14 2 . 30 1 .37 0. .00 1 1 .52 8.92 23 20 0.02 33.48 2.98 0.02 0.05 16.80 14. 16 2 .54 1 .47 0. .00 12 . 78" 9.02 2 1 0.03 33.03 2.97 0.03 0.06 18.08 15. 19 2 . 77 1 .58 0. .00 AGE WHEN PRUNED:20 s r 4 o HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 7 . 86 14.26 2 0 2.24 O.OO 3.00 0.00 0.00 12.04 10.75 0.00 1 . 12 1 . 25 10. 34 14 . 45 23 0 2 . 36 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 14.26 12.59 0.00 1 .31 1 . .48 12 . 83 14.65 61 0 2.49 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 16.49 14 .45 0.00 1 .50 1 . .71 15. 31 14 .84 121 63 3.00 25.33 3.00 0.00 0.07 18.73 16 . 33 0.00 1 .70 1 . .94 17. 79 15.04 144 129 3.00 24 .92 3.00 0.00 0.09 20.97 18 . 23 0.00 1 .89 2. . 18 20. 27 15. 23 97 87 3.00 24.52 3.00 0.00 0. 1 1 23.23 20. 14 0.00 2 .09 2 . 41 22. 76 15.43 23 20 3.03 23.94 2.97 0.03 0. 13 25.50 22.08 2.64 2.29 0. ,00 25. 24 15.62 2 1 3 . 17 22.71 2. 83 O. 17 0. 16 27.77 24 .03 2 .88 2.49 0. .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES. M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 1O=L0WER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 CM HARVEST AGE: 60 HARVEST AGE: 80 15 . 88 22 . 18 2 0 15. . 3 1 12. . 45 0. . 18 0. 37 0. .09 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20 89 23 . 7 1 21 0 20. . 16 16. 65 0. 32 6. 77 0 . 16 0 .00 0. 00 0. 00 25 .91 25 .25 57 0 25. 01 20. .93 0. 51 28. .99 0. 25 0 .00 0. 00 0. 00 30. .92 26 .79 112 72 29. 87 25. 28 0. 75 83 51 0 36 18. . 16 69. .89 21 . 74 35. .94 28 . .01 134 108 34 . 73 29. 63 1 . 03 137 . 50 0. 49 39 . 03 73 . 60 28 . 39 40 .95 29 . 55 91 72 39 .59 34 .09 1 . . 37 125 . 1 1 0 . 64 35 . 10 75 .80 28 .05 45 .97 31 .09 21 16 44 .45 38 . 59 1 .79 37 .53 0 .82 10 . 1 1 77 .37 26 .93 50 .98 32 .62 2 0 49. 32 43 13 2 . 27 4 . 54 1 .01 0 .00 0 .00 0. 00 2 t . .66 32 . .20 1 0 20. .95 18 .28 0. 47 0 .47 0. . 18 0 .00 0. 00 0. 00 28 .49 33. .79 17 4 27 . 57 24 . .23 0. 82 13. 92 0 .32 0. 86 67 .43 6. 15 35 . . 33 35 . 6S 45 34 34 . 20 30. 28 1 . 28 57 . 56 0 . 49 13 .20 78 .97 22 . 93 42 . 17 37 . 50 89 68 40 .83 36 .38 1 86 165 . 45 0 .70 39 .60 82 .64 23 .94 49 .01 39 . 10 107 81 47 .46 42 .51 2 . 55 272 . 79 0 . 96 66 .46 85 . 78 24 . 36 55 .85 40 .95 72 54 54 . 10 48 .71 3 .39 244 . 15 1 . 25 58 .91 87 . 37 24 . 13 62. .69 42 .81 17 12 60. . 74 54 . .95 4 . .38 74 . 44 1 .58 16 .73 88 . 17 22 . 47 69. .52 44 .40 1 0 67. . 37 61 . . 19 5. 49 5 . 49 1 .95 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 26 . .20 39 .40 1 0 25. 37 22 . 74 0 .83 0 . 83 0 . 27 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 34 .47 4 1 .31 14 9 33 39 30 . 10 1 . 43 19 .97 0 . 48 3 .35 78 .28 16 .80 42 . 74 43 . 23 38 27 4 1 . 4 1 37 .51 2 . 2 1 83 . 93 0 , 74 16 .62 83 .68 19 . 80 5 1 .01 •45 . 14 75 53 49 . 44 44 . 98 3 . 19 238 .89 1 .05 49 .02 87 .86 20 . 52 59 .29 47 .06 90 64 57 .47 52. .50 4 .37 393 . 16 1 . 43 82 .28 90 .06 20 . 93 67 . . 56 48 .97 6 1 43 65. .50 60. .06 5. . 77 352 .06 1 . 86 73 . 14 91 .4 1 20 . 77 75. .83 50. .89 14 9 73 . 53 67 .66 7 . .41 103. .70 2 . 35 19 .49 92 .03 18 .79 84 . . 10 52 .80 1 0 8 1 . . 57 75 . 29 9. . 29 9 .29 2 .90 0 .00 0 :00 0 .00 1=0IAMETER CLASS. OBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT. M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4 =NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS. M*»3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS. M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M«*3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG). M* 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR, IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 424.30 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 102.39 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 24 . 13 OF PRUNED TREES 268 V. MORT. & DEFECT 10.00 TOTAL VOLUME 834.28 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 195.75 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 23 . 46 OF PRUNED TREES 253 % MORT. 6 DEFECT 15.00 HARVEST AGE: 80 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR ft OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 1201.81 243.90 20.29 205 20.00 I -4-***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-OAY: $ 78.OO * $/HRS: 7.50 * ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 3.3 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 25.7 TOTAL COST($) : 266.96 COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.8 TOTAL DISC. C0ST($): 134.83 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 0.39 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 2.5 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 16.8 TOTAL COST($): 174 . 70 ^ COST PER TREE($) : 0.6 CM TOTAL DISC. COST($): 65.84 DISC. COST PER TREE($ ) : 0.22 ************************************** DISCOUNTED COST: $ 200.7 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** ••• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 0.75 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 0.79 ••HARVEST EFFECTIVE tf OF HRS/DAY:7.5 * % OVERHE AD : 30 .0 AGE 80: $ 0.98 S P A C I N G : 15 F E E T L E N G T H OF PRUNED L O G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S % D E F E C T T R E E S : 1 0 . 0 0 A G E WHEN P R U N E D : 1 8 H E I G H T OF P R U N I N G : 6 . 0 M E T E R S . NUMBER OF T R E E S P R U N E D : 3 0 0 / H A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 . 7 9 1 2 . 4 5 2 0 1 . 19 0 . 0 0 4 . 8 1 1 . 19 6 . 0 0 14 . 0 8 1 0 . 9 9 1 . 4 3 1 . .15 0 . . 0 0 1 1 . 5 6 1 2 . 6 7 2 0 0 1 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 4 . 7 0 1 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 9 2 1 2 . 9 3 1 . 7 5 1 . 3 5 0 . . 0 0 14 . 3 4 1 2 . 8 9 5 5 0 1 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 4 . 5 8 1 . 4 2 0 . 0 0 1 9 . 7 7 1 4 . 9 1 2 . 0 7 1 . 5 5 0 , . 0 0 17 . 11 1 3 . 1 1 1 0 7 8 8 1 . 5 4 3 8 . 5 3 4 . 4 6 1 . 5 4 0 . 1 8 2 2 . 6 2 1 6 . 9 2 2 . 3 9 1 . 7 6 0 . . 0 0 19 . 8 9 1 3 . 3 3 128 1 15 1 . 6 7 3 7 . 15 4 . 3 3 1 . 6 7 0 . 2 2 2 5 . 4 7 1 8 . 9 6 2 . 7 1 1 . 9 7 0 . . 0 0 2 2 . 6 6 1 3 . 5 5 8 7 7 8 1 . 8 0 3 5 . 7 8 4 . 2 0 1 . 8 0 0 . 2 8 2 8 . 3 2 21 . 0 3 3 . 0 4 2 . 18 0 , . 0 0 2 5 . 4 4 1 3 . 7 6 2 0 18 1 . 9 3 3 4 . 4 0 4 . 0 7 1 . 9 3 0 . 3 4 3 1 . 1 7 2 3 . 12 3 . 3 6 2 . 4 0 0 . . 0 0 2 8 . 2 1 1 3 . 9 8 2 1 2 . 0 6 3 3 . 0 3 3 . 9 4 2 . 0 6 0 . 4 0 34 . 0 2 2 5 . 2 5 3 . 6 8 2 . 6 2 0 , . 0 0 1 = D I A M E T E R C L A S S . D B H , C M . 2 = T R E E H E I G H T , M. 3=NUMBER OF T R E E S P E R C L A S S P E R HA 4=NUMBER OF P R U N E D T R E E S P E R H A . , 5 = H E I G H T TO L I V E CROWN, M. 6 = P E R C E N T A G E L I V E CROWN REMOVED 7 = L E N G T H OF C O R E WITH L I V E B R A N C H E S , M. 8 = L E N G T H OF C O R E WITH D E A D B R A N C H E S , M . 9 = V 0 L U M E OF C O R E , M * * 3 . 10=LOWER D I A M E T E R OF C O R E , C M . 11=UPPER D I A M E T E R OF KNOTTY C O R E , C M . 12=MAXIMUM D E A D B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . NO 1 3 = L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 14=MAXIMUM L I V E B R A N C H D I A M E T E R I N S I D E B A R K , C M . 1 2 3 4 5 19 .81 30 . 18 1 0 19. . 15 26 .06 3 1 .73 17 1 25 . 2 t 32 . 32 33 . 28 46 36 31 . . 27 38 .57 34 .83 90 72 37 .33 44 . 83 36 . .37 107 86 43 . . 39 5 1 .08 37. 92 73 58 49. 46 57 . 34 39. 47 17 13 55. . 53 63 . 59 41 . 02 1 0 61 . .60 26 .50 45 .60 1 0 25 .69 34 .87 47 .06 13 9 33 .81 43 . 24 48 . 36 35 26 41 .92 51 .61 49 .65 69 52 50 .04 59 .98 50 .95 82 62 58 . 17 68 . 35 52 . 24 56 42 66 . 29 76 .72 53 .54 13 9 74 .41 85 . .09 55 .00 1 0 82 .54 HARVEST AGE: 80 o -CM 31 .78 58 .28 1 0 30. 83 4 1 .81 59 .20 1 1 7 40. 57 51 . 85 60 . 12 29 20 50. 31 6 1 . 88 61 .04 57 40 60. 05 7 1 .92 61 .96 68 48 69. 79 8 1 .95 62. 88 46 32 79. 53 91 .99 63 .80 1 1 7 89. 27 102 .02 64 .72 1 0 99. 02 1=DIAMETER CLASS, DBH, CM. 2 = TREE HEIGHT. M.- . 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5-LOWER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS. M«»3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS, M'*3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M*«3. 10=T0TAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M»" 11'PERCENTAGE CLEAR. IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 661.88 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 140.54 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 2 1.23 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 1223.61 225.09 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 18.40 HARVEST AGE: 80 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 16.55 0 .38 0 .38 0. 15 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21 .95 0 .65 1 1 .09 0. 26 0. 09 32. 4 1 0. 77 27 .42 1 .01 46 . 59 0. 4 1 8. 26 56. 34 17 . 74 32.95 1 .46 131 .74 0. 58 27 . 74 65 . 97 21 . 06 38.52 2 .01 2 15 . 24 0. 79 48. 09 70. 48 22 . 34 44 . 14 2 .66 194 .36 1 . 04 43 . 75 72. 85 22 . 51 49.79 3 .42 58 . 19 1 . 31 12. 62 74 . 04 21 . 68 55.48 4 .30 4 .30 1 . 62 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 23 . 40 0 . 98 0 .98 0. 28 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30.88 1 . 67 2 1 .69 0. 49 2 . 84 63. 98 13 . 1 1 38.40 2 . 54 88 .76 0. 76 14 . 54 73 . 46 16 . 39 45.95 3 . 59 247 .93 1 . 09 44 . 86 79. 33 18. 09 53.53 4 .85 397 .49 1 . 47 75. 73 82 . 97 19 . 05 61.13 6 .31 353 . 15 1 . 92 68 . 42 85. 03 19 . 37 68.77 7 .98 103 .71 2. 42 18 . 69 85. 87 18 . 03 76.45 9 .90 9 .90 2 . 98 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 28.68 1 .76 1 .76 0. 42 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 37 . 79 2 .95 32 .40 0. 72 3. 50 68. 96 10. 79 46.91 4 .42 128 . 24 1. 1 1 17 . 80 79. 83 13 . 88 56.06 6 . 19 352 . 97 1. 59 54 . 6 1 85. 86 15. 47 65.22 8 .26 561 .73 2 . 15 90. 46 87. 66 16. 10 74 .40 10 .63 489 .04 2. 79 80. 09 89. 56 16. 38 83.60 13 .31 146 .40 3. 52 22. 27 90. 27 15. 21 92 .82 16 .30 16 .30 4 . 34 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ' OF PRUNED TREES i MORT. & DEFECT 266 10. 00 ' OF PRUNED TREES ( MORT . & DEFECT 200 15.00 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR * OF PRUNED TREES 7. MORT. & DEFECT 1728.86 268.73 15.54 154 20.00 to CM •••PRUNING COST PER H E C T A R E ^ 4 * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 • $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 11.7 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 72.4 TOTAL COST($): 752.61 COST PER TREE($ ) : 2.5 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 312.73 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 1.04 ************************************** CN DISCOUNTED COST: $ 312.7 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** *** DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1 . 1 8 **HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.56 50 • EFFECTIVE ft OF HRS/DAY: 7. 5 * % OVERHEAD : 30 . 0 HARVEST AGE 80: $ 2.03 SPACING: 15 FEET LENGTH OF PRUNED LOG: 6.0 METERS % DEFECT TREES:10.00 $ x H o AGE WHEN PRUNED:20 HEIGHT OF PRUNING: 6.0 METERS. NUMBER OF TREES PRUNED: 300/HA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 7 .86 14.26 2 0 2.24 0.00 3.76 2.24 0.00 13.15 10.75 1 .20 1.12 0. .00 10 .34 14.45 23 0 2 . 36 0.00 3.64 2.36 0.00 15.70 12.59 1 .44 1 .31 0. .00 12 .83 14 .65 61 0 2.49 O.OO 3.51 2 .49 0.00 18.25 14 .45 1 .68 1 .50 0. .00 15 .31 14 .84 121 63 2.63 27 .62 3.37 2.63 0. 16 20.80 16.33 1 .92 1 .70 0. .00 17 .79 15 .04 144 129 2.76 26 .40 3.24 2.76 0. 20 23.35 18.23 2. 16 1 .89 0. .00 20 . 27 15.23 97 87 2.89 25 . 17 3.11 2 .89 0.24 25.91 20. 14 2 .40 2 .09 0. .00 22 .76 15.43 23 20 3.03 23 .94 2 .97 3.03 0.29 28.46 22.08 2.64 2.29 0, ,00 25 .24 15 .62 2 1 3. 17 22.71 2 .83 3. 17 0. 34 31 .02 24 .03 2.88 2.49 0. .00 1=DIAMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS PER HA 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES PER HA. 5=HEIGHT TO LIVE CROWN, M. 6=PERCENTAGE LIVE CROWN REMOVED 7=LENGTH OF CORE WITH LIVE BRANCHES, M. 8=LENGTH OF CORE WITH DEAD BRANCHES, M. 9=V0LUME OF CORE, M**3. 10=LOWER DIAMETER OF CORE, CM. 11=UPPER DIAMETER OF KNOTTY CORE, CM. 12=MAXIMUM DEAD BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. O 13=LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. 14=MAXIMUM LIVE BRANCH DIAMETER INSIDE BARK, CM. HARVEST AGE: 40 15. 88 22. . 18 2 0 15 . 3 1 20. 89 23. 71 21 0 20 . 16 25. 91 25 . 25 57 0 25 .01 30. 92 26. 79 112 72 29. . 87 35. 94 28 .01 134 108 34 .73 40. 95 29. . 55 91 72 39. 59 45. 97 31 . .09 21 16 44 .45 50. 98 32 .62 2 0 49 . 32 2 1 .66 32. 20 1 0 20. 95 28 .49 33 . . 79 17 ' 4 27 . 57 35 .33 35. . 65 45 34 34 . 20 42 . 17 37 .50 89 68 40. 83 49 .01 39. . 10 107 81 47 . 46 55 .85 40. 95 72 54 54 . 10 62 .69 42 . .81 17 12 60. 74 69 .52 44 . .40 1 0 67 . 37 HARVEST AGE: 80 26 .20 39 . .40 1 0 25 . 37 34 .47 4 1 . .31 14 9 33 . 39 42 .74 43 . . 23 38 27 4 1 . 4 1 5 1 .01 45 . . 14 75 53 49 . 44 59 . 29 47 . .06 90 64 57 .47 67 .56 48. 97 61 43 65 .50 75 .83 50 .89 14 9 73 . 53 84 . 10 52. 80 1 0 81 .57 1=01AMETER CLASS. DBH, CM. 2=TREE HEIGHT, M. 3=NUMBER OF TREES PER CLASS /HA. 4=NUMBER OF PRUNED TREES /HA. 5=L0WER DIAMETER INSIDE BARK. CM. 6=UPPER DIAMETER INSIOE BARK. CM. 7=V0LUME PER TREE PER CLASS. M*»3. 8=T0TAL VOLUME PER CLASS. M**3. 9=V0LUME OF PRUNED LOG. M**3. 10=TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PER CLASS.(PRUNED LOG), M* 11=PERCENTAGE CLEAR. IN PRUNED LOG, PER CLASS 12=PERCENTAGE CLEAR PER CLASS HARVEST AGE: 40 TOTAL VOLUME 424.30 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 83.06 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 19 . 58 HARVEST AGE: 60 TOTAL VOLUME 834.28 TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME 177.47 PERCENTAGE CLEAR 2 1 . 27 HARVEST AGE: 80 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 12.45 0 . 18 0. 37 0. 09 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 16.65 0 .32 6 . 77 0. 16 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20.93 0 .51 28 . 99 0. 25 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 25.28 0 .75 83. 51 0. 36 14 . 14 54 . 43 16. 93 29.63 1 .03 137 . 50 0. 49 3 1 . 57 59 . 53 22. 96 34 .09 1 .37 125. 1 1 0. 64 28 . 92 62 . 46 23 . 12 38 . 59 1 . 79 37 . 53 0. 82 8 . .43 64 . 56 22 . 47 43. 13 2 .27 4 . 54 1 . 01 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 18 . 28 0 . 47 0. 47 .0. 18 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 24 .23 0 . 82 13. 92 0. 32 0. 65 50. 87 4 . 64 30. 28 1 .28 57 . 56 0. 49 1 1 . .41 68 . 27 19. 82 36 . 38 1 .86 165. 45 0. 70 35 . 22 73 . 50 2 1 . 2942.51 2 .55 272 . 79 0. 96 60. 54 78 . 13 22 . 19 48 . 7 1 3 . 39 244 . 15 1. 25 54 . . 2 1 80. 39 22 . 20 54.95 4 . 38 74 . 44 1. 58 15 .45 81 . 47 20. 76 61.19 5 .49 5 . 49 1. 95 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 22.74 0 . 83 0. 83 0. 27 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30. 10 1 .43 19 . 97 0. 48 2. 88 67 . 24 14 . 43 37 . 51 2 .21 83 . 93 0. 74 14 . .92 75. 14 17 . 78 44.98 3 . 19 238. 89 1. 05 45 .42 81 . 4 1 19. 01 52.50 4 .37 393. 16 1. 43 77 .36 84 . 67 19 . 68 60.06 5 .77 352 . 06 1. 86 69. 33 86. 65 19. 69 67.66 7 . 4 1 103. 70 2 . 35 18. 53 87 . 51 17. 87 75.29 9 . 29 9. 29 2. 90 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ' OF PRUNED TREES 7. 1 MORT. S DEFECT 268 10. 00 > OF PRUNED TREES ; MORT. & DEFECT 253 15.00 TOTAL VOLUME TOTAL CLEAR VOLUME PERCENTAGE CLEAR It OF PRUNED TREES % MORT. & DEFECT 1201.81 228.45 19.01 205 20.00 CNi -d-•"••PRUNING COST PER HECTARE 4 4* * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.00 * $/HRS: ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 14.0 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 85.8 TOTAL COST($): 892.77 COST PER TREE($): 3.0 TOTAL DISC. COST($): 336.48 DISC. COST PER TREE($ ) : 1.12 ************************************** C M DISCOUNTED COST: $ 336.5 RATE OF INTEREST: 5.0 % ************************************** ••• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 1.26 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 1.33 7.50 • EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 * % OVERHEAD:30.0 **HARVEST AGE 80: $ 1.64 -4-C N ***PRUNING COST PER HECTARE*** * COST PER MAN-DAY: $ 78.OO * $/HRS: 7.50 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 3.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS) TOTAL COST($) COST PER TREE($) TOTAL DISC. COST($) DISC. COST PER TREE($) 3.3 25.7 266.96 0.8 176.49 0.50 ************************************** •PRUNING UP TO: 6.0 METERS PRUNING TIME PER TREE(MIN): 11.4 TOTAL PRUNING TIME(HOURS): 70.5 TOTAL C0ST($): 732.78 COST PER TREE($): 2.4 TOTAL DISC. C0ST($): 405.73 DISC. COST PER TREE($): 1.35 ************************************** DISCOUNTED COST: $ 582.2 RATE OF INTEREST: 3.0 % ************************************** *•• DISCOUNTED COST PER HARVESTED PRUNED TREE: ••HARVEST AGE 40: $ 2.17 ••HARVEST AGE 60: $ 2 . 3 0 ••HAR * EFFECTIVE H OF HRS/DAY:7.5 * % OVERHEAD:30.0 ST AGE 80: $ 2.84 245 APPENDIX D - UNPRUNED AND PRUNED STANDS VALUE AT AGE OF HARVEST. Explaination of tables: Diameter classes are from the model output and are numbered in the increasing order. Log grades are these shown in Table 16, "p" i s for peeler. 246 Table 21 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 1.8 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 50 SI 50 1.8 m spac ing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. I T class »i class I I 3-4 5-6 3-4 5-6 : #4 : #2 : #4 : #3p harvest age 60. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. it diam. class TI class I T ?! 2 3-4-5-6 2 3-4-5 6 : #4 : #2 : #2 : #3p : #2p harvest age 80. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. »i class class TT I T 2-3-4-5-2-3-4 5 6 6: #2 : #3p : #2p : #1p Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned P r o f i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 127. 86x4. 40=563 .01 127. 86x4 .40=563. 01 38. 60x6. 96=268 .66 38. 60x8 .52=328. 97 Total 831 .67 891 . 98 60 .31 60 28. 86x1 . 65= 47 .89 28. 86x2 .62= 75. 70 234. 78x2. 62=615 .87 228. 87x3 .21=735. 1 5 5. 91x4 .60= 27. 20 Total 663 .76 838. 06 174 .29 80 279. 98x0. 98=276 .78 237. 95x1 .21=288. 06 39. 93x1 .73= 69. 28 3. 1 0x2 .60= 8. 06 Total 276 .78 365. 41 88 .63 247 Table 22 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 2.7 m i n i t i a l spacing. Si 50. SI 50 2.7 m spacing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. « diam. it n class it class ti it 4 5-6 4 5 6 : #4 : #2 : #4 : #2 : #3p harvest age 60. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. ti diam. I I class it class ti 2 3-4-5-6 2 3-4-5-6 : #4 : #2 : #2 : #3p harvest age 80. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. I I class class ?t 2-3-4-5-3-4 5-6 6: #2 : #3p : #2p Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned P r o f i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 59 .22x4. 40=260. 76 59 .22x4 .40=260. 76 1 30 .78x6. 96=910. 25 96 .85x6 .96=674. 09 33 .93x8 .52=289. 1 7 Total 1171. 02 1 224. 03 53 .01 60 10 .92x1 . 65= 18. 1 2 10 .92x1 .65= 18. 1 2 281 .22x2. 62=737. 69 281 . 22x3 .21=903. 30 Total 755. 82 921 . 43 165 .60 80 303 .41x0. 98=299. 95 1 1 .45x0 .98= 11. 31 1 34 .66x1 .21=163. 01 1 57 .35x1 .73=273. 03 Total 299. 95 447. 37 147 .42 248 Table 23 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 3.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 50. SI 50 3.6 m spac ing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. I I class class I I 4- 5-6 4 5- 6-7 #2 #2 #3p harvest age 60. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. .? ! 11 class class I I I I 1-2-3-4-5-1-2 3-4-5 6-7 6-7 #2 #2 . #3p : #2p harvest age 80. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. I I H n class class »i I I I I 1-2-3-4-5-1-2 3-4 5 6-7 6-7 : #2 : #2 i #3p : #2p : #lp Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned P r o f i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 191 .01x6.96=1329 .46 57 .75x6.96= 401.95 133 .26x8.52=1135.73 Total 1 329 .46 1537.68 208.22 60 295 .86x2.62=776. 10 4 .77x2.62= 12.51 253 .95x3.21=815.71 37 .14x4.60=170.99 Total 776. 10 999.21 223. 11 80 321 .57x0.98=317. 90 5 .87x0.98= 5.80 1 34 .52x1.21=162.85 1 43 .22x1.73=248.51 37 .96x2.60= 98.80 Total 317. 90 515.97 198.07 249 Table 24 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 4.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 50. SI 50 4.6 m spacing harvest age 40. Unpruned: diam. Log grade Pruned : diam. it class i t class 2-3 4-5-6-7 2-3 4 5-6-7 #4 #2 #4 #2 #3p harvest age 60. Unpruned: diam. Pruned : diam. class class 2- 3-4-5-6-7 2 3- 4-5 6-7 #2 #2 #3p #2p harvest age 80. Unpruned: diam. class Pruned : diam. class 2-3-4-5-6-7: #2 2-3-4 : #3p i t TT 5 #2p tt TT 6-7 • • #1p Discounted value of logs (m3 x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned P r o f i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 15.02x4.40= 66 .13 15 .02x4.40= 66. 1 3 187.05x6.96= 1 301 .90 41 .76x6.96= 290.65 1 45 .29x8.52= 1238.26 Total 1 368 .04 1595.05 227.01 60 274.41x2.62= 719. 83 4 .41x2.62= 1 1 .56 1 67 .58x3.21= 538.28 1 02 .42x4.60= 471.54 Total 719. 83 1021.39 301.55 80 307.96x0.98= 304. 44 90 .84x1.21= 109.97 1 03 .22x1.73= 179.10 1 1 3 .92x2.60= 296.51 Total 304. 44 585.59 281 . 15 250 Table 25 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 1.8 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40 SI 40 1.8 m spac ing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: diam. class 3-4-5 : #4 ?» TI 6 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 3-4-5 : #4 ?! 6 : #2 harvest age 60. Unpruned: diam. class 3 : #4 1 ! 4-5-6 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 3 : #4 n 1 ! 4 : #2 TI I ! 5-6 : #3p harvest age 80. Unpruned: diam. class 2 : #4 TT ! ! 3-4-5-6 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 2 : #4 TT I I 3-4-5 : #3p TT 6 : #2p Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned Prof i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 105 1 6x4 .40 = 463. 06 1 05. 1 6x4 .40 = 463. 06 4 95x6 .96 = 34. 45 4 95x6 .96= 34. 45 Total 497. 51 497. 51 0. 00 60 62 .00x1 .65 = 1 02 89 62 00x1 .65= 1 02. 89 127 .24x2 .62 = 333 36 87 42x2 .62 = 229. 32 39 .82x3 .21 = 1 27. 90 Total 436 26 460. 12 23. 86 80 25 .46x0 .62 = 15 .92 25 .46x0 .62 = 15. 92 220 .45x0 .98 = 217 .93 214 . 60x1 .21 = 259. 79 5 .85x1 .73 = 10. 1 2 Total 233 .86 285. 83 51 . 97 251 Table 26 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 2.7 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40. SI 40 2.7 m spacing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: diam. class 4-5 : #4 I I it 6 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 4-5 : #4 ii 6 : #2 harvest age 60. Unpruned: diam. class 3 : #4 I I ii 4-5-6 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 3 : #4 I I I I 4 : #2 I I I I 5-6 : #3p harvest age 80. Unpruned: diam. class 2 : #4 I I 3-4-5-6 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 2 : #4 I I I I 3 : #2 ii I I 4-5-6 : #3p Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned m3x$ $ Pruned m3x$ $ P r o f i t $ 40 Total 92 25 .72x4.40=408.19 .54x6.96=191.68 599.88 92 27 .72x4.40=408.19 .54x6.96=191.68 599.88 0.00 60 Total 0 209 .78x1.65= 1.29 .87x2.62=550.53 551.82 0 77 1 32 .78x1.65= 1.29 .52x2.62=203.35 .35x3.21=425.12 629.76 77.94 80 6 260 .46x0.62= 4.04 .45x0.98=257.48 6 36 .46x0.62= 4.04 .66x0.98= 36.18 223.85x1.21=270.99 Total 261.52 311.21 49.69 252 Table 27 - Log grades i n i t i a l and values at spacing. SI harvest age 40. 3.6 SI 40 3.6 m spac ing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. i? diam. !? it class I I class I I 4 5-6-7 4 5-6 7 #4 #2 #4 #2 #3p harvest age 60. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. it class class I I 4-5-6-7 4 5-6-7 #2 : #2 : #3p harvest age 80. Unpruned: Pruned : diam. diam. I I I I class class I I I I 2-3-4-5-6-7 2-3 4-5 6-7 : #2 : #2 : #3p : #2p Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned P r o f i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 19. 72x4. 40 = 86 .83 19. 72x4 .40 = 86.83 1 06. 02x6. 96 = 737 .92 101. 1 6x6 .96= 704.09 4. 86x8 .52 = 41 .42 Total 824 .75 832.34 7 .59 60 220. 56x2. 62 = 578. 57 75. 21x2 .62 = 197.29 1 45. 35x3 .21 = 466.87 Total 578. 57 664. 17 85 .59 80 283. 54x0. 98 = 280. 30 29. 1 6x0 .98 = 28.82 219. 1 2x1 .21 = 265.13 35. 26x1 .73 = 60.99 Total 280. 30 354.96 74 .66 253 Table 28 - Log grades and values at harvest age. 4.6 m i n i t i a l spacing. SI 40. SI 40 4.6 m spacing Log grade harvest age 40. Unpruned: diam. class 4 : #4 5-6-7 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 4 : #4 5-6 : #2 " 7 : #3p harvest age 60. Unpruned: diam. class 2 : #4 3-4-5-6-7 : #2 Pruned : diam. class 2 : #4 3-4 : #2 5-6-7 : #3p harvest age 80. Unpruned: diam. class 2-3-4-5-6-7: #2 Pruned : diam. class 2 : #2 3-4-5 #3p 6-7 : #2p Discounted value of logs (m3x$) Harv.age Unpruned Pruned P r o f i t m3x$ $ m3x$ $ $ 40 25. 92x4. 40 = 1 14. 13 25. 92x4. 40= 114. 1 3 112. 1 2x6. 96= 780. 37 99. 00x6. 96 = 689. 05 13. 1 2x8. 52 = 111. 81 Total 894. 51 914. 99 20.48 60 1.28x1.65= 2.12 1.28x1.65= 2.12 228.48x2.62=599.34 64.26x2.62=168.56 164.22x3.21=527.49 Total 601.47 698.17 97.70 80 272.60x0.98=269.49 4.32x0.98= 4.27 167.15x1.21=202.35 101.13x1.73=175.48 Total 269.49 382.10 112.61 254 APPENDIX E - COSTS OF TENDING IN RELATION TO SPACING. There are no l o c a l t r i a l s of the extent to which extra weedings would be required or the need for respacing reduced by planting Douglas-fir at i n i t i a l l y wide spacings. At Haney much e f f o r t has been devoted by J. Walters to intensive s i t e preparation and mechanization to improve survival and reduce subsequent costs of stand tending and harvest. Results to 1983 were reported in a 1984 B.S.F. thesis by D. Bebb. The widely spaced (15x15 feet) Douglas-fir in the 0.2 ha blocks was given an "extra" cleaning by H. Scholtz and P. Sanders to control red alder in 1973. The need for alder control then i s obvious today in the small patch l e f t within the block, as an example. Current estimates of "extra" costs range up to $1200/ha for two cleanings at $600 each. This block may have been p a r t i c u l a r l y suited to establishment of red alder, but the brush problem i s common on the best growing s i t e s throughout the South Coast of B r i t i s h Columbia. The widely spaced portions of the Nelder, 49-tree, rectangularity t r i a l s and plantations 64-71 now offer much less evidence of the need for greatly increased tending at wide spacings than did the 0.2 ha block. Some confusion may arise from the obvious lack of understory brush species now in the closely spaced plots which shaded competitors out at an early age. When factors such as snow press or root rot create gaps in the crown canopy there is a prompt and luxurious growth of many shrub species. Weeding of a close spaced stand can be very tedious because of the need to reduce damage to the desired trees. Tests should be made of the extent to which close spacing reduces and wide spacing increases the need for stand tending. Use of herbicides, planting at rectangular i t i e s of 2 or more, and planting two or more trees at each spot to ensure survival of at least one at the desired wide spacing merit operational consideration and testing by research. If t r i a l s confirm the need for increased tending of widely spaced seedlings, the costs involved would reduce the savings made by planting fewer trees. T r i a l s also are needed to determine how premiums for tree size and for tree and wood quality are l i k e l y to influence values of wood grown at various spacings, with and without pruning. 255 APPENDIX F - SCIENTIFIC NAMES, AUTHORITIES AND COMMON NAMES, Monterey pine Norway spruce Sitka spruce Western hemlock Douglas-fir Western redcedar Red alder Pinus strobus Pinus radiata Picea excelsa : Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. : Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. : Pseudotsuga menziesi i (Mirb.) Franco : Thuja p l i c a t a Donn. : Alnus rubra Bong. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096037/manifest

Comment

Related Items