Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of slashburning on the growth and nutrition of young Douglas-fir plantations in some dry,… Vihnanek, Robert E. 1985

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_7 V43.pdf [ 7.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096325.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096325-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096325-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096325-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096325-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096325-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096325-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096325-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096325.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF SLASHBURNING ON THE GROWTH AND NUTRITION OF YOUNG DOUGLAS-FIR PLANTATIONS IN SOME DRY, SALAL-DOMINATED ECOSYSTEMS  By ROBERT E. VIHNANEK B.Sc,  Southern I l l i n o i s  University,  1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE  in THE FACULTY OF' GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Forestry  )  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April ©  1985  Robert E. Vihnanek,  1985  In p r e s e n t i n g  this thesis  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an  in partial  advanced degree a t  the  the  University  of  B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that  the  Library  s h a l l make  it  freely available  and  study.  I  for reference  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  f o r extensive copying of  f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may department or  by  understood that for  be  h i s or her  g r a n t e d by  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not  Department o f  be  (3/81)  of  further this  Columbia  thesis  head o f  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  f~h/te-S'/y^/  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  the  representatives.  permission.  DE-6  f u l f i l m e n t of  written  - ii ABSTRACT Twenty Douglas-fir plantations, ranging from 5 to 15 years o l d , were examined on the east side of Vancouver Island.  In a l l areas studied, salal was the  dominant ground cover, and was suspected of being a major competitor with trees for water and nutrients. burned and part was unburned.  In each plantation, part of the area has been Stocking of planted Douglas-firs was found to  be greater on the burned than on the unburned areas of 16 s i t e s and height growth of planted Douglas-firs was greater on the burned than on the unburned areas of 18 s i t e s .  Some degree of nitrogen deficiency was inferred for  17 s i t e s , but was not attributed to burning. salal was greater on unburned areas.  Height and percent cover of  Differences  in height growth and  percent cover of salal between burned and unburned areas were seen to be greatest where inferred burn severity was high.  Browsing of Douglas-fir was  more prevalent on burned areas but did not result in height growth being less than on adjacent unburned areas.  - iii  -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iii  LIST OF TABLES  iv  LIST OF FIGURES  v  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  vi  1.0  INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW  1  2.0  METHODS  5  3.0  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Stocking 3.2 Cumulative Growth 3.3 Annual Height Growth Trends 3.4 Salal 3.5 S a l a l - t r e e Interactions  17 17 21 25 28 33  3.6  37  4.0  F o l i a r Nutrient Concentrations  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  43  LITERATURE CITED  44  APPENDIX I  Soil/Landform Description  Forms  47  APPENDIX II  F o l i a r Nutrient Analysis Forms  58  APPENDIX III  Height:Age Curves  79  APPENDIX IV  Soil Analysis Results  85  APPENDIX V  Stocking Results by Site  86  APPENDIX VI  Correlation Matrices by Site  88  LIST OF TABLES  Site Soils  Information Information  Summary of Stocking Data Height, Basal Diameter, and Browsing of Planted Douglas-fir Height and Percent Cover of S a l a l , and Mineral Soil Exposure Summary of Correlation Matrices for Mean Plot Height and Basal Diameter of Planted Douglas-fir, Percent Mineral Soil Exposure, Percent Cover and Height of S a l a l . Number of Sites Significant at 0.1 or Greater. T-Test Results on F o l i a r Nutrient Concentrations Summary of F o l i a r Nitrogen Levels  LIST OF FIGURES  Location of Study Area.  .  Photographs of Representative Areas of Low, Medium, and High Burn Severity Number of Planted Douglas-fir per Hectare by Which Burned Areas Exceed Unburned Areas by Severity Class Percent Increase in the Mean Height of Planted Douglas-fir on Burned Areas over Unburned Areas by Severity Class Height/Age Curves Type A,B,C,D Percent Increase in Salal Height on Burned Areas from Unburned Areas by Severity Class Percent Decrease in Cover of Salal on Burned Areas from Unburned Areas by Severity Class Percent Cover of Salal on Burned Areas by Severity Class  - vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge MacMillan Bloedel L t d . for t h e i r financial and technical  support, and Terry Rollerson for his help on the s o i l s work.  I also wish  to thank Dr. Ed Packee for his help on the i n i t i a l concepts of the project. The project was funded in part under Section 8 8 of the Forest A c t , as administered through the B . C . Ministry of Forests, Vancouver, B . C .  I wish to  thank my committee members, Arlen Johnson, Dr. J . P . Kimmins, and especially Dr. T . M . Ballard for help throughout the project. and L i z Steele for processing of the manuscript. Peg Thesing for l i m i t l e s s time of the project.  I wish to thank Bev Wilson Special thanks must go -to  patience and constant support throughout the entire  - 1 1.0  INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW  The projected f a l l down in timber supply has caused forest managers look closely at the future crop of trees. level  There i s currently a high  of concern about the quality of reforestation  Columbia's forest lands. are being more carefully  to  on B r i t i s h  The amount and kind of s i I v i c u l t u r a l  treatment  considered.  Up to the mid-1970s, broadcast burning of logging slash was done  1  primarily for hazard reduction.  In the late 1970s, concerns about the  effects of slashburning on s i t e productivity were being expressed.  As a  result of t h i s , the Ministry of Forests d r a s t i c a l l y reduced the number of burning permits issued for hazard reduction and hectares burned f e l l from 37,000 ha in 1966 ( B r i t i s h Columbia 1966) ( B r i t i s h Columbia 1979).  to 3,000 ha in 1979  The new philosophy which emerged was that f i r e  should be used as a s i l v i c u l t u r a l tool for s i t e preparation and only on s i t e s where the ecological  damage was minimal.  This philosophy led to  considerable debate over what types of s i t e s were suitable for the application of f i r e . silvicultural  Before using prescribed burning as part of a  program, more information is needed concerning  fire's  effects on the productivity of the s i t e .  The present l i t e r a t u r e on f i r e effects is extensive.  Several major  reviews of the topic have been done, including Ahlgren and Ahlgren (1960), Cramer (1974), Wells et a l . (1979), Boyer and Dell (1980), and F e l l e r (1982).  In a l l cases, the authors have found c o n f l i c t i n g  evidence on various f i r e e f f e c t s .  F e l l e r (1982) s t a t e s , "A notable  - 2 -  feature of the l i t e r a t u r e on slashburning is that for any effect reported in one study, i t is usually possible to find the effect reported in another study."  opposite  This being the case, few generali-  zations concerning f i r e effects can be stated with confidence.  Inherent in the problem of apparent c o n f l i c t s need for more s i t e or ecosystem-specific  in the l i t e r a t u r e is  information.  the  Boyer and Dell  (1980) f e l t that the confusion or contradiction in the l i t e r a t u r e was due to incomplete data on, or d e f i n i t i o n of, conditions on the area studied.  F e l l e r (1982) relates that much of the l i t e r a t u r e on the  impacts of slashburning on tree species does not recognize that such impacts are ecosystem-specific  and that i t f a i l s to characterize  adequately the ecosystem studied and the f i r e s themselves.  It has been  recognized by most reviewers that intensity and duration or depth of burn are s i g n i f i c a n t factors in determing the e f f e c t s . specific  The omission of  information r e l a t i n g to the ecosystems in which studies are  done results  in the i n a b i l i t y to extrapolate the findings of such  studies to other areas.  Without recognizing t h i s , researchers may use  inappropriate findings to support t h e i r own conclusions.  This  increases  the confusion and undermines the search for clear answers.  The l i t e r a t u r e on the effects of prescribed burning on the early growth of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii this confusion.  (Mirb.) Franco) has not escaped  The l i t e r a t u r e shows that one group of researchers have  concluded that burning had a positive effect on subsequent growth of Douglas-fir seedlings (Bever 1954, M i l l e r et a l . 1974, Morris Steen 1966, Tarrant and Wright 1955).  1970,  Other studies have shown that the  - 3 effects of burning on Douglas-fir regeneration were negative (Baker 1968, Baker and Phelps 1969, found mixed results  Isaac 1938, Knight 1964).  (Gockerell 1966, Jablanczy 1964).  Still  Therefore, there  are no conclusive answers that can be stated regarding this  The need for ecosystem-specific  others  subject.  information has been i d e n t i f i e d .  In  this study, the ecosystems examined are in the Coastal Western Hemlock subzones (Klinka et a l . 1979), where salal  (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) is  the dominant understory species and where s o i l s are usually dry and nutrient-poor.  The l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g d i r e c t l y to burning implications  on these types of s i t e s is very l i m i t e d .  Knight (1964) studied s i t e s on  southwest Vancouver Island and reported lower i n i t i a l growth on burned areas.  Climate and other factors d i f f e r greatly on southwest Vancouver  Island in comparison with the dry conditions prevalent on the sites on eastern Vancouver Island studied here.  T y p i c a l l y , these west Vancouver  Island s i t e s have 2.5 times the mean p r e c i p i t a t i o n (April - September) and one-tenth the water d e f i c i t of t h e i r east Vancouver Island counterparts (Klinka et a l . 1979). problem.  They also do not have the salal brush  Jablanczy (1964), in his study at the University of B r i t i s h  Columbia Research Forest, delineates the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a salal site.  He describes these s i t e s as having "mineral s o i l seldom over  one-half inch in thickness."  While portions of some of the s i t e s  studied here approach this situation of shallow mineral s o i l layers over bedrock, the mineral s o i l layer on other s i t e s was over one meter in depth and most s i t e s f a l l  somewhere in between.  Jablanczy's salal  therefore represent the most extreme s o i l conditions.  sites  On these s i t e s  Jablanczy reports best growth on moderately burned s i t e s and worst on severely burned s i t e s , with unburned s i t e s being intermediate.  - 4 -  The c r i t e r i a used for defining the two burn intensity levels in Jablanczy's study must be considered.  Moderate burning was 1000°F and  severe burning 1750°F at a depth of 1 cm below the surface. U.S.  Forest Service designations  Most recent  (Boyer and Dell 1980) define any  surface temperatures greater than 500°C ( 9 3 0 ° F ) as severe burning in clearcuts.  By these standards, Jablanczy's "moderate" burn, with  subsurface temperatures of 1 0 0 0 ° F , would be classed as "severe".  The  results from Jablanczy's laboratory study using s o i l blocks from very severe f i e l d conditions show better i n i t i a l growth even after burning which, by today's standards, would be considered very intense.  Since  his was a greenhouse study, care must be taken in applying the  results  to f i e l d conditions.  Even so, Jablanczy's study comes closest to giving  an indication of the impact of burning on tree growth on these types of sites.  In general, the B . C . Ministry of Forests, Vancouver Region Guidelines for  Prescribed Burning recommend against burning s i t e s that are dry and  nutrient-poor (Klinka 1977).  The newer guidelines  (Klinka et a l .  1984)  refer to these s i t e s as moderately to highly sensitive and recommend stringently c o n t r o l l e d , low intensity burns at most.  Many s i t e s on  eastern Vancouver Island are dominated by salal and are preferred s i t e s for  Douglas-fir.  They appear to have a moisture deficiency and a range  of nutrient regimes.  Site preparation on these s i t e s is a contentious  issue and since the l i t e r a t u r e can provide no clear i n d i c a t i o n s , they must be studied c a r e f u l l y to determine i f burning results in unacceptable s i t e deterioration.  - 5 This study examined the effects of burning on the productivity of these sites.  The performance of the Douglas-fir plantations was used as the  indicator of s i t e productivity.  The objective of this thesis research was to examine the effects of slashburning on stocking, growth and n u t r i t i o n of planted Douglas-fir in some dry, salal-dominated ecosystems on the east side of Vancouver Island.  Data collected to attain this objective provided an opportunity to explore f i r e effects on salal and salal relationships with Douglas-fir stocking, growth and n u t r i t i o n .  However, these were not major objec-  tives of the study and did not influence sampling design.  Newer s i t e treatment records contain more detail than older records. Inference of f i r e s e v e r i t y ,  location of plantation boundaries and  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of planted stock are.problematic for old plantations. Treatment effects might not be discernible in very young plantations. For these reasons, the study was confined to areas where  plantations  were from 5 to 15 years o l d .  2.0  METHODS  Twenty s i t e s were selected in 1981-1982 on the east side of Vancouver Island (see  Figure 1):  10 in the Drier Coastal Western Hemlock subzone  (CWHa.) and 10 in the Wetter Coastal Western Hemlock subzone (CWHb~).  - 6 Each s i t e supported a 5- to 15-year-old Douglas-fir plantation, and had been p a r t i a l l y burned and p a r t i a l l y unburned before planting.  An  important c r i t e r i o n for s i t e selection was that both burned and unburned portions of a s i t e must have v i r t u a l l y identical  s i t e characteristics  terms of aspect, slope angle, surface morphology, s u r f i c i a l soil  in  materials,  type (depth and texture), planting stock and planting time.  The area in which the study s i t e s are located is the leeward slopes of the Vancouver Island Mountains. volcanic or sedimentary.  The underlying bedrock is  typically  Most s i t e s are on t i l l s of variable  The s o i l s are brunisols or podzols, with mor humus forms.  thickness.  Slopes range  from 0 to 60% and elevations from 500 to 800 meters.  A l l aspects were  represented, with southerly aspects the most common.  In the CWHa^, mean  annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n is 2060 mm, April-September p r e c i p i t a t i o n 404 mm, and mean annual temperature is 8 . 7 ° C .  is  In the CWHbg, mean annual  precipitation is 1904 mm, April-September p r e c i p i t a t i o n is 373 mm, and mean annual temperature is 6 . 4 ° C . characteristics  are described in detail  At each s i t e , general aspect, elevation,  in Klinka et a l .  s i t e information was recorded.  (1979).  This included  slope angle, year logged, year burned, and year  planted (see Table I). Table II.  The climatic and f l o r i s t i c  A summary of the s o i l s information is found in  For each s i t e , general  s o i l s information was recorded,  including landform surface morphology, s o i l type and a b r i e f p r o f i l e  FIGURE 1.  LOCATION OF STUDY AREA  Table Burn Severity Aspect Class  I.  Site  Trophotope and Hygrotope  Site Index (m)  mber  Site Location  1  Shaw U 6 B  1  8  SE  high  610  20  CWHb  C-2  24  2-0  72  -  73  -  76  2  Shaw U 6 B  2  8  SW  high  610  20  CWHb  C-2  24  2-0  72  -  73  -  76  3  Shaw U  6  SE  med  490  10  CWHa  B-2  24  2-0  77  -  77  -  78  4  Shaw S5g  9  SW  high  610  10  CWHa  B-l  24  2-0  71  -  72  -  75  5  Shaw W l l ^  8  S  high  550  50  CWHb  C-2  24  2-0  72  -  73  -  76  6  Shaw  8  SW  high  550  30  CWHb  C-3  24  2-0  72  -  73  -  76  7  Shaw L70  8  S  high  670  20  CWHb  B-2  21  2-0  73  -  75  -  76  8  Shaw W  8  S  high  550  0-10  CWHb  B-3  21  2-0  72  -  72  -  76  9  Chem C28  8  S  low  670  50  CWHb  C-2  30  2-0  71  -  71  -  76  10  Chem C29  15  S  high  550  60  CWHa  C-2  27  2-0  67  -  68  -  69  11  Chem B 7  X  10  NW  med  400  10  CWHa  C-(3-4)  24  2-0  69  -  69  -  74  12  Chem B 7  2  14  NW  med  460  20  CWHa  C-4  36  2-0  66  -  68  -  70  13  NWB J 2 7  2  15  E  med  460  10  CWHa  B-(2-3)  24  2-0  68  -  68  -  69  14  NWB J 2 7  1  15  W  med  460  30  CWHa  B-2  24  2-0  68  -  68  -  69  15  NWB F70  15  SE  low  460  30  CWHa  C-(2-3)  27  2-0  67  -  68  -  69  Age  3  Wll  2  E l e v a t i o n Slope B6C (m) (%) Subzone  Information  Stock History (year) Logged Type Burned Planted  Table I (cont). Burn Severity Aspect Class  Elevation Slope BGC Subzone (m) [%)  Trophotope and Hygrotope  Site Index (m)  Stock History (year Type Logged Burned Planted  Number  Site Location  Age  16  NWB N13  14  E  low  820  20  CWHb  B-2  27  2-0  68  -  68  -  70  17  NWB B13  1  10  NW  low  640  40  CWHb  B-l  18  2-0  71  -  72  -  74  18  NWB B13  2  10  N  low  640  0-10  CWHb  B-2  18  2-0  71  -  72  -  74  19  NWB D9  8  W  med  700  50  CWHb  B-2  21  2-0  74  -  75  -  76  20  NWB J28  15  N  low  460  10  CWHa  B-l  27  2-0  65  -  65  -  68  - 10 -  TABLE II. Site No. 1  Slope Position lower  Surface Morphology Mb  1  Soils  Information Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Texture  till  100+  loam/sandy loam  Surficial Material  2  upper to mid  Mb to Mv^  til"  50-100+  loam  3  upper  Mb  till  80+  loam  4  upper  Mv  til  20-80  loam/sandy loam  5  mid  Mb to Mv  tiV  80-100+  loam  6  mid to lower  Mb  til"  100+  7  upper to mid  Mb to Mv  til"  60-90+  1  sandy clay loam loam  8  lower  Mb  til  1  100+  loam/sandy loam  9  mid  Mb to Mv  til  1  90+  loam  10  mid  Mb  til'  100+  loam/sandy loam  11  lower  Mb  till  80+  loam/sandy/loam  12  lower  Ff  90+  sandy loam  13  crest  Mb to Mv  til"  80+  loam/clay loam  14  upper  Mb to Mv  til'  80+  loam  Mb  til"  90+  loam  15  mid to upper  3  f l u v ial  16  upper  Mb to Mv  til"  40-80+  17  mid  Mv  til'  30-80  loam/sandy loam  18  mid (bench)  Mv  til'  20-60  loam/sandy loam  19  mid  Mb to Mv  til  70  loam  20  upper  Mv  til  30-50  loam/clay loam  Morainal blanket Morainal veneer F l u v i a l fan  1  loam  - 11 description (see Appendix I).  Soil analysis was done in order to  ascertain that both burned and unburned areas had s i m i l a r s o i l s Appendix IV).  (see  Vegetation was assessed so that i t , along with other data  mentioned, could be used to assign each s i t e an edatopic grid position and the appropriate biogeoclimatic subzone as noted in the "Site Diagnosis, Tree Species Selection, and Slashburning Guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region" (Klinka et a l . 1984).  Forty systematically located c i r c u l a r plots were established within each s i t e ; 20 in the burned area and 20 in the unburned area.  Plots were  located in a 10 meter by 10 meter g r i d , with the i n i t i a l  point of the  grid being random.  Plots were 2.4 meters in radius.  The following data  were collected from each plot: The species,  height, and basal diameter of each tree.  Designation as to crop tree status (a crop tree being any healthy tree of the preferred species at least 1.5 meters from any other crop tree).  Only one of any two trees less than 1.5 meters apart can be  a crop tree. Designation as to regeneration status:  planted or natural.  Ages  were compared to known age of plantation. Internode height measurements from the t a l l e s t planted Douglas-fir. Estimations of percent mineral s o i l exposure and percent cover of salal. Salal  height.  Browse damage.  - 12 One of the variables influencing f i r e effects is the intensity of the burn.  No data on the intensity of the burns on the study s i t e s were  available.  No quantitative assessment of f i r e intensity was possible.  In l i e u of t h i s , a q u a l i t a t i v e estimate of the severity of the burn was made for each s i t e .  This was done by examining the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the fuel present on the burned areas of each s i t e , and determining the difference in the percent of mineral s o i l exposed on the burned versus the unburned area of each s i t e . 3 levels - - low, medium and high (see  Severity was c l a s s i f i e d at Figure 2).  characterized by the presence of fine fuels  Low severity was  (less than 2.5 cm diameter)  and minimal charring of large (greater than 10 cm diameter) fuels and stumps as well as a small difference in percent mineral s o i l (0-4)  between burned and unburned areas.  exposure  Medium severity was charac-  terized by absence of fine f u e l s , some consumption of medium and large f u e l s , heavy charring of stumps and also a small to moderate difference in percent mineral s o i l exposure (0-15).  High severity was charac-  terized by absence of a l l fine and most medium f u e l s ,  considerable  consumption of large fuels and stumps, and a large difference in percent mineral s o i l exposure (15-60).  F o l i a r sampling was done on a l l s i t e s in late f a l l began.  1982 after dormancy  Fifteen randomly selected planted Douglas-fir trees from each  s i t e portion (burned and unburned) were sampled. foliage was c o l l e c t e d . collected.  Only current year's  Where possible, only third-whorl foliage was  When more material was needed than the t h i r d whorl could  provide, material was collected successively from those whorls closest to the t h i r d .  For a n a l y s i s , equal amounts of foliage were combined to  form 5 composite samples, each representing 3 trees.  - 13 -  Figure 2a.  FIGURE 2.  Representative area of low burn severity  PHOTOGRAPHS OF REPRESENTATIVE AREAS OF LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH BURN SEVERITY  Figure 2c.  Representative area of high burn severity  - 15 Samples were oven-dried at 60°C and then ground.  One-quarter gram  samples were digested in a block digestor, using concentrated s u l f u r i c acid and 30% hydrogen peroxide (Parkinson and Allen 1975), d i l u t e d to 75 mL with d i s t i l l e d H 0 and analyzed c o l o r i m e t r i c a l l y for N and P in a 2  Technicon Auto Analyzer II.  Using the same solutions, analysis for K,  Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Na, Mn, and Zn was done by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.  Sulfur was determined using a Leco Sulfur Analyzer.  was analyzed using the method of Gaines and Mitchell  Boron  (1979).  Comparisons of the following parameters are made between the burned and unburned areas of each s i t e using t - t e s t s : -  height and basal diameter of trees  -  f o l i a r nutrient concentrations of sampled Douglas-fir  -  height and percent cover of s a l a l .  Correlation analysis was done for tree height and basal diameter of planted Douglas-fir, height and percent cover of salal and percent mineral s o i l exposure for each s i t e .  Internode measurements were used  to develop height-over-age curves for the burned and unburned areas of each s i t e .  Browsing was tabulated by the number of trees browsed and  the percentage of trees browsed for each area of each s i t e .  Differences  in height of planted Douglas-fir, salal height, and percent cover of salal between burned and unburned areas were compared by severity  class.  Percent stocking and number of trees per hectare within each area were compared with MacMillan Bloedel's objectives for stocking and density.  - 16 F o l i a r nutrient concentrations were compared with available data on deficiency levels established  for Douglas-fir, by means of a diagnostic  computer program developed at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia by Dr. T.M. B a l l a r d .  The program has brought together the results of  f o l i a r analysis research in r e l a t i o n to Douglas-fir nutrient d e f i ciencies and used them to determine diagnostic c r i t e r i a . can be found in Ballard (1980).  The c r i t e r i a  - 17 3.0  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  3.1  Stocking  The stocking objective on sites of the type studied is 1100 ± 50 stems of Douglas-fir per hectare..  The stocking results show that on 16 of the  20 plantations sampled, the average number of trees per hectare was greater on the burned than the unburned areas (Table I I I ) .  Three  plantations were found to have equivalent stocking (within 100 on both areas.  trees/ha)  Thirteen of the burned areas meet the objective of  1100 ± 50 stems per hectare as compared with two of the unburned areas. Of the seven s i t e s where the burned areas did not meet the stocking objectives,  only one had an inferred burn severity rating of high and  here the stocking on the burned area was more than double the stocking figure for the unburned area.  On the four sites where stocking was  equivalent or greater on the unburned areas, one s i t e met the stocking objectives,  and here the burned area was also f u l l y stocked.  20 s i t e s sampled, 11 s i t e s had f u l l than f u l l  Of the  stocking on the burned area and less  stocking of the unburned area.  On none of the 20 s i t e s did  the reverse occur.  Another way of expressing stocking is as a percent of the plantation which has planted trees growing on i t .  In t h i s study, which uses small-  radius c i r c u l a r p l o t s , i t is expressed as the percent of the plots which have at least one healthy planted Douglas-fir crop tree within the p l o t , and is an indication of the spatial d i s t r i b u t i o n of planted trees  (see  - 18 Table I I I .  Summary of Stocking Data  Number of s i t e s where stocking was greater on burned areas:  p i . Df.'  16 s i t e s  CR.'  15 s i t e s  p i . CR.  16 s i t e s  1  %  d  14 s i t e s  Number of s i t e s where stocking was greater on unburned areas:  p i . Df.  1 site  CR.  1 site  p i . CR.  1 site  %  0 sites  p i . Df.  3 sites  CR.  4 sites  p i . CR.  3 sites  Number of s i t e s where stocking was equal (within 100 trees/ha):  %  6 sites  Burned  13 s i t e s  Unburned  2 sites  Number of s i t e s f u l l y stocked (1100 Trees/ha ± 5 0 ) :  a  p i . Df.  k CR  = planted Douglas-fir = crop tree (any healty tree of the preferred species at least 1.5 m from any other crop tree)  c  p i . CR  ^ %  = planted crop tree = percentage of plots with at least one healthy planted Douglas-fir crop tree.  - 19 Table I I I ) .  On 14 of the 20 s i t e s , the percent stocking is greater on  the burned area. equal  On the other 6 sites percent stocking is approximately  (within 10%) for the two areas.  It appears from these results that stocking i s l i k e l y to be better on this type of s i t e after burning.  To get an indication of the magnitude  of the increase (in trees/ha) by inferred burn s e v e r i t y , a comparison was made.  Figure 3 shows the difference in number of trees between  burned and unburned areas according to the three severity classes. low and medium severities show almost identical r e s u l t s .  The  Both show a  moderate increase (242 trees/ha and 243 trees/ha respectively) and a large v a r i a t i o n .  The high severity shows more than double the mean  increase of the other two classes and a smaller v a r i a b i l i t y .  In attempting to assess whether burning has had any unacceptable effects on Douglas-fir plantations on these s a l a l s i t e s , one concern is for establishment and early s u r v i v a l .  Fire has been found to create condi-  tions which lower survival rates of Douglas-fir in some areas (Isaac 1930, Isaac 1938).  Comparison of stocking on burned and unburned areas  of the study s i t e s indicates that this was not the case on these s i t e s , where 19 of the 20 plantations sampled showed equal or greater stocking on the burned areas.  This is consistent with Addison (1968) who found  that slashburning resulted in increased survival where brush competition was heavy.  This apparent advantage in survival  is reinforced when you  consider that stocking objectives were met on only two of the unburned areas as compared with 13 burned areas.  In r e l a t i o n to s u r v i v a l , the  impact of burning on these s i t e s must be considered p o s i t i v e .  -  20  -  Legend X 90 % CONFIDENCE UMirS  LOW  MEDIUM BURN SEVERITY  HIGH  FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF P L A N T E D DOUGLAS-FIR PER HECTARE BY W H I C H BURNED A R E A S EXCEED UNBURNED A R E A S BY SEVERITY C L A S S  Legend  • 90 7. COWEENd UMTS  LOW  MEDIUM BURN SEVERITY  HIGH  FIGURE 4. PERCENT INCREASE IN MEAN HEIGHT OF PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR ON BURNED AREAS OVER UNBURNED AREAS BY SEVERITY CLASS  - 21 Cumulative Growth  The height growth of the planted Douglas-fir on 18 of the 20 s i t e s was greater on the burned areas (Table IV). difference was s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant.  On 15 of these 18 s i t e s the On one s i t e the height was  greater on the unburned area (but the difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t ) , and on one s i t e , the height was equal.  statistically  Figure 4 shows the  percent by which mean height of planted Douglas-fir on burned areas exceeds that on unburned areas, by burn severity classes.  Sites with  inferred medium and high severity show a greater mean height (38%), compared to low-severity  increase  sites (13%).  Eighteen of the 20 s i t e s showed larger basal diameters of planted Douglas-fir on burned areas with sixteen being s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r . Two sites had larger basal diameters on the unburned areas but neither was s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant.  Growth, in terms of total height and  basal diameter, appears to have been improved by burning in the majority of these 5 to 15-year-old plantations.  An examination was made as to what effect browsing had on the heights of the Douglas-fir on these plantations  (see Table IV).  A t a l l y of browsed  trees showed that 12 of the 20 plantations had problems with browsing ( i t was considered problematic for this study i f more than 20% of the trees on either portion of the plantation showed evidence of browsing). The browsing had no effect on the number of s i t e s showing differences  in height growth.  significant  However, on the only two s i t e s which did  not show greater heights on the burned areas when comparing a l l planted  Table IV.  Ht. (m) P i . Df.  Site #2  Site #3  S i t e #4  Site #5  Site #6  S i t e #7  Site #8  Burned  1.16 ±  .39  Unburned  .71 ±  .33  Burned  1.22 ±  .30  Unburned  .74 ±  .37  Burned  .68 ±  .29  Unburned  .52 ±  .20  Sample Size  b  Pi • Df. e  e  e  2.88 +  .83  1.66 +  .79  2.72 +  .75  1.31 +  .75  1.39 +  .69  .91 +  .41  4.26 ± 1.27  e  e  e  Ht. (m) UNB. p i . Df. c  58  1.36 ±  .27  28  .79 ±  .32  50  1.4  ±  .27  25  .74 ±  .37  32  .89 ±  .24  33  .54 ±  .22  33  1.86 ±  .61  e  e  e  B.D. (cm) UNB. p i . Df. d  3.34 ±  .74  1.65 ±  .71  2.98 ±  .73  1.3  ±  .75  1.85 ±  .57  1.0  .44  ±  4.39 ± 1.15  e  e  e  No. of Browsed Trees  I of Trees Browsed  38  65  17  60  28  56  0  0  16  50  9  27  4  12  ±  .66  Unburned  .79 ±  .33  1.27 +  .63  15  .76 ±  .35  1.18 ±  .64  2  13  Burned  1.14 ±  .3  2.62 +  .66  38  1.38 ±  .23  2.36 ±  .45  32  84  Unburned  1.07 ±  .35  2.51 +  .75  21  1.21 ±  .52  2.7  ±  .54  14  66  Burned  1.22 ±  .33  3.14 +  .7  40  1.32 ±  ,37  3.27 ±  .77  32  80  Unburned  .95 ±  .32  1.98 +  .7  25  .88 ±  .27  1.76 ±  .55  12  48  Burned  1.15 ±  .42  44  1.53 ±  .5  3.53 ± 1.17  38  86  Unburned  .67 ±  .37  1.54 +  .71  17  .68 ±  11  64  Burned  .92 ±  .3  2.19 +  .52  33  62  Unburned  1.03 ±  .39  1.8  +  .71  10  26  Burned  1.8  1(cm)  B.D.  a  Site #1  Height, Basal Diameter and Browsing of Planted D o u g l a s - f i r .  e  e  e  2.84 + 1.0  e  e  e  e  e  e  e  .34  1.53 ±  .70  e  e  6  53  1.0  ±  .34  2.27 ±  .51  38  1.0  ±  .38  1.75 ±  .59  e  Table  IV  (cont) Ht.  (  pi Site  Site  Site  #9  #10  #11  B.D.  Df.  (cm) Df.  Pi  b  Sample Size  H t . (m) UNB. P i . D f .  . B . D . (cm) UNB. P i . D f .  Burned  1.29  +  .43  2.75  +  .9  39  1.4  +  .36  2.71  +  .7  Unburned  1.27  +  .41  2.81  +  .9  17  1.26  +  .43  2.69  +  .89  Burned  2.52  +  .73  5.63  + 1.76"  41  2.68  +  .63  5.98  Unburned  1.77  +  .66  4.23  + 1.68  25  1.91  +  .62  Burned  2.31  +  .85  4.91  + 1.99'  16  2.51  +  .85  Unburned  1.48  +  .71  2.75  + 1.42  11  1.48  +  .8  Burned  3.92  + 1.06e  7.88  + 1.61*  24  3.92  + 1.06e  Unburned  2.63  +  5.26  + 2.13  28  2.80  +  .91  Burned  1.81  + 1.61e  3.43  + l.ll'  53  1.88  +  .59  .26  1.95  +  .61  33  .93 +  e  e  No. o f Browsed Trees  % of Trees Browsed  19  48  4  23  + 1.57e  5  12  4.45  + 1.7  5  20  5.39  ± 2.0  e  6  37  2.8  +  1.58  2  18  7.88  + 1.61e  0  0  5.51  + 2.11  3  10  3.53  +  1.13  8  15  .28  1.92  +  .62  5  15  17  20  e  e  tr  Site  Site  #12  #13  Unburned Site  Site  Site  #14  #15  #16  .93 +  .99  e  e  Burned  1.6  + 1.0e  3.25  + 1.09 1  85  1.71  +  .6  e  3.45  + 1.12e  Unburned  1.0  +  .38  2.13  +  .87  71  1.02  +  .37  2.17  +  .88  5  7  Burned  2.12  + 1.02  4.21  + 1.74  16  2.68  +  .94  5.36  + 1.53  8  50  Unburned  2.09  + 1.03  4.11  + 1.77  28  2.22  + 1.05  4.35  + 1.78  4  14  Burned  1.70  +  .59  3.98  + 1.34'  28  1.7  +  .59  3.98  + 1.34  0  0  Unburned  1.14  +  .46  2.62  + 1.21  15 •  1.25  +  .42  2.88  + 1.2  3  20  e  Table  IV  (cont).  Ht. Pi. Site  Site  Site  #17  #18  #19  Burned  1.27  #20  (cm) P i . Df.  (m) Df.  ±  .5  1.09 ±  .42  Burned  1.03 ±  .45  Unburned  .76 ±  .23  Burned  1.81 ±  .82  Unburned  Ht.  (m) p i .  b  B.D.  c  Ht.  d  B.D.  e  Significant  at  0.05  ^ Significant  at  0.10  .41  41  1.19  ±  .41  36  1.35  ±  .39  .84 ±  .21  .75  2.13 ±  .98  1.45  .57  24  3 . 9 4 ± 1.77  31  ±  ±  .75  2.95 + 1 . 0 7  14  36  18  43  18  50  7  29  5  16  4  18  +  .76  2.79 +  ,93  +  .51  2.27 e  1.62 e  4.23 + 1.77 +  f  e  e  .83 ±  .34  1.59  2.42 ±  .73  4 . 7 6 ± 1.18  40  2.54 ±  .64  4 . 9 4 + 1.09  4  10  5.0  20  2.5  5 . 1 6 + 1.68  1  5  Df.  ±  2.0  f  % of Trees Browsed  22  Df.  (cm) UNB. p i .  ±  No. o f Browsed Trees  d  .69  Df.  (cm) UNB. p i .  1.37  B.D. . ( c m ) UNB. p i . D f .  1.53  Df.  (cm) p i .  39  2.12 ±  e  C  .33  2 . 4 2 ± 1.0  a  e  f  Ht. (m) UNB. |p i . D f .  ±  .8  Burned  e  Sample Size  b  2.75 ± 1 . 1 2  f  Unburned  Unburned Site  B.D.  a  + 1.75  = Total  Height  i n Meters of  = Basal  Diameter  = Total  Height  = Basal  Diameter  Planted  in Centimeters  i n Meters o f  of  ± 1  Douglas-firs. Planted  Douglas-firs.  Unbrowsed P l a n t e d  in Centimeters  of  .7  Douglas-firs.  Unbrowsed P l a n t e d  Douglas-firs.  - 25 Douglas-fir, heights of unbrowsed Douglas-fir were greater on the burned areas.  Of the 12 s i t e s where browsing was a problem, 10 showed a  greater percent of trees browsed on the burned areas and the other two s i t e s showed s i m i l a r browsing on both portions (within 10%).  On 11 of  the 12 problem s i t e s , the percent difference between the mean height of all  planted Douglas-fir and that of unbrowsed planted Douglas-fir was  greater on the burned area than the unburned area. where browsing of planted seedlings is a potential  This shows that problem on s i t e s of  this type, the problem w i l l l i k e l y be more severe i f the s i t e is burned before planting.  Growth gains associated with burning were reduced but  not canceled where browsing occurred.  Annual Height Growth Trends  In order to represent the annual height growth of planted Douglas-fir on the study s i t e s , mean internode measurements for burned and unburned areas were graphed for each s i t e .  Figure 5 shows four  representative  types of curves which were found (see Appendix III for a l l - c u r v e s ) . Type A represents total  s i t e s 5, 8, 9, 15, and 20.  These were the s i t e s where  heights were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y different between the burned and  unburned areas. curves.  This i s reflected  Type B represents  in the very s i m i l a r height/age  s i t e s 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18.  These show s i m i l a r shaped growth curves for burned and unburned areas with burned area curves consistently measured.  Type C represents  higher throughout the age range  s i t e s 1, 2, 7, and 14.  The curves are very  close for the younger years but then the burned area curve changes slope sharply and increasingly diverges from the unburned area curve.  440 420 400 380 360 340 320 <r- 300 ^  Legend BURNED (N=1B)  260 240 o 220 x 200 180 Ul Ul 160 tr 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  • STANDARD ERROR  X  a  1  ——1  9  10  1 II  Stand Age (YRS)  FIGURE 5B. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES TYPE B  220  200  i  180  160  Legend PURNED (N=19)  140  120  UNBURNED ( N = I 6 )  • STANDARD ERROR  100  X  80  60  X  /  /  /  /  40  20  0 10  11  12  13  Sland Age (YRS)  FIGURE 5C. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES TYPE C  FIGURE 5D. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES TYPE D  - 27 Type D represents s i t e s 4, 13, and 19.  On these s i t e s burned area  curves begin higher, diverge quickly and continue moving farther apart from the unburned area curve.  There is always some question whether height growth trends w i l l  reverse,  especially with young plantations, and whether any indication of a reversal is already present.  Braathe (1973) measured yearly height  growth of planted pine and spruce seedlings on 3 s i t e types in Norway for 12 years.  On 2 types he found that while trees on burned areas grew  better i n i t i a l l y , between ages 7 and 9 a reversal occurred and trees on unburned s i t e s achieved greater heights. mesic and mesotrophic.  These two s i t e types were  On his xeric and submesotrophic s i t e , the type  most s i m i l a r to the salal s i t e s studied here, he found that the growth on burned s i t e s was better throughout the 12 years and showed no i n d i c a tion of r e v e r s a l .  Figures in Appendix III show the average yearly  growth on the 20 s i t e s studied.  No crossovers of growth from greater on  the burned to greater on the unburned were seen on my study s i t e s , nor do the present shape and slope of the curves indicate that such crossover w i l l be happening in the near future.  There were s i t e s where the  opposite crossover happened in the age range examined.  Some of the  curves, especially those for the burned areas, show patterns which raise some questions as to what controlled the growth.  Some burned areas show  slow height growth for the f i r s t few years and then a sharp increase (Figure 5C).  One explanation for this could be browsing in early years.  This was found to be the case on burned areas by Gockerell  (1966).  Another p o s s i b i l i t y could be that the burn raised the s o i l pH to a level unsuitable for conifer growth and u n t i l the pH came down, growth was  - 28 poor, but once a suitable pH was reached a dramatic increase in yearly growth resulted.  Severe nitrogen deficiencies  for some of the small yearly rates of growth.  are no doubt responsible The very long (10-12 yrs)  periods of slow growth on the burned areas (Figure 5B) before f i n a l l y an increase is seen could be the result of a combination of nitrogen d e f i ciency and salal which grew back quickly as a r e s u l t of low severity burns.  Salal  On a l l 20 sites sampled, the percent cover of salal was lower on the burned areas of the s i t e than on the unburned areas, with 19 s i t e s showing s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences  (see Table V). On  17 s i t e s , the height of salal was less on the burned area, with 13 s i t e s being s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  On two s i t e s the height was greater on  burned areas but neither difference was s i g n i f i c a n t and on one s i t e the height was equal.  Figures 6 and 7 show the reduction, on the burned  areas, of the height and percent cover of salal r e l a t i v e to the unburned areas, in r e l a t i o n to inferred burn severity.  The percent difference in  the height of salal increased on the burned area with an increase in severity c l a s s .  The percent cover difference was the same for low and  medium severity but almost doubled where severity was high.  In terms of  actual percent cover of salal on burned areas, the same relationship existed  (see  Figure 8).  Low and medium severity s i t e s had s i m i l a r mean  percent cover of s a l a l , but where severity was high, cover was one-third that of the other classes.  - 29 Table V.  Height and Percent Cover of S a l a l , and Mineral Soil  Ht. Salal (cm) Site #1  Burned Unburned  Site #2  Site #3  Site #4  Unburned  29 ±  7  Burned  18 +  6  Unburned  35 +  9  Burned  16 +  5  Site #7  Site #9  Site #10  Site #11  a  44 + l l  a  4 +  a  9 +  32 + 10 4  Unburned  22 +  8  Burned  14 +  5  a  a  '  a  14 +  5  Unburned  34 +  9  a  55 ± 13  Burned  28 +  5  16 + 12  Unburned  21 +  6  25 + 16  Burned  23 +  4  Unburned  24 +  7  15 + i o  Burned  22 +  4  15 + 12  Unburned  32 + l l  a  a  5 +  5  1 +  2  a  a  0  2 +  a  a  5 +  8  a  40 + 15  a  9  10 + 17 39 + 28  5  a  0 6 +  b  a  0  25 + 20  8  a  5  36 + 19  8  Burned  6 +  0  24 + 12  8  47 + 16 7 +  a  31 + 21  9  40 + 13 9 +  0  60 + 25  4  44 + 22  a  5 +  18 +  a  70 + 23  a  a  15 + 13  8  25 + 16  6  28 + l l  26 ± 20  9  54 + 19  a  Burned  Unburned Site #8  16 +  49 + 13 18 +  % Mineral Soil Exposure  55 + 21  a  5  Unburned Site #6  28 + l l 20 +  Burned  16 +  5  Burned  Unburned Site #5  15 +  % Cover Salal  Exposure  b  24 + 26 4 + 10  a  0  a  - 30 Table V (cont).  Ht. Salal (cm) Site #12  Site #13  Site #14  Site #15  Site #17  25 +  6  26 + 15  2 +  5  Unburned  23 +  6  32 + 10  4 +  7  Burned  26 +  6  41 + 11  0  Unburned  36 +  8  Burned  23 +  6  34 + 10  Unburned  36 +  l  52 + i o  Burned  31 +  9  47 + 18  34 + 10  60 + 15  Burned  21 +  5  15 +  Unburned  21 +  6  26 + 10  Burned  17 +  4  30 + 15  Unburned Site #18  Burned Unburned  Site #19  Site #20  % Mineral Soil Exposure  Burned  Unburned Site #16  % Cover Salal  a  a  25 + 10 16 +  a  a  a  4  1 +  2  1 +  2  19 + 10  11 +  6  38 + l l  a  1 +  2  9  1 +  4  54 + 23  25 +  4  Burned  26 +  5  40 +  Unburned  30 +  9  51 + 16  S i g n i f i c a n t at 0.10  0  3 +  Unburned  b  9  4  63 + 19  a  a  a  a  0 3 +  a  6  6 +  5  S i g n i f i c a n t at 0.05  a  a  0 4 +  6  20 +  a  0 6 + 12  Burned  a  a  24 + 12  3  23 + 10  64 + 15  0  a  a  b  - 31 -  Legend " 90 X CWfTENCE LMTS  LOW  MEDIUM BURN SEVERITY  HIGH  FIGURE 6. PERCENT DECREASE IN SALAL HEIGHT ON BURNED AREAS COMPARED TO UNBURNED AREAS BY SEVERITY CLASS  or UJ  > o o  < CO UJ  CO <  UJ  o UJ Q  &? Legend • 90 7. CONFKNCE LMTS  LOW  MEDIUM BURN SEVERITY  HIGH  FIGURE 7. PERCENT DECREASE IN COVER OF SALAL ON BURNED AREAS COMPARED TO UNBURNED AREAS BY SEVERITY CLASS  -  32  -  Legend ' 90 % CONFIDENCE LIMITS  LOW  MEDIUM  HIGH  BURN SEVERITY  F I G U R E 8. P E R C E N T ON  BURNED AREAS  COVER  OF  BY SEVERITY  SALAL CLASS  - 33 -  Tree-Salal  Interactions  Table VI summarizes the results of the correlation analysis between a l l variables measured.  Salal height and salal percent cover were the  variables which showed the most consistent s i g n i f i c a n t positive c o r r e l a tion (18 s i t e s ) .  The tree variables (height and basal diameter) showed  s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlations with the salal variables (height and percent cover) on almost half the s i t e s , with basal diameter being more consistent.  results  Percent cover of salal and percent mineral s o i l  exposure showed a s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlation on 15 of the 20 s i t e s , salal  while s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between Douglas-fir growth and  is seen on only some s i t e s , the trends indicated by the  correlation analysis support the same view as the previously mentioned comparisons of tree growth and s a l a l .  This study enabled comparison of parameters in r e l a t i o n to three levels of inferred f i r e severity.  Whether examining stocking ( F i g . 3) or  height growth ( F i g . 4) of c o n i f e r s , or the percent cover and height of salal  (Figures 6 and 7), the same general pattern emerges.  Low-severity  burns show less difference between burned and unburned areas and high severity burns show more difference. index of actual f i r e s e v e r i t y ,  If the rating system y i e l d s an  one must conclude that the more severe  the burn, the more advantageous for the Douglas-fir seedlings subsequently planted, at least within the range of conditions and over the ages of plantations examined.  - 34 Table V I .  Summary of Correlation Matrices for Mean Plot Height and Basal Diameter of Planted Douglas-fir,  Percent  Mineral Soil Exposure, Percent Cover and Height of Salal.  Number of Sites Significant at 0.1 or Greater.  Variable  Number of Sites Positive Negative Correlation Correlation  Mean Plot Height vs. Percent Mineral Soil Exposure  Mean Plot Height vs. Percent Cover of Salal  1  9  Mean Plot Height vs. Salal Height  4  8  Mean Plot Basal Diameter vs. Percent Mineral Soil Exposure Mean Plot Basal Diameter vs. Percent Cover of Salal Mean Plot Basal Diameter vs. Salal  Height  Salal Height vs. Percent Mineral Soil Exposure Salal Height vs. Percent Cover of Salal  18  Percent Cover of Salal vs. Percent Mineral Soil Exposure  0  15  - 35 The explanation for a relationship between high-severity burns and positive results may go back to the o r i g i n a l reason for doing prescribed burning on these sites—to remove competition from s a l a l .  Tan et a l .  (1977) showed that stomatal resistance of salal has a smaller response to vapor pressure d e f i c i t changes than that of Douglas-fir, especially when s o i l becomes dry. s o i l water decreases,  Black et a l . (1980) showed that as extractable the percent of stand water use by salal  increases,  indicating that salal has a competitive advantage over Douglas-fir when water is scarce.  One of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the salal s i t e s in t h i s  study is a water d e f i c i t  (Klinka et a l . 1979).  Since salal appears able  to out-compete Douglas-fir for water, i t s removal could be expected to r e s u l t in better growth of the Douglas-fir.  Salal competition for  available nitrogen and other nutrients is another important consideration.  Figure 8 shows that as (inferred) severity increases, the percent  cover of salal decreases and Figure 7 shows that as (inferred)  severity  increases, there is an increasing difference in the percent cover of salal between burned and unburned areas.  If the competition by salal  is a growth-limiting f a c t o r , then there should be an increasing d i f f e r ence in the growth of Douglas-fir between burned and unburned areas as severity Figure 4.  (and therefore successful  salal removal) increases, as seen in  This is further supported by the fact that seven of the eight  s i t e s where inferred burn severity was high showed a s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlation between Douglas-fir growth variables and salal cover and height.  There may be a time factor involved in the relationship between salal removal and increased growth.  On "high severity" s i t e s as old as  - 36 15 years there is very l i t t l e re-invasion of the s i t e by salal (6% cover). of s a l a l .  This may be explained by the reproductive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Sabhasri (1961) showed that the germination rate of salal  i s low, migration is slow due to seed being disseminated primarily by animals, and root and shoot growth is better on a conifer needle than on mineral s o i l .  seedbed  The fact that 15 of 20 sites showed s i g n i f i c a n t  negative correlation between percent mineral s o i l exposure and percent cover of salal would support t h i s .  There is some evidence that salal "  is poorly represented in seed banks on disturbed areas (McGee 1985). Where inferred burn severity is high, conditions are not favorable for salal reproduction and growth.  On "low-severity" s i t e s , salal returns  quicker and grows better, and the smaller differences  in growth of  Douglas-fir between burned and unburned areas r e f l e c t t h i s .  The  "medium-severity" sites provide an interesting intermediate between the two extremes.  On the "medium-severity" s i t e s , the gains in growth are  as large as on the "high-severity" s i t e s , yet the difference in percent cover of salal between burned and unburned is considerably lower. Percent cover on these "medium-severity" burned areas is very close to that on "low-severity" s i t e s .  This could mean that i f a medium-  severity burn retards the reproduction and growth of salal long enough, the growth gains experienced on high-severity s i t e s could be achieved without taking some of the r i s k s , such as greater chance of escape and potential s i t e damage, that accompany high-severity burns.  This should  perhaps be tested where more d i r e c t assessment of severity or intensity could be made.  - 37 The long term effects of intense burns are not known conclusively, present research results would suggest caution. concluded that f i r e intensity of a f i r e ' s  effects on s o i l  but  Most major studies have  is the c o n t r o l l i n g factor in the magnitude  properties and potential  loss of s i t e  productivity (Boyer and Dell 1980, Clock and Grier 1979, F e l l e r 1982, Wells et a l . 1979).  Another aspect of the i n a b i l i t y of salal to revegetate  high-severity  burns is the long-term effect on understory vegetation.  Long and Turner  (1975) found that biomass of salal decreased dramatically in an inverse proportion to the overstory f o l i a r biomass in Douglas-fir Turner et a l .  stands.  (1978) found that salal went from around 90% of the  understory biomass at age 9 to about 40% at age 42.  If salal does not  gain prominence in the understory on these high-severity  burned s i t e s by  the time crown closure is reached, how w i l l that affect i t s growth on these sites?  future  Is i t possible that a much less severe salal  problem w i l l occur when the areas are next logged?  Could this  eliminate  the need for burning after the next harvest?  F o l i a r Nutrient Concentrations  Table VII shows the results of t - t e s t s on f o l i a r nutrient concentrations.  The following nutrients showed a tendency to be equal or greater  on burned than unburned areas:  N, P, K, Ca, Fe, S and B.  Na and Mn  showed a tendency to be equal or greater on unburned areas, and Mg, Zn and Cu showed no trend (no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference).  - 38 Table VII.  Nutrient  T-Test Results for F o l i a r Nutrient Concentrations  Number of sites significantly greater on burned  Number of sites s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater on unburned  Number of sites where there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference  % N  6  1  13  % P  9  0  11  % K  10  0  10  % Ca  10  0  10  % Mg  2  1  17  % S  9  2  9  ppm Fe  6  0  14  % Na  3  11  6  ppm Mn  0  12  8  ppm Cu  3  5  12  ppm Zn  2  3  15  11  0  9  b  ppm B  a  at p = 0.05  b  ppm = parts per m i l l i o n  - 39 A diagnostic assessment of the f o l i a r nutrient concentrations measured was undertaken in an attempt to identify possible nutrient (see Appendix I I ) . gen deficiency  deficiencies  The consistent problem indicated was that of n i t r o -  (see Table V I I I ) .  Only 3 of the 20 s i t e s showed adequate  nitrogen levels on both burned and unburned portions of the s i t e .  Three  s i t e s showed adequate levels of N on the burned areas but indicated deficiency on the unburned areas. ciency on both portions.  The remaining 14 s i t e s showed d e f i -  Two of these 14 did indicate a more severe de-  ficiency on the unburned than the burned; the rest showed no difference.  In the cases of these salal s i t e s the most important nutrient loss would be nitrogen.  Large losses of nitrogen by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n during burning  have been reported (DeByle 1976, F e l l e r et a l . 1983, 1936, Knight 1964, Wells et a l . 1979).  Isaac and Hopkins  The significance of these losses  in r e l a t i o n to s i t e productivity is presently unclear.  For one ecosys-  tem studied in southwestern B r i t i s h Columbia F e l l e r and Kimmins (1984) conclude that i t is unlikely that nitrogen l o s t as a result of slashburning w i l l be replaced.by normal atmospheric and weathering inputs over the next rotation (80 years).  In the present study, f o l i a r n u t r i -  ent concentrations were used as an indicator of whether or not nutrient deficiencies  existed and were f i r e - r e l a t e d .  showed some nitrogen deficiency.  Seventeen of 20 s i t e s  On none of the s i t e s , however, was a  deficiency seen on only the burned areas.  This indicates that the  nitrogen problem does not arise as a result of burning. the 17 s i t e s where nitrogen deficiencies  Since only 5 of  e x i s t were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  better  (in terms of f o l i a r N) on the burned area, no indication was given that burning can relieve nitrogen  deficiencies.  - 40 Table VIII.  Number of s i t e s where N is  Summary of F o l i a r Nitrogen Levels  deficient  on burned area only:  0 sites  Number of s i t e s where N is deficient on unburned area only:  1 (SL) sites 2 (SV) s i t e s a  C  Number of s i t e s where N i s deficient on both areas:  3 (SL) s i t e s 3 (M0D) s i t e s b  8 (SV) s i t e s  Number of s i t e s where N is not deficient on either areas:  3 sites  a  Slight Deficiency  b  Moderate Deficiency Severe Deficiency  (SL) 1.30 to 1.45% (MOD) 1.05 to 1.30 %  (SV) less than 1.05%  - 41 There is some concern in B . C . that boron deficiencies for  poor growth on some s i t e s .  are responsible  Of p a r t i c u l a r concern are Douglas-fir  plantations in the CWHb subzones.  This problem was recently studied in  the B r i t t a i n River Valley (Carter et a l . 1984).  There was some  speculation that f i r e could have been a contributing factor in the boron deficiency.  Ten of the 20 s i t e s in this study are in the CWHb subzone.  There is no confirmation of any boron deficiency, but on the unburned area of one s i t e , a possible deficiency is indicated. 11 ppm in the f o l i a g e ,  (However, at  i t is only 8% below the approximate deficiency  threshold of 12 ppm, and thus not l i k e l y to be seriously  deficient.)  There is no indication that burning has lowered boron l e v e l s ,  since 4 of  the 10 CWHb s i t e s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher boron levels on the burned area and the other 6 show no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference.  It would be interesting to observe the response of newly planted seedlings to nitrogen f e r t i l i z a t i o n on s i t e s l i k e those in this study. The f o l i a r nitrogen/sulfur ratios and N levels of these s i t e s suggest that no sulfur deficiency is l i k e l y to occur i f nitrogen is added. is questionable whether f e r t i l i z a t i o n would be as effective has not been removed.  Therefore, some l i k e l y t r i a l  that were burned quite intensely.  It  where salal  s i t e s would be those  Comparison of response on unburned  areas and areas burned at varying i n t e n s i t i e s  would be worthwhile.  The  a b i l i t y of nitrogen f e r t i l i z a t i o n to help some of the older (12-15 yrs) plantations which are s t i l l exhibiting poor annual growth could also be tested.  - 42 The question as to what the best treatment is on the type of s i t e s in this study is not e a s i l y answered.  In the short term for which the  measurements taken in this study apply d i r e c t l y (5 to 15 years after p l a n t i n g ) , the indication i s that burning has been beneficial or benign on almost a l l s i t e s .  Burned areas had increased stocking and growth and  no apparent fire-induced nutrient d e f i c i e n c i e s .  The sites showing the  most dramatic differences were those where inferred burn severity was high.  There are some indications that medium severity burns may be an  adequate treatment.  A study such as this cannot predict the long-term  effects of the slashburns, but some conjectures can be made as to what possible treatment ramifications w i l l be.  There is no doubt that the  risks of long-term losses in productivity are higher on severely burned sites.  If the correct intensity could be achieved to control the salal  long enough to get a plantation established, i t might be a satisfactory treatment, but nitrogen deficiencies would s t i l l  be a problem.  If high  severity burns are the selected treatment, the rationale would be that nitrogen f e r t i l i z a t i o n would be needed even i f no treatment was done and thus the i n a b i l i t y of normal inputs to replace l o s t nitrogen from the burn becomes less c r i t i c a l .  One possible long-term benefit of this  approach could be that salal might not be a problem at the end of the next r o t a t i o n .  The trade-off with this approach is that the potential  for s i t e damage is greatest when intensity is high. treatment successful  If a chemical  at c o n t r o l l i n g salal should become available i t  would be a good a l t e r n a t i v e .  Since there is none at present,  fire  is now the treatment of choice and how i t is used remains important.  - 43 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  Based on the parameters that were measured no evidence could be found of adverse effects of slashburning on 5- to 15-year-old Douglas-fir plantations on the 20 sites studied.  Burned areas on these s i t e s were  generally found to have better stocking and better growth than the unburned areas.  Examination of yearly growth showed no crossover from  greater growth on burned to greater growth on unburned throughout the age range examined.  Browsing was worse on the burned areas, but did not  ultimately prevent trees growing there from achieving better growth than those on unburned areas.  Percent cover of salal was greater on the  unburned areas of a l l 20 s i t e s .  A negative c o r r e l a t i o n was found  between percent mineral s o i l exposure and percent cover of s a l a l . appears to have d i f f i c u l t y invading high severity burn areas.  Salal  Differ-  ences in height growth of Douglas-fir and percent cover of salal between burned and unburned areas of the s i t e s were greatest where inferred burn severity was high.  (However, there is no evidence to ensure that pre-  burn salal d i s t r i b u t i o n was comparable on burned and unburned areas of each s i t e . )  While nitrogen deficiency was a common problem on these  s i t e s , i t was not seen to be a result of burning. deficiencies  No other nutrient  were evident on burned or unburned areas.  - 44 LITERATURE CITED Addison, J.W. 1968. Some features affecting the survival of planted Douglas-fir seedlings in the coastal forests of B . C . BSF Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Ahlgren, I . F . and C E . Ahlgren. Bot. Rev. 26:483-533.  1960.  Ecological effects of forest  fires.  Baker, J . 1968. Effects of slashburning on s o i l composition and seedling growth. Can. Dep. F i s h , and F o r . , For. Res. L a b . , V i c t o r i a . Info. Rep. BC-X-28. Baker, J . and V . H . Phelps. 1969. Growth response and chemical properties of Douglas-fir seedlings on burned and unburned s o i l samples. Can. For. Br. Info. Rep. BC-X-29. B a l l a r d , T.M. 1980. Interim guidelines for operational forest f e r t i l i z a t i o n in B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished Research Report to the B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Service. 71 pp. Bever, D.N. 1954. Evaluation of factors affecting reproduction of forest trees in central western Oregon. Oregon Board of Forestry Res. B u l l . 3. Black, T . A . , Tan, C . S . , and J . V . Nnyamah. 1980. Transpiration rate of Douglas-fir trees in thinned and unthinned stands. Can. J . Soil S c i . 60:625-631. Boyer, D . E . and J . D . D e l l . 1980. Fire effects on P a c i f i c Northwest forest soils. USDA For. Ser. PNW Region. Watershed Management and Aviation and Fire Management. Portland, Oregon. Braathe, P. 1973. regeneration.  Prescribed burning in Norway—effects on s o i l and T a l l Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. Proc. 13:211-222.  B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of Forests.  1966.  Annual Report.  B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of Forests.  1979.  Annual Report.  Carter, R . E . , Otcherc-Boateng, J . , and K. Klinka. 1984. Dieback of a 30-year-old Douglas-fir plantation in the B r i t t a i n River valley symptoms and diseases. For. Ecol. and Management 7:249-263. Cramer, O.P. (ed.). 1974. Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24. DeByle, N.V. 1976. Soil f e r t i l i t y as affected by broadcast burning following clearcutting in northern Rocky Mountain l a r c h / f i r f o r e s t s . Proc. T a l l Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. No. 14, p. 447-464.  - 45 F e l l e r , M.C. and J . P . Kimmins. 1984. Effects of clearcutting and slash burning on streamwater chemistry and watershed nutrient budgets in southwestern B r i t i s h Columbia. Water Resources Research, V o l . 20, No. 1:29-40. F e l l e r , M . C , Kimmins, J . P . , and K.M. Tsze. 1983. Nutrient losses to the atmosphere during slashburns in southwestern B r i t i s h Columbia. Paper presented at the Seventh Conference on Fire and Forest Meterology, Am. Meterol. S o c , Boston. F e l l e r , M.C. 1982. The ecological effects of slashburning with p a r t i c u l a r reference to B r i t i s h Columbia: A l i t e r a t u r e review. B . C . Min. For. Land Mgt. Rep. 13. B . C . Min. F o r . , V i c t o r i a , B . C . Gaines, T . P . and G.A. M i t c h e l l . 1979. Boron determination in plant tissues by the azomethine H method. Comm. Soil S c i . Plant Anal. 10:1099-1108. Gockerell, E . C . 1966. 64:392-394.  Plantations on burned vs unburned areas. J . For.  Isaac, L . A . 1930. Seedling survival on burned and unburned surfaces. J . For. 28:569-571. Isaac, L . A . 1938. Factors affecting USDA C i r . 486.  establishment  of Douglas-fir seedlings.  Isaac, L . A . and H.G. Hopkins. 1936. The forest s o i l of the Douglas-fir region and changes wrought upon i t by logging and slashburning. Ecology 18:264-279. Jablanczy, A. 1964. Influence of slashburning on the establishment and i n i t i a l growth of seedlings of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar. Ph.D. Thesis, University of B . C . , Vancouver, B . C . Klinka, K. 1977. Guide for the tree species selection and prescribed burning in the Vancouver Forest D i s t r i c t : second approximation. For. Serv. Res. D i v . , Min. F o r . , Vancouver, B.C. Klinka, K . , Nuszdorfer, F . C . , and L . Skoda. central and southern Vancouver Island. Forests, V i c t o r i a , B . C .  1979. Biogeoclimatic units of Province of B . C . , Ministry of  Klinka, K . , Green, R . N . , Courtin, P . J . , and F . C . Nuszdorfer. 1984. Site diagnosis, tree species s e l e c t i o n , and slashburning guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region. Land Management Report Number 25. B . C . Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Klock, G.0. and C . C . G r i e r . 1979. Effects of f i r e on the long-term maintenance of forest productivity. Proc. Forest F e r t i l i z a t i o n Conf. Univ. of Wash., College of For. Res., S e a t t l e , WA.  - 46 Knight, H. 1964. Some effects of slashburning and c l e a r - c u t logging on s o i l properties and i n i t i a l tree growth. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Wash. Long, J . N . and J . Turner. 1975. Above-ground biomass of understory in an age sequence of four Douglas-fir stands. J . Appl. Ecol. 12:179-188. McGee, A. 1985. Personal communication. Ph.D. Candidate, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. M i l l e r , R . E . , Williamson, R . L . , and R.R. S i l e n . 1974. Regeneration and growth of coastal Douglas-fir. In O.P. Cramer (ed.) Environmental Effects of Forest Residues Management in the P a c i f i c Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-24. Morris, W.G. 1970. Effects of slashburning in overmature stands of the Douglas-fir region. For. S c i . 16:258-270. Parkinson, J . A and S . E . A l l e n . 1975. A wet oxidation procedure suitable for the determination of nitrogen and mineral nutrients in biological material. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 6(1):1-11. Sabhasri, S. 1961. An ecological study of s a l a l , Gaultheria shallon Pursh. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Steen, H.K. 1966. Vegetation following slash f i r e s locality. Northwest S c i . 40:113-120.  in one western Oregon  Tan, C . S . , Black, T . A . , and J . V . Nnyamah. 1977. Characteristics of stomatal diffusion resistance in a Douglas-fir forest exposed to s o i l water deficits. Can. J . For. Res. 7:595-604. Tarrant, R . F . and E. Wright. 1955. Growth of Douglas-fir seedlings after slashburning. USDA For. S e r v . , Pac. NW. For. Ran. Exp. Sta. Res. Note 84. Turner, J . , Long, J . N . , and A. B a c k i e l . 1978. in an age sequence of Douglas-fir stands.  Under-story nutrient content Ann. Bot. 42:1045-1055.  Wells, C . G . , Campbell, R . E . , DeBano, L . F . , Lewis, C . E . , Fredriksen, R . L . , Franklin, E . C . , F r o c l i c h , R . C . , and P.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of f i r e on soil. A state-of-knowledge review. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-7.  -  47  -  APPENDIX I SOIL/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORMS Stop numbers are equivalent to s i t e numbers, with B indicating burned areas and U indicating unburned areas.  - 48 -  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  Bl  Slope Position  Lower Slope  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  UI  Slope Position  Lower Slope  Terrain C l a s s i f i c a t i o n :  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket  Morainal Blanket  Depth to Bedrock (an)  Horizon Deslg. H A B B BC  Horizon Depth 2 0 1  e fl f2  20 50  S >  0 1  100+  2 Roots 2 mm by Volume  Surfldal Material  20 5 4  20 40 40 40  20 50 80+  Depth to Bedrock (an)  tn  ra m  2 1  m  Horizon 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Depth  Horizon Deslg. H  6  A e B ml B m2 BC  0  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  80+  20  0  2 2 20 20 38 38 80+  Surfldal Material  30 50 50 30  m m m m  10 3 1 1  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B2  Stop Number  U2  Slope Position  Upper to Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Upper to Mid-Slope  Terrain C l a s s i f i c a t i o n :  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket  Depth to Bedrock (an)  Horizon Deslg. LFH A B BC C R  e fi  Horizon Depth 2>2nm 3 p 2 21 36  n %  21 36 50  20 40 50 50  50  Depth to Bedrock (an)  2 Roots by Volume 7 5 5 3 5  Surfldal Material m m  ra m  mu+  Horizon Deslg.  Horizon 2>2mn 2 Roots by Volume Depth  LFH A B B B C  10 0 2 24 31 50  e fl f2 f3  0 2 24 31 50 100  15 50 40 40 50  30 5 5 3 5 3  Surfldal Material m m m m  ra  - 49 -  SOILS/LANDFORH DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position  B3 Upper  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position  U3 Upper  Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket  Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket  Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80*  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Horizon S>2nn> 2 RootsSurfidal Desig. Depth by VolumeMaterial H 6 0 30 A e 0 2 10 m B fi 2 17 3 m B f2 17 37 1 m BC1 37 67 1 m BC2 67 80+ 0 m  RootsSurfidal Horizon Horizon t > m mbS y VolumeMaterial Desig. Depth Z FH IP 9 25 A e 0 2 10 m B fl 2 17 2 m B f2 17 32 1 m BC1 32 62 1 m BC2 62 80+ 0 m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  80+  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number B4 Stop Number U4 Slope Position Upper Slope Position Upper Terrain Classification: Terrain Classification: Morainal veneer with some areas of hummocky rockM ro ir da gi en sal veneer with scattered areas of rock (varies on this site t8 h0 e sc im t) e Depth to Bedrock (JJ, cm)(variefsromon20Depth to Bedrock (an) from 30-80 cm) 70  Hori zonHori zon% > 2by % Ro ol ou tm seSMuartfelrciiaall m mV Desig. Depth B f1 0 20 60 2 m B f2 20 40 60 1 m R  idal % Ro ol ou tm seSMuartfer rizon Hori zonHo m mV ial Desig. Depth % > 2by LFH 10 0 30 A e discmtiruous 40 5 m B ml 015 40 ' 2 m B m 2 15 30 40 1 m BC 30 60+ 40 0 m  - 50 -  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  6 5  Stop Number  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Terrain  Terrain  Classification:  u s  M-iH-sinpp  Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cn)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  100+  Horizon Deslg.  Horizon 2>2mm Depth  R. R  IPl  0  rfO  K  20 50  50 90+  PC  40 40 40  2 Roots by Volume  Surfldal Material  Horizon Desig.  2 1  m m m  LFH A e ml B  1  B BC  Surfldal Material  Hori zon 2 Roots 2>2ian by Volume Depth 20 10  1  0 2 2 14 14 34 34 80+ 0  m2  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  100  50  m m m  5 1 1  50 50 50  m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B6  Stop Number  lis  Slope Position  M1d to Lower  Slope Position  Mid to Lower  Terrain  Classification:  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket with some areas of Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket with some areas of Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  100+  Hori zon Horizon 2 > 2mm 2 Roots Desig. Depth by Volume IFH B m BC C  1 (1 Q n 27 47 90+  50 50 50  15 10 3 2  100  Surfldal Material  Horizon Deslg.  2 Roots Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm by Volume  m m m  1 FH A e B ml B m2  A 0 0 1 i 19 19 44 44 90+  c  25 60 50 50  20 7 5 5 2  Surfldal Material m m m m  - 51 -  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  U7  Slope Position  Slope Position  Upper to Mid-Slope  Terrain  Terrain Classification:  Stop Number  87  Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of rock ridges  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of rock ridges  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  60  Hori zon Horizon 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots Desig. by Volume Depth LFH  2 0 0 20 20 35  f m  B B BC  5 4 1  40 40 40  35 56  Surfidal Material m m m  1  Horizon Desig.  fi f B  2 Roots Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm by Volume s  1 FH  0  m  BC  90+  70  fl ?n 70 90  n 40 40 40  3D m m  10 2 0  m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B8  Stop Number  U8  Slope Position  Lower  Slope Position  Lower  Terrain  Terrain  Classification:  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Hori zon Horizon 2>2mm Desig. Depth B BC  ml m2  0 30 70  30 70 100  Classification:  Morainal Blanket  Morainal Blanket  B  Surfidal Material  50 SO 30  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  _L£|Q+_  2 Roots by Volume 2 1 1  Surfidal Material m m m  Horizon Desig. LFH A e B B BC  fj m  100+  2 Roots Horizon 2 > 2 mm by Volume Depth 6 0 0 1 1 16 16 36 •36 80+  50 50 50 50  30 10 5 3 1  Surfidal Material m m m m  - 52 -  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B9  Stop Number  U9  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Terrain Classification:  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket with scattered areas of Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cn)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  gn+  Horizon Deslg.  Horizon 2 Roots 2 > 2 mm Depth by Volume  H A  8  0 1  Surfldal Material  10  B  e f  0 1  12  50  B BC  m 12 32  32 90  40 40  m m  2 2 1 1  in m  Horizon Deslg.  9 0 +  Horizon 2 Roots 2 > 2 mm by Volume Depth  LFH B fj m B  5 0 25  0 25 70  50 50  BC  70  90+  60  15 3 2 1  Stop Number  BIO  Stop Number  U10  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Terrain Classification:  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket with parallel gullies  Morainal Blanket with parallel gullies  Depth to Bedrock (cn)  Depth to Bedrock (cn)  LFH ml B B m2 BC  90+  Hori zon 2 Roots Oepth 2 > 2 mm by Volume 6 0 25  0 25 50  50  30+  70 60 70  m m m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Horizon Deslg.  Surfldal Material  Surfldal Material  10 3 1  m m  1  m  100  +  Horizon Deslg.  Horizon 2 Roots 2 > 2 mm Oepth by Volume  B f B m BC  0 20 45  20 45 100+  70 80  5 2 1  Surfldal Material m m tn  - 53 SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  BIT  Stop Number  Ull  Slope Position  Lower Slope  Slope Position  Lower Slope  Terrain Classification:  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket  Morainal Blanket  80+  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Desig. H A B B BC  Horizon % Roots Depth 2>2mm by Volume 7  e fj m  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  0 3 15 30  0 3  Surfidal Material  40  15  50 70  2 2  m m  30 80+  70 70  1 1  m m  Horizon Desig. e  B  f,i ml m2  B B BC  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  ?P 0  0 2  5  2  8  30  20 2 2  8 28 48  28 48 80  50 50 50  2 1 1  U12  Stop Number  B12  Slope Position  Lower  Slope Position  Lower  Terrain Classification: Rubbly Fluvial Fan  Horizon Desig. H A B B BC  e fl f2  0  0 2 20 50  2 20 50 90+  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  90+  Surfidal Material  30 80 80 80 80  m m m m  Terrain Classification: Rubbly Fluvial Fan  Horizon 2 Roots 2 > 2 mm Depth by Volume 3  tn  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Surfidal Material  2 Roots Horizon 2 > 2 mm by Volume Depth  w A  80+  5 3 2 1  F F F F  80+  Hori zon Desig.  2 Roots Hori zon 2 > 2 mm by Volume Depth  H A B B BC  4 e fi f2  0 2 27 52  0 2 27 52 80+  Surfidal Material  20 80 80 80 80  5 2 2 1  F F F F  - 54 -  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  813  Stop Number  U13  Slope Position  Crest of Slope  Slope Position  Crest of Slope  Terrain  Terrain  Classification:  Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cn)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  80+  Horizon Desig.  Horizon X Roots 2 > 2 mm by Volume Depth  LFH A e ml B  3 g disc >nt1r uous  B BC  m2  0 35 65  Surfldal Material  20 1  m  35  30  2  m  65 80+  30 30  1 0  m m  Horizon Oesig.  80+  2 Roots Horizon 2>2mm by Volume Depth 20 5 5  4 0 LFH uous jntli disc A e 30 30 ml 0 B 30 m2 30 70 B 30 80+ 70 BC  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  U14  Slope Position  Upper Slope  Slope Position  Upper  Classification:  Terrain  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  LFH  2  B B BC  ml  0 m2 25 65  0 25 65 80+  30 30 30  80+  m  2 Roots by Volume  Surfldal Material  20 3 1  m  0  m m  Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Horizon Depth 2 > 2  m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  B14  Horizon Deslg.  m  2 1  Stop Number  Terrain  Surfldal Material  Horizon Oesig. LFH  m m  ti B BC  Horizon 2 Roots 2 > 2 mm Depth by Volume  5 0 m2 20 55  ml  80+  0 20 55 80+  30 30 30  Surfldal Material  20 5 1  m m  0  m  - 55 SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  BIS  Stop Number  Slope Position  Mid to Upper Slope  Slope Position  U15 Mid to Upper Slope  Terrain Classification:  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket  Morainal Blanket  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Desig. LFH A B B  e ml m2  BC  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  80+  Horizon * > 2 nsn Depth  2 Roots by Volume  4 0 disc ont1 1UOUS 30 0 30 30 75  Surfidal Material  90+  Horizon Desig.  2 Roots Horizon 2>2mm by Volume Depth 5 0 disc ontl IUOUS  20  15 5  m  LFH A e  3  m  4  m  B  ml  0  40  30  2  m  m2  40 75  75  30  1  m  90+  30  1  m  75  30  1  m  B  80+  30  0  m  BC  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B16  Stop Number  U16  Slope Position  Upper  Slope Position  Upper  Terrain Classification:  Terrain Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Desig.  LFH  A B  e f  B m BC  Horizon 2 > 2 mm Depth  4  0 1  Q 1 21  21 45  45  80  Surfidal Material  80  2 Roots by Volume  Surfidal Material  30 40 40  5 5  m m  40 40  2 1  m m  40  Hori zon Desig.  Horizon 2 Roots 2>2mm by Volume Depth  LFH A B B R  10 0 0 2 2 17 17 40  e i m f  60 60 60  25 5 2 1  Surfidal Material m m m  - 56 -  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B17  Stop Number  U17  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of exposed rock  Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of exposed rock  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Desig.  Hori zon % Roots %>2\m Depth by Volume  I.FH A B  5 0 2 17  B R  e fl f2  0 2 17 37  40 40  15 5 5  40  2  Surfldal Materi al m m m  Horizon Desig.  Hori zon % Roots % > 2 mo by Volume Depth 5 0 disi onti nuous 40 0 16 40 16 31  LFH A e fl B f2  B R  30-80  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Surfldal Material  20 15 15 4•  m m m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B18  Stop Number  U18  Slope Position  Bench at Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Bench at Mid-Slope  Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer  Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Desig. LFH A e B f B m R  20-60  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon % > 2 ran % Roots Depth by Volume 3 0 1 16  Surfldal Material  0 1  40  15 2  m  16 31  40 40  2 1  m m  Hori zon Desig. LFH A B B R  e  30-60  Horizon %> 2 mm % Roots by Volume Oepth 2. 0 1  ml m2 20  o 1  40  20 45  40 40  20 5  Surf 1 ci al Material  5  m m  2  m  - 57 SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Stop Number  B19  Stop Number  U19  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Slope Position  Mid-Slope  Terrain  Terrain  Classification:  Classification:  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Horizon Desig. B B BC  60  Horizon 2 Roots 2>2mm Depth by Volume  ml mZ  0 20 40  20 40 60  40  Surfidal Material  Horizon Desig.  Horizon 2 > 2mm 2 Roots by Volume Depth  m m m  LFH A e ml B m2 B  3 0 1  0 1 16  40 40  16 36  36 70  40 30  10 3 2  40 60  _Z£L  R  BC R  20 10 5 3.  B20  Stop Number  U20  Slope Position  Upper  Slope Position  Upper  Classification:  Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer  Morainal Veneer  Horizon Desig. LFH A B  37  Surfidal Material  15  0 1  30  1 37  30  0  50  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  Hori zon 2 Roots 2 > 2mm Depth by Volume 4.  e, m  m m  1  Stop Number  Depth to Bedrock (cm)  m m  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM  Terrain  Surfidal Material  5 3  m m  Horizon Desig. LFH A e m B  Hori zon 2 Roots Depth 2 > 2 mm by Volume 5 0 2  0 2 50  30 30  20 2 2  Surfidal Material m m  - 58 APPENDIX II FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS FORMS  This is the output for the diagnositic program FNA. The tenative diagnostic c r i t e r i a used in this computer program are mostly based on references c i t e d in pages 46-51 of Ballard (1980).  -  59 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS  SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii SAMPLE : 33CDRVB1 LOCATION :  latitude: 0* 0' SHAW U6B-1  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGS : 9 years  longitude:  0° 0'  elevation:  SGCL SYNTAXON : OTHB4 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY  610 metres| EDATOPE : 2C mesotropnic  Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE a i  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * DEV / % RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE  COMMENTS  Macronu .rient status (%) N 1 .520 7 P 0.380 153 K 0.820 26 Ca 0.280 12 Mg 0.110 0  Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate  Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.000 K/Ca 2.929 Ca/Mg 2.545  No P deficiency; NID i s unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation)  Sulfur analysis t) : S 0.200 25 N/S 7.600  No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely  Micronutrient status (ppm) : -18 Te 37.000 Mn 25S.000 932 Zn 22.000 83 Cu 7.000 169 3 22.000 93  Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order :  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii SAMPLE : 33CDRVB2 LOCATION :  latitude: 0° 0' SHAH U6B-2  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGE : 8 years  longitude:  0° 0'  elevation:  SGCL SYNTAXON : CVHB4 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY  610 metres| EDATOPE : 2C mesotrophic  Diagnosis i s based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B2  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or X DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu -rient status N 1.400 P 0.320 K 0.790 Ca 0.300 Mg 0.110  (%) -1 113 22 20 0  COMMENTS  Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate  Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.375 K/Ca 2.633 Ca/Mg 2.727  No P deficiency; NID i s unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation)  Sulfur analysis %) : S 0. 170 6 N/S 3.235  No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely  Micronutrient status (ppm) : Pe 26.000 -42 Mn 328.000 1212 Zn 19.000 58 Cu 7.000 169 3 20.000 67  Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSNSMgsssCaSKSZnSBSPSCuSMn  - 60 FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : a3CDRVB3 STAND AGE : 6 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 490 metres| SHAW U3 3GCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 SDATOPE : 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B3 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE  COMMENTS  Macronu rient status {%) H ! .240 -13 ? 0.310 107 o .aso K 31 Ca 0.290 12 Mg 0.120 9 Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.000 K/Ca 3.036 Ca/Mg 2.333 Sulfur analysis %) : S 0. 180 12 N/S 6.3S9 Micronutrient status (ppm> : Fe 46.000 2 Mn 438.000 16S2 Zn 29.000 142 Cu 10.000 28S 24.000 100 B  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely Possible ?e deficiency (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely No deficiency Mo deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : « s »( s »9 s c i s s s u  1 s p i a s Q s *i  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB4 STAND AGE : 9 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0" 0' elevation: 610 metres! SHAM SSB - 3GCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : IB HYGROTOPE CLASS : xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B4 CURRENT YEAR » It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) N l .310 -8 P 0.310 107 K 0.720 11 Ca 0.280 12 Mg 0.1 10 0 Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.2261 .I K/Ca 2.571 Ca/Mg | 2.5451 | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1601 0 I N/S I 8.187| | Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 32.000 -29 Mn 334.000 1236 Zn 23.000 92 10.000 285 aCu 16.000 33  Slight co moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Mo ? deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSNSMgSSSKSCaSasZnSPSCuSMn  - 61 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga mensiesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVBS STAND AGE : 3 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0* 0' elevation: 550 metres| SHAW wt l - l 3GCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of IS trees. SITE B5 , CURRENT YEAR * |% DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) N? 1 .sao 133 IS 0.350 0.740 14 K 40 0.350 Ca 0 . 120 Mg 9 Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.8001 I K/Ca 2.114 Ca/Mg | 2.317) | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.190) 19 I N/S 8.342| | Micronutrient status -(2p7pm 33.000 Fe I8S.000 Mn 644 28.000 133 Zn 10.000 2B5 Cu a 58 19.000  Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; NID unlikely  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : ?« i Mg i K S 5 ^ Ci S 3 S ? S in S Cu S Mil  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CORVU6 STAMD AGE : S years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0 0' elevation: 550 metres| SHAW W> 1-2 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 3C H7GR0T0PE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : RHTTIDIADELPHUS LOREOS-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE 86 s  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or t * DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (%) N 1 .560 10 P 0.340 127 K 0.900 38 Ca 0.330 32 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios : N/P 1.588 K/Ca 2.727 Ca/Mg 3.000 Sulfur analysis «) : S 0.200 25 N/S 7.800 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 32.000 -29 Mn 298.000 1092 Zn 26.000 117 Cu 2.000 -23 3 17.000 42  COMMENTS Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Possible or near-deficiency No B deficiency; NID unlikely  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe s Cu sMg S N i s sCa s KSBSZnsPSMn  - 62 POLIAR NUTRIENT SPECIES SAMPLE  ANALYSIS  : Pseudotsuga u e n z i e s i i : 33CCRVB7  LOCATION  -.  latitude: SHAW L70  0* 0'  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGE : 3 years  longitude:  3GCL STNTAXON : CWHB* HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN Diagnosis SITS 37  i s b a s e d on a n a l y s i s  ELEMENT or or RATIO  0* 0'  elevation:  TROPHOTOPE CLASS 3LUESERRY  670 n o t r e a l  EDATOPE : 23 : sub meaotropnie  o f IS t r e e s .  CURRENT YEAR % DEV / % PPM ADEQUATE  COMMENTS  Macronut r i e n e s t a t u s (%) N 1 .570 1 1 0.330 120 ? K 0.940 43 0.330 32 Ca Mg O.tOO -9  Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate L i t t l e i t any d e f i c i e n c y  Element N/P K/Ca Ca/Mg  No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  Sulfur S N/S  concentration 4.758 2.348 3.300  ratios :  *) : analysis 0. 190 19 8.263  No S d e f i c i e n c y ; No S d e f i c i e n c y ;  Micronutrient s t a t u s (ppm) : re 31.0001 -31 1220 Mn 330.000 :n 23.000 92 4.000 54 Cu 93 3 22.000  Supply of n u t r i e n t s  Possible or near-deficiency No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y  i n ranked o r d e r :  ?• i »5 s > i S s Ca U  U « ! I s !n s M  FOLIA* NUTRIENT SPECIES SAMPLE  :  latitude: SHAW W  0* 0'  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGE : 3 years  longitude:  BGCL STNTAXON : CWHS4 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub m e s i c PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN Diagnosis S I T S 38  i s b a s e d on a n a l y s i s  0* 0'  Element N/P K/Ca Ca/Mg Sulfur S N/S  analysis 0. 130 8.536  Supply  SDATOPB : 3B : sub mesocrophic  COMMENTS  {*.) a  Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate  4! 36 9 ratios  :' No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  *> : No S d e f i c i e n c y ; No S d e f i c i e n c y ;  12  Micronutrient s t a c u s (ppa) : -27 Pe 33.000 Mn 414.000 1556 92 Jn 23.000 2.000 -23 Cu 67 3 20.000  at n u c r i e n c s  Fe 5 Cu M  530 m a t r e s |  o f IS t r e e s .  113  concentration 4.312 2.765 2.333  elevation:  TROPHOTOPE CLASS BLUEBERRY  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR * DEV / * br RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut r i e n t s t a t u s N 1 .540 0.320 P K 0.940 0.340 Ca 0. 120 X<3  »  ANALYSIS  : Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i : 83CDRVB8  LOCATION  NID u n l i k e l y NIS u n l i k e l y  i n ranktd  i «q S 5 i Ca U  NID u n l i k e l y NID u n l i k e l y  Possible or near-deficiency No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y Possible or near-deficiency No d e f i c i e n c y  ordtr  :  S 3 i :n S ? S !ln  -  63  -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB9 STAND AGS : 8 years LOCATION : CH latitude: EM C2S 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 670 metres!  SGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis SITE 39 is based on analysis of 15 trees. ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * It D EV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE l i 1) Macronutrient status ( % N 1 .430 P 0.290 93 K 0.790 22 Ca 0.350 40 g concentration 0.110 0ratios ElM ement N/P | 4.9311 K/Ca 2.257 Ca/Mg | 3.182| | Sulfur analysis ( t ) : S I 0.1701 6 I N/S I 8.412 j | Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 43.000 788-4 Mn 222.000 15 Zn 19.000 56 Cu 3.000 3 23.000 92  COMMENTS Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Mo P deficiency; MD I is unlikely (Mo interpretation) (Mo interpretation) No S deficiency; MID unlikely Mo S deficiency; NIO unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Slight possibility of deficiency Mo deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSMgSNSSSCuSKSCaSZnSBSPSMn FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVB0 STAND AGE : IS years LOCATION : latitude: 0* 0' longitude: 0* 0' elevation: 550 metres| CHEM C29 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B10 ELEMENT C RRENT TEAR t U or t D EV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status ( t ) 1 .350 -5 0.330 120 N s 0.330 28 P a 0.270 -9 0.100 Ca Mg Element concentration ratios : 4.091 3.074 N/P 2 . 7 0 0 K/Ca Ca/Mg t) : Sulfur analysis 0 . 170 6 7.941 S N/S Micronutrient (p1pm) : 5 9 . 0 0status 0 3 266.000 964 Fe 50 1 8 . 0 0 0 Mn -23 2.000 Zn 3u 19.000 58 C  COMMENTS Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely Possible Fe deficiency (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Possible or near-deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Ca i i 0 i S i Ca i H fe i :n S  3  S ? i Mn  - 64 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB1 STAND AGE : 10 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0* longitude: 0* 0' elevation: 400 metres| CHEM B7-1 3GCL STNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 4C HYGROTOPE CLASS : mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : aesbtrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : VANILLA LEAF-WESTERN SWORD-FERN Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE Bl1 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR % or % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu.riant status (%) 1.350 -S N 0.270 80 P 0.780 20K 0.3S0 44 Ca 0. 100 -9 Mg Element concentration ratios : 5.000 N/P 2.167 R/Ca 3.600 Ca/Mg Sulfur analysis (%) : 0.160 0 S 8.437 N/S Micronutrient status-27 (ppm) : 33.000 Fe 306.000 Mn 1 92 124 23.000 Zn 2.000 -23 Cu a 22.000 83  COMMENTS Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No s deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSCuSMgsNsSSKSCaSPSBSZnsMn  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVB2 STAND AGE : 14 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metres! CHEM 37-2 BGCL S TNT AXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 4C HYGROTOPE CLASS : mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : VANILLA LEAF-WESTERN SWORD-FERN Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE 312 ELEMENT or RATIO  CURRENT YEAR * I t DEV / PPM ADEQUATE  Macronutrient status- 1(% 1 ) : N 1 .260 P 0.2S0 67 K 0.360 32 Ca 0.320 - 12 89 Mg 0.090 Element concentration ratios N/P | 5.0401 | K/Ca 2.687 Ca/Mg I  3.5561  |  Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1401 - 1 3 I N/S 9.000 Micronutrient status (ppm) Fe 27.000 -40 Mn 318.000 1172 33 Zn 16.000 15 Cu 3.000 3 13.000 50  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Slight to moderate deficiency Ho P deficiency; HID is unlikely (Mo interpretation) (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; KID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency Mo deficiency No deficiency Slight possibility of deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe s Mg s S s N s Cu i Ca s K s 2n S a S P s Mn  -  65 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB3 STAND AGE : IS years LOCATION : latitude: 0 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metres| NWB J27-2 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 33 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE BI3 a  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR * or % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE  COMMENTS  Macranut rient status (%) N 1 .ISO -17 P 0 .340 127 1 .000 K 54 Ca 0.360 404 Mg 0. 1 10 Element concentration ratios : N/P 3.471 K/Ca 2.778 Ca/Mg 3.273 Sulfur analysis 4) : -6 S 0.150 N/S 7.867 Micronutrient status Cppm) : Fe 29.000 -36 3116 Mn 304.000 Zn 23.000 92 6.000 131 C u 20.000 3 67  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : ?! ! S i ! S U l i K ! I i u ! P s c» i m  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB4 STAND AGE : IS years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metres) NWB J27-I BGCL SYNTAXON : CHHA2 EDATOPE : 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE BI4 CURRENT YEAR » 1% DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N 1.060 -25 P 0.320 1 1 3 K 0.930 43 Ca 0.340 36 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios N/P 3.312 1 K/Ca 2.735 Ca/Mg 3.091 Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1401 -13 I N/S | 7.571j j Micronutrient status (ppm! Fe 26.000 -42 Mn 488.000 1852 Zn 18.000 50 C u 5.000 92 3 17.000 42  1  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No S deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe S N S S S Mg S Ca S 3 U s Zn S Cu S P S Mn  - 66 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-Sir SAMPLE : a3CDRVB5 STAND AGE : 15 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metres| NWB F70 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 3C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCRLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE 315 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status (%) N l .310 -8 P 0.350 133 K 0.980 51 Ca 0.350 40 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios : N/P 3.743 K/Ca 2.800 Ca/Mg 3.182 Sulfur analysis ») : S 0. 150 -6 N/S a.733 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 88.000 96 Mn 540.000 2060 Zn 18.000 50 Cu 5.000 92 B 22.000 83  COMMENTS Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : H !  S S «J i  Cl S !» i  K S B S Cu i  Pt !  f  S Kl  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga m e n 2 i e s i i Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVB6 STAND AGE : 14 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 320 metres! NWB NI3 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B 1 6 CURRENT YEAR I * I\ DEV / I PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N 1 . 140 -20 P 0.270 30 K 0.360 32 Ca 0.310 24 Mg 0.100 -9 Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.2221 | x/ca 2.774 Ca/Mg I 3.100{ | Sulfur analysis (*) : S | 0.1201 -25 | N/S | 9.500| | Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 30.000 -33 Mn 354.000 1316 Zn 19.000 58 Cu 3.000 208 B 16.000 33  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency? NID is unlikely (No interpretation} (No interpretation) Actual or inducible S deficiency No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No a deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe s S s N s S Ca H s B S Zn s p s Cu s Mn  -  67 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB7 STAND AGE ; 10 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0 ' longitude: 0° 0 ' elevation: €40 metres} NWB B 1 3 - 1 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : IB HYGROTOPE CLASS : xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY t Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B17 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR t or % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (t) N. t .300 -8 too p 0.300 K 0.380 35 Ca 0.310 24 Mg 0. 100 -9 Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.333 K/Ca 2.839 Ca/Mg 3. 100 Sulfur analysis %) : S 0. 160 0 N/S 8. 125 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 36.000 -20 Mn 288.000 1052 Zn - 21 .000 . 75 Cu 5.000 92 B 21.000 75  COMMENTS Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe i Mg s N s S i Ca i K s Zn SBSCuSPSMn  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB8 STAND AGE : 10 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 0 metres I NWB 813-2 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 23 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITS BI8 CURRENT YEAR % I % DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N 1 .340 -6 P 0.310 107 K 0.820 26 Ca 0.380 52 Mg 0. 100 -9 Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.3231 I K/Ca 2.1531 Ca/Mg | 3.800| | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1601 0 I N/S I 8.375| I Micronutrient status (ppm) ; 31.000 -31 Mn 522.000 1988 Zn 29.000 142 Cu 2.000 -23 S 26.000 117  Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No Interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSCuSMgSNsSSKSCaSPSBSZnsMn  - 68 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : a3CDRVB9 STAND AGE : 3 years LOCATION : latitude: 0* 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 700 metres| NWB D9 ' BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : ZB HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL"ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B19 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status (%) N 1 .240 -13 ? 0.230 37 K 0.830 28 Ca 0.320 23 Mg 0.100 -9 Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.429 K/Ca 2.594 Ca/Mg 3.200 Sulfur analysis %) : S 0.150 -6 N/S 8.267 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 35.000 -22 Mn 462.000 1743 2n 19.000 58 Cu S.000 92 3 IB.000 50  COMMENTS Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No Interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FsSNSMgsssKSCaSBSZnSPSCuSMn FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS  SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB0 STAND AGS : 15 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metres| NWB J28 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : IB HYGROTOPE CLASS : xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B20 CURRENT YEAR » !% DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N 1 .070 -25 P 0.330 120 K 0.910 40 Ca 0.340 36 -18 Mg 0.090 Element concentration ratios N/P I 3.2421 I K/Ca 2.676 Ca/Mg | 3.7731 [ Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1301 -19 1 N/S | 8.231 | I Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 24.000 -47 Mn S08.000 1932 In 20.000 67 Cu 4.000 54 3 21.000 75  Severe deciciency Adequate Adequate Adequate Slight to moderate deficiency No P deficiency; HID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : PeSNSSSMgSCaSKiCuSZnSBSPSMn 1  - 69 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i SAMPLE : 8 3CDRVTJI LOCATION :  latitude: SHAW U6BI  0* 0'  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGE : 8 years  longitude:  0° 0'  elevation:  BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY  610 metres) EDATOPE : 2C mesotrophic  D i a g n o s i s i s based on a n a l y s i s of 15 t r e e s .  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR * DEV / or % RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status 1 .280 N 0.260 P K 0.600 0.260 Ca Mg 0. 1 10  COMMENTS  (%) -10 73 -8 4 0  Severe d e f i c i e n c y Adequate L i t t l e i f any d e f i c i e n c y Adequate Adequate  Element c o n c e n t r a t i o n r a t i o s : 1.923 N/P K/Ca 2.308 Ca/Mg 2.364  No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  Sulfur S N/S  p o s s i b l e S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y  a n a l y s i s %) : 0.140 -13 9. 143  M i c r o n u t r i e n t s t a t u s (ppm) : 30.000 -33 Fe 548.000 2092 Mn Zn 22.000 83 169 7.000 Cu 15.000 25 B  Possible or near-deficiency No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No B d e f i c i e n c y ; but NID i s p o s s i b l e  Supply o f n u t r i e n t s i n ranked o r d e r : Pt i s s ii s u  » j i Ci s j ( p s a  s ca s  »  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i SAMPLE : 83CDRVU2 LOCATION :  latitude: SHAW U6B2  0° 0'  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGE : 8 yeers  longitude:  0" 0'  elevation:  BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY  6t0 n e t r e s l EDATOPE : 2C mesotrophic  D i a g n o s i s i s based on a n a l y s i s o f 15 t r e e s .  CURRENT YEAR I % I* DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status N 1.110 P 0.250 K 0.580 Ca 0.240 Mg 0.110  (%) : -22 67 -1 1 -4 0  Severe d e f i c i e n c y Adequate L i t t l e i f any d e f i c i e n c y L i t t l e i f any d e f i c i e n c y Adequate  Element c o n c e n t r a t i o n r a t i o s N/P | 4.4401 I K/Ca 2.417 Ca/Mg | 2.182| |  No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (No I n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  S u l f u r a n a l y s i s (%) i S I 0.1401 -13 I N/S | 7.929| |  P o s s i b l e S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y  M i c r o n u t r i e n t s t a t u s (ppm) : Fe -47 24.000 Mn 486.000 1844 Zn 17.000 42 Cu 6.000 131 B 11.000 -8  Deficiency l i k e l y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y B p o s s i b l y d e f i c i e n t ; p o s s i b l e NID  Supply of n u t r i e n t s i n ranked o r d e r : F e S N S S S K S B S C a S M q s z n S p s c u S M n  - 70 -  FOLIAR  NUTRIENT  ANALYSIS  SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU3 STAND AGE : 6 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 490 metresl SHAW 03 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 O EDATOPE .: 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * 1% DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrlent status (%) N l .210 -15 P 0.250 67 K 0.650 0 Ca 0.230 -8 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios N/P | 4.8401 I K/Ca 2.826 Ca/Mg I 2.091| | Sulfur analysis (%) : S | 0.1401 -13 I N/S 3.643 Micronutrient status (ppm Fe 47.000 4 Mn 966.000 3764 zn 19.000 58 Cu S.000 92 B 12.000 0  COMMENTS Severs deficiency Adequate Little if any deficiency Little if any deficiency Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No 3 deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : NSSSCaSKSMgSBSFeiZnSPsCuSMn FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVU4 STAND AGE : 9 years LOCATION : latitude: 0" 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 610 metres! SHAW S5B BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : IB HYGROTOPE CLASS : xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS j sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR % or % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut.rient status (%) N 1 .360 -4 P 0.260 73 K 0.630 -3 Ca 0.210 -t6 Mg 0.100 -9 Element concentration ratios : N/P 5.231 K/Ca 3.000 Ca/Mg 2. 100 Sulfur analysis *) : S 0.140 -13 N/S 9.714 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 33.000 -27 Mn 948.000 3692 rn 17.000 42 Cu 3.000 208 3 15.000 25  COMMENTS Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Little if any deficiency Little if any deficiency Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely Possible Fe deficiency (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSCaSSSMgSNSKSBSZnSPSCuSMn  - 71 FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga m e n t i e s i i SAMPLE : 83CDRVU5 LOCATION :  Latitude: 0° 0' SHAW Wl 1-1  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGE : 8 years  longitude:  0° 0'  elevation:  550 m e t r e s l  3GCL STNTAXON : CWHB4 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY  EDATOPE : 2C mesotrophic  D i a g n o s i s i s based on a n a l y s i s of 15 t r e e s .  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % |% DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status U ) N l .470 4 P 0.280 87 K 0.790 22 Ca 0.320 28 Mg 0.110 0 Element c o n c e n t r a t i o n N/P I 5.2501 K/Ca 2.469 Ca/Mg | 2.909|  Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate  ratios I  No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  |  unlikely  S u l f u r a n a l y s i s (%) : S I 0.1 SO I -6 1 N/S | 9.800| |  S d e f i c i e n c y and NID a r e u n l i k e l y No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y  M i c r o n u t r i e n t s t a t u s (ppm) : -27 Fe 33.000 Mn 282.000 1028 Zn 23.000 92 Cu 8.000 208 B 16.000 33  P o s s i b l e or near-deficiency No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No B d e f i c i e n c y ; but NID i s p o s s i b l e  Supply of n u t r i e n t s i n ranked o r d e r : F e S S S M g S N S R S C a S B S P S Z n S C u S M n  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i SAMPLE : 83CDRVU6 LOCATION :  latitude: 0° 0' SHAW Wl1-2  Coastal Douglas-fir STAND AGS : 3 years  longitude:  0* 0'  elevation:  550 metres|  BGCL STNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 3C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY D i a g n o s i s i s based on a n a l y s i s o f 15 t r e e s .  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE  COMMENTS  Macronu . r i e n t s t a t u s (%) N 1 .500 6 P 0.300 100 K 0.700 8 Ca 0.290 16 Mg 0.1 10 0  Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate  Element c o n c e n t r a t i o n r a t i o s : N/P 5.000 K/Ca 2.414 Ca/Mg 2.636  No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  Sulfur S N/S  S d e f i c i e n c y and NID a r e u n l i k e l y No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y  a n a l y s i s %) : 0. 150 -6 10.0Q0  M i c r o n u t r i e n t s t a t u s (ppm) : Fe 25.000 -44 Mn 516.000 1964 Zn 23.000 92 Cu 11.000 323 3 15.000 25  P o s s i b l e or n e a r - d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No d e f i c i e n c y No B d e f i c i e n c y ; but NID i s p o s s i b l e  Supply of n u t r i e n t s i n ranked order : F e £ S S M g £ N £ K £ C a * 3 £ Z n £ P £ C u £ M n  - 72 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU7 STAND AGE : 8 years LOCATION : latitude: 0* 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 670 metres| SHAH L70 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees.  CURRENT YEAR % |» DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status- 1(% 5 ) N l .200 P 0.230 53 K 0.630 -3 Ca 0.250 0 Mg 0.090 -18 Element concentration ratios N/P | 5.2171 I K/Ca 2.520 Ca/Mg [ 2.778| | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1201 -25 I N/S I 10.000| I Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 26.000 -42 Mn 294.000 1076 Zn 21.000 75 Cu 3.000 208 3 14.000 17  Severe deficiency Adequate Little if any deficiency Little if any deficiency Slight to moderate deficiency Mo P deficiency; MID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) Actual or inducible S deficiency Mo S deficiency but NID possible Possible or near-deficiency Mo deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSSSMgSNSKSCafiBspsznSCuSMn  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga mensiesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU8 STAND AGE 8 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0* 0' elevation: 550 metresI SHAW W BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 3B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREDS-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. CURRENT YEAR % It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N l .340 -6 ? 0.270 ao X 0.300 23 Ca 0.230 2 11 8 Mg 0. 130 Element concentration ratios [ N/P 4.963 K/Ca 2.857 Ca/Mg 2.154 Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1301 - 1 9 I  M/S  | ^ 0.3081  |  Micronutrient status (ppm) Fe 1 30.000 -33 Mn 800.000 3100 Zn 20.000 1 667 9 Cu 7.000 S | 17.000 42  Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; MID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency Mo deficiency Mo deficiency No B deficiency; but MID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSSSNSCaSMgsKSBSZnspscuSMn  - 73 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU9 STAND AGE : 8 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 670 metresl CHEM C28 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees.  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR % or t DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (%) 8 N 0l . .259300 93 ? 0.700 8 K 0.290 16 Ca -ia 0.090 Mg Element concentration ratios : 5.276 N/P 2.414 K/Ca 3.222 Ca/Mg Sulfur analysis ( t ) : -6 S 100 .. 2ISO 00 N/S Micronutrient status-16 (ppm) : 38.000 Fe 362.000 1348 Mn 92 23.000 Zn 4.000 54 Cu 12.000 0 3  COMMENTS Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Slight to moderate deficiency No p deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No a deficiency; NID unlikely  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : MgSFesssasKSNSCaSCusznspSMn  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU0 STAND AGE : 15 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 550 metresl CHEM C29 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE 010 CURRENT YEAR I * It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (-4 t) N 1 .370 P 0.310 107 K 0.810 25 0.300 20 Ca 0. 100 -9 Mg Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.4191 I K/Ca 2.700 Ca/Mg I 3.0001 [ Sulfur analysis (t) : S ] 0.150 -6 1 N/S | 9. 133 J I Micronutrient status (ppm) : -4 Fe 43.000 Mn 362.000 1348 Zn 24.000 100 Cu 3.000 IS 3 14.000 17  Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Slight possibility of deficiency No 3 deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : MgSSS?eSNSCuS3SCaSKSZnSPSMn  - 74 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU1 STAND AGE : 10 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 400 metresl CHEM B7-1 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 4C HYGROTOPE CLASS : mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : VANILLA LEAF-WESTERN SWORD-FERN Diagnosis is based on analysis of 14 trees. SITE UI1 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR % or % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status (%) 1 N l .440 P . 0.250 67 K • 0.690 6 Ca 0.340 36 Mg 0.100 -9 Element concentration ratios : N/P 5.760 K/Ca 2.029 Ca/Mg 3.400 Sulfur analysis *> : S 0.160 0 N/S 9.000 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 25.000 -44 Mn 400.000 1500 Zn 25.000 108 Cu 2.000 -23 B 13.000 50  COMMENTS Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Possible or near-deficiencv.,. No S deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe i Cu s Mg i S S N SK s CaSBSPSZnSMn  POLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVU2 STAND AGE : 14 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metresl CHEM B7-2 3GCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 4C HYGROTOPE CLASS : mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : VANILLA LEAF-WESTERN SWORD-FERN Diagnosis is based on analysis of IS trees. SITE UI2 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * |* DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu.rient status (%) N 1.300 -8 0.280 87 p 0.610 -6 K 0.250 0 Ca 0.090 - 1 3 Mg Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.6431 I K/Ca 2.440 Ca/Mg | 2.7781 | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1501 -6 I  N/S  I 8.6671  |  Micronutrient status (ppm) Fe 20.000 -56 Mn 516.000 1964 Zn 20.000 67 Cu 1 .000 -62 3 14.000 17  Slight to moderate deficiency Adequate Little if any deficiency Little if any deficiency Slight to moderate deficiency Mo P deficiency; MID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency Possibly moderate deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : CuSPeSMgSNSSSKSCaSBSZnsPSMn  - 75 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU3 STAND AGE : 15 years LOCATO I N : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 460 metresl NWB J27-2 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diaanosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE U13 CURRENT YEAR * I % DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient (%2) N I status .250 -1 p 0.330 120 K 0.360 32 Ca 0.270 3 M g 0. 1 0 0 Element concentration-9ratios N/P I 3.7881 I K/Ca Ca/Mg | 2.7001 | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1501 -6 I N/S I 8.333| | Micronutrient status ( p p m ): -38 28.000 2876 Fe 744.000 25.000 ioa Znn M 3.000 1 6 . 0 0 0 33 Cu 15 B 3.185  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if.any deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely Possible Fe deficiency (No interpretation). S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency Slight possibility of deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSNSMgSSSCaSCuSKSBSZnSPSMn FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVU4 STAND AGE : IS years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0* 0' elevation: 460 metres! NWB J27-1 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 2B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic P L A N T A S S O C I A T I O N : S A L A L R E D H U C K L E B E R R Y Diagnosis SITE DM is based on analysis of 15 trees. CURRENT YEAR * I % DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient N l .2status 10 -(\) IS P 0.330 120 K 0.900 38 Ca 0.310 24 g ent concentration 0.110 0ratios EM lem N/P I 3.567! I K/Ca 2.903 Ca/Mg j 2 . 3 1 8 ] Sulfur analysis (%} : S I 0.1501 -S j N/S | 8.067J | Micronutrient status (ppm) : 27.0001 -40 458.000 1732 Zn 29.000 142 Cu 2.000 -23 9 15.000 25 [  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NIDare unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency NO deficiency Possible or near-deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSCuSMSSSMgSCaSBSKSPsznSMn  -  76 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU5 STAND AGS : 15 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0" 0' elevation: 460 metres! NWB F70 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHA2 EDATOPE : 3C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE U15 ELEMENT or RATIO  CURRENT YEAR * It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE  Macronutrient status (%) : N 1 . 180 -17 P 0.340 127 K 0.890 37 Ca 0.310 - 12 84 Mg 0.090 Element concentration ratios N/P | 3.471 | K/Ca 2.871 Ca/Mg | 3.444| | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1501 -6 I  N/S  | 7.8671  I  Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 38.000 -16 Mn 624.000 2396 Zn 20.000 67 Cu 6.000 131 3 18.000 50  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Slight to moderate deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NIO unlikely Possible or near-deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No a deficiency; but NIO is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : MgSNSFeSSSCaSKSBSZnSPSCuSMn  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU6 STAND ACE : 14 years LOCATION : latitude: 0* 0' longitude: 0* 0' elevation: 820 metres) NWB N 1 3 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 29 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub ieric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE U16 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (%) -15 N 1 .200 P 0.260 73 K 0.700 8 Ca 0.250 - 1 80 Mg 0.090 Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.615 K/Ca 2.800 Ca/Mg 2.778 Sulfur analysis %) -:1 9 S 0. 130 N/S 9.231 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 12.000 -73 Mn 408.000 1532 Zn 18.000 50 Cu 10.OOO 285 B 15.000 25  COMMENTS Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency Slight to moderate deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No 8 deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order ; Fe£S£Mg£N£Ca£K£S£Zn£P£Cu£Mn  - 77 -  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU7 STAND AGE : 10 years LOCATO I N : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0 0' elevation: 640 metres) NWB Bl 3-1 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : IB HYGHOTOPE CLASS : xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis SITE UI7 is based on analysis of 15 trees. s  ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or \ 1% DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N l .290 -9 P 0.290 9183 K 0.770 Ca 0.320 28 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios | N/P 4.446 K/Ca 2.406 Ca/Mg analysis 2.909(%) : 1 Sulfur S j 0.1601 0 I  N/S | 3.0621  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation)  j  Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 12.000 -73 Mn 468.000 1772 Zn 21.000 75 Cu 10.000 ' 285 B 20.000 67  No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : ?e i S i M9 i  S S n  Ca i  3 i  Zn S P s C u S Mn  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVU8 STAND AGS : 10 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0* elevation: 640 metres| NWB Bt3-2 B G C L S Y N T A X O DATmesotrophi OPE : 2Bc HYGROTOPE CLN ASS::CW suH bB4xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : suEb PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE 018 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (*) N l .260 -1 1 P 0.290 93 K 0.830 28 Ca 0.320 28 Mg 0. 100 -9 Element concentration ratios.: N/P 4.345 K ag 2. C/aC /M 3.5 294 00 Sulfur analysis %) : -« S 0.150 N/S 8.400 Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 9.000 -80 Mn 732.000 2828 Zn 24.000 100 Cu 10.000 235 B 22.000 92  COMMENTS Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Little if any deficiency .  No P deficiency; NID is unlikely ((N o interpretation) No interpretation) S deficiency and NID are unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FeSNSMgSSSKSCasaspsznSCuSMn  - 78 FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU9 STAND AGE : 3 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 700 metresl NWB 09 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 28 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE U19 CURRENT YEAR t It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (t) N 1 .240 -13 P 0.300 100 K 0.360 32 Ca 0.320 23 Mg 0.1 1Q 0 Element concentration ratios N/P I 4.1331 I K/Ca 2.637 Ca/Mg | 2.9091 | Sulfur analysis (t) : S 0.1701 6 I  N/S  I 7.2941  |  Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 18.000 -60 Mn 534.000 2036 Zn 25.000 108 Cu 11.000 323 3 16.000 33  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID is unlikely (No interpretation) (No interpretation) No S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : F i s « s u j i S i d s I i 1 s P i I J s Cu  i «•  FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVU0 STAND AGE : IS years LOCATION : latitude: 0 0' longitude: 0" 0' elevation: 460 metresl NWB J2S BGCL SYNTAXON": CWHA2 EDATOPE : 1B HYGROTOPE CLASS : xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE U20 s  ELEMENT or RATIO  CURRENT YEAR t It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE (t)  Macronutrient N . 1status 40 •20 P 0.290 93 K 46 0.950 24 0.310 Ca 0.090 Mg Element concentration ratios N/P I 3.9311 I K/Ca 3.065 Ca/Mg | 3.4441 | Sulfur analysis (t) : S I 0.1401 -13 I N/S  |  8.143|  |  Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 21.000 -53 Mn 601.000 2304 Zn 19.000 58 Cu 12.000 362 3 17.000 42  Severe deficiency Adequate Adequate Adequate Slight to moderate deficiency No P deficiency; NID is unlikely Possible Pe deficiency (No interpretation) Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely No S deficiency; NID unlikely Deficiency likely No deficiency No deficiency No deficiency No B deficiency; but NID is possible  Supply of nutrients in ranked order : PeSNSMgSSSCaSBSKSZnSPSCuSMn  - 79 APPENDIX  III  HEIGHT:AGE CURVES  FIGURE A-2. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #2 160 ISO (40  Legend  130-  * BURNED (N=I9)  120  UNBURNED {N=16>  110  • STANOARD ERROR  too  5 • hi  9080  A  7060  /--'''  50  X  /-'  40 30 20 10 0-  t  i  1  1  1  3  4  1  5  6  i 7  1  Slond Age (YRS)  FIGURE A-3. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #3  200  Legend  180  BURNED (N=K)  160  UNBURNED (N=I7)  x  2  140  X  120  o •  100  hi  80  I  Legend BURNED (N=I8) UNBURNED (M=I6) • STANDARD ERROR  60 40 20 I  0  1  1  1  2  1  3  4  1  1  5  Slond Age (YRS)  1  6  1  7  10  FIGURE A-4. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #4 220  • STANDARD ERROR  1  1  8  Slond Age (YRS)  /  FIGURE A-5. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #5  FIGURE A-6. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #6  FIGURE A-7. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #7  FIGURE A-8. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #8  4  5  6  Stand Age (YRS)  7  8  9  10  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  Stand Age (YRS)  FIGURE A-9. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #9  0-1 1 1 r — i 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Stand Age (YRS)  FIGURE A-12. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #12  FIGURE A-11. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #11 300280260240220S 20001 — 118 6 0X o UI 140I 120a cc- 1001 806040 200-  Legend  BURNEO (N=12) UNBURNED (N=6) • STANDARD ERROR  / /  X  z'  A'  / . I -  6  7  8  Stand Age (YRS)  /  I  9  1  FIGURE A-14. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #14  FIGURE A-13. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #13  220  2201  200  Legend  180  BURNED (N=1B)  160-  5  140  UNBURNED (N=I5) •  STANDARD ERROR  120 • X  100-  tl  80-  CK  60 40200 1 6  1 7  1 8  1 9  1 10  1 11  1 12  1 13  1 14  1 15  —r—  0 16  Stand Age (YRS)  -r—  1— 13  —I  10  12  Stand Age (YRS)  15  FIGURE A-16. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #16  FIGURE A-15. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #15  240 220  Legend  Legend  200  BURNED (N=I2)  BURNED (N=19) UNBURNED (N=12)  180 160  •  1  STANDARD ERROR  / .1  140 X  o X  UJ UI  EC  120 100 80 60 40 20  -1— 10  Stand Age (YRS)  •—I— 13  -1—  15  0 9  10  11  12  Stand Age (YRS)  I  FIGURE A-17. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #17 160-1  FIGURE A-18. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #18 180 •  '  1  30 2010 2  I  1  P  1  1  1  3  4  5  6  7  8  1 9  1  1  10  II  0-1—:—i 0  12  I  1— 1  1  r — l 1  1  1  1  1  2  «  5  8  9  10  II  3-  300-i  .—.  .  7  12  Stand Age (YRS)  Stand Age (YRS)  FIGURE A-19. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #19  6  c-  FIGURE A-20. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE # 2 0 300-1  —  !  1  280-  jX  4020-  Stand Age (YRS)  0-\ 5  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  6  7  8  9  10  II  12  13  14  15  Stand Age (YRS)  16  - 85 -  APPENDIX IV SOIL ANALYSIS RESULTS  Pyrophosphate B Horizon .1 Sample Designation B-l B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-9 B-10 B-ll B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 B-20 U-l U-2 U-3 U-4 U-5 U-6 U-8 U-7 U-8 U-9 U-10 U-ll U-12 U-13 U-14 U-15 U-16 U-17 U-18 U-19 U-20  Bf Bf Bm Bf Bm Bm Bf Bf Bm Bfj Bf Bm Bm Bm Bf Bf Bf Bm Bm Bm Bf Bf Bm Bm Bm Bfj Bf Bm Bjf Bf Bfj Bf Bm Bm Bm Bfj Bf Bm Bm Bm  %  %  Gravel  % Sand  % Silt  % Clay  Text. Class  % Org.C  OM  Fe  56 48 56 68 72 64 78 71 76 75 74 60 68 62 45 60 44 48 63 67 47 66 64 64 57 55 74 67 75 48 61 62 46 55 45 62 55 36 65 58  40 37 39 55 45 52 44 41 49 50 62 37 38 37 36 60 56 44 30 52 43 44 50 45 52 44 46 56 48 64 39 64 45 36 48 46 52 51 47 41  50 45 48 35 41 25 46 36 35 43 32 29 36 41 48 28 31 38 33 35 43 42 39 45 26 42 40 29 38 26 45 31 34 42 39 38 36 36 32 32  10 18 13 10 14 23 10 23 16 7 6 34 26 22 16 12 13 18 37 13 14 14 11 10 22 14 14 16 14 10 16 5 21 22 13 16 12 13 21 27  L/SiL L L SL L SCL L L .L L/SL SL CL L L L SL SL L CL L/SL L L L L SCL L L SL L SL L SL L L L L L/SL L L L/CL  1.62 2.09 1.42 1.63 1.75 1.66 2.70 2.79 2.83 1.88 2.75 1.87 1.78 1.86 4.05 2.97 2.67 2.55 2.79 1.51 1.85 1.99 1.50 1.64 1.80 1.55 2.57 1.46 2.20 2.88 2.37 2.79 1.29 2.53 1.24 2.06 3.65 2.03 2.15 1.80  2.79 3.60 2.45 2.81 3.02 2.86 4.66 4.81 4.89 3.09 4.74 3.22 3.07 3.21 6.98 5.12 4.60 4.40 4.81 2.60 3.19 3.43 2.59 2.83 3.10 2.67 4.43 2.52 3.79 4.96 4.09 4.81 2.22 4.36 2.14 3.55 6.29 3.50 3.71 3.10  0.27 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.41 0.66 0.30 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.28 0.24 0.33 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.49 0.24 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.26 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.81 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.19 0.30 0.31  Samples equal s i t e numbers with B i n d i c a t i n g burned areas and U i n d i c a t i n g unburned areas.  T Al 0.42 0.55 0.38 0.42 0.26 0.39 0.31 0.54 0.34 0.41 0.45 0.43 0.51 0.41 0.69 0.58 0.53 0.48 0.84 0.37 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.25 0.48 0.38 0.49 0.43 0.37 0.41 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.48 0.59 0.40 0.55 0.56  - 86 APPENDIX V.  Stocking Results by S i t e .  # Planted Douglas-fir Site #1  Site #2  Site #3  Site #4  Site #5  Site #6  Site #7  Site #8  Site #9  Site #10  Site #11  Site #12  Burned  1595  Unburned  +  # Crop Trees  86  1512  770  + 123  Burned  1375  Unburned  +  # Planted Crop Trees 86  1512  770  + 123  ± 135  1320  688  + 110  Burned  880  Unburned  +  % Stocking  86  100  715  + 123  75  + 123  1320  + 123  90  660  + 110  605  +  98  75  + 172  907  + 177  797  + 166  70  907  ± 170  962  + 154  742  + 134  75  Burned  880  + 128  880  + 128  880  + 128  80  Unburned  412  +  79  412  +  79  385  + 145  60  Burned  1045  + 125  1045  + 125  1017  + 122  90  Unburned  577  Burned  +  93  577  +  93  550  +  88  75  1100  + 119  1100  +  88  . 1072  +  93  95  Unburned  687  + 118  687  +  96  660  + 102  80  Burned  1210  + 129  1210  + 129  1210  + 129  90  Unburned  467  Burned  +  71  467  +  71  75  1320  + 100  1292  +  98  95  + 131  990  + 123  880  + 114  90  1100  + 126  1100  + 126  1100  + 126  90  Unburned  467  + 114  522  + 109  467  + 114  60  Burned  1128  + 123  1072  + 108  1072  + 108  95  Unburned  660  ± 135  605  + 118  605  + 118  70  Burned  440  +  85  440  +  85  440  +  85  70  Unburned  302  +  92  302  +  92  302  +  92  45  Burned  660  +  93  550  +  68  550  +  68  85  Unburned  770  + 151  632  +  99  632  +  99  80  71  467  1457  + 160  Unburned  1045  Burned  .  +  - 87 -  APP. V (cont).  # Planted Douglas-fir Site #13  Site #14  Site #15  Site #16  Site #17  Site #18  Site #19  Site #20  # Crop Trees  # Planted Crop Trees  % Stocking  Burned  1457  + 159  1320  + 138  1072  + 100  100  Unburned  907  + 126  1347  + 138  907  + 126  85  Burned  2310  + 162  1677  + 121  1512  + 104  100  Unburned  1787  + 221  1485  + 164  1292  + 145  95  Burned  440  +  84  550  +  97  440  +  84  65  Unburned  797  + 134  742  + 126  742  + 126  75  Burned  770  +  83  770  +  83  770  +  83  95  Unburned  412  +  77  412  +  77  412  +  77  65  Burned  1045  + 147  1210  + 129  990  + 141  85  Unburned  1127  + 179  115  + 190  962  + 153  85  Burned  990  + 109  962  + 111  935  + 113  95  Unburned  660  + 135  715  +  89  577  +  83  80  Burned  852  + 100  852  + 100  852  + 100  95  Unburned  605  + 104  660  + 116  605  + 104  75  Burned  1045  + 118  1320  + 121  1017  + 106  95  Unburned  522  + 115  605  + 122  440  +  60  93  Crop Tree = any healthy tree of the desired species at least 1.5 meters from any other crop tree.  - 88 APPENDIX VI.  Correlation Matrices by Sites  MPHT  = Mean Plot Tree Height of Planted Douglas-fir.  BPBD  = Mean Plot Basal Diameter of Planted Douglas-fir.  SAL HT = Height of S a l a l . Sal %  = Percent Cover of S a l a l .  MSE %  = Percent Mineral Soil Exposure.  CORRELATION MATRIX N- 35  DF» 33  <1> SITE:!  RP .1000- .2826  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R«» .0500= .3338  MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE .0100= .4296  VARIABLE 8. MPHT  1.0000  9. MPBD  .9265  1.000O  13.SALHT  - .3181  -.4835  1.0000  14. SALT.  -.6004  -.7251  .8110  1.0000  .3872  .4845  -.4807  -.6285  1.0000  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  15. MSEX  CO  CORRELATION MATRIX 34  DF= 32  <2> SITE:2  R* .1000= .2869  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Re .0500= .3388  MEAN TREE HEIGHT, PLOT MEAN B. D.. SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE  R9 .0100=  VARIABLE 8.MPHT  1.0000  9.MPBD  .9344  1.0000  13.SALHT  -.4599  -.4782  1.0000  14.SALX  -.7496  -.7682  .6363  1.OOOO  15.MSE5J  .5182  .6072  -.3646  -.5481  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  1 .OOOO 15. MSE%  "CORRELATION N=  30  MATRIX  DF = 28  Re  <3> .1000=  SITE:3 .3061  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Re  .0500=  .3610  Re  MEAN TREE HEIGHT. .0100=  PLOT MEAN B.  D..  SALAL HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND %  MSE  .4629  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .8709  1 .0000  13.SALHT  -.3827  -.3837  1.0000  14.SAL%  -.5299  -.5020  .6399  1.0000  15.MSE%  -.1262  -.1517  -.3459  -.2743  1.0000  14. SAL%  15. MSE /.  8.  9.  13.  MPHT  MPBD  SALHT  0  i  O I  CORRELATION 28  DF=  MATRIX 26  Re  <4> .1000=  SITE:4 .3172  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R»  .0500=  .3739  MEAN TREE HEIGHT. Re  .0100=  VARIABLE 8.MPHT 9.MPBD  1.OOOO  . 899 1  1 .0000  13.SALHT  -.5326  -.7160  1.0000  14.SAL%  -.6393  -.7958  .9393  1.OOOO  15.MSE%  .6502  .7592  -.7689  -.8113  1.OOOO  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  13. SALHT  PLOT MEAN B.  D.,  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND %  MSE  CORRELATION MATRIX N=  33  DF = 31  R@  <5> .1000=  SITE:5 .2913  CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. Re  .0500=  .3440  Re  .0100=  PLOT MEAN B.  D..  SALAL HEIGHT.  SALAL % COVER.  AND % MSE  .4421  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .6749  1.0000  13.SALHT  .0631  .0424  1.0000  14.SAL%  .0922  -.0761  .7794  1.0000  15.MSE%  -.0607  .0890  -.4943  -.6410  1.0000  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  8.  9.  13.  MPHT  MPBD  SALHT  l  CORRELATION MATRIX N= 35  DF=  33  Re  <6> .1000=  SITE:6 .2826  C O R R E L A T I O N S — P L O T MEAN TREE HEIGHT. Re  .0500=  .3338  Re  .0100=  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.OOOO  9 . MPBD  .8477  1.0000  13.SALHT  -.5668  -.7418  1.0000  14.SAL%  -.5041  -.7860  .7417  1.0000  15.MSE%  .3561  .5767  -.5721  -.7243  1.0000  8.  9.  13.  MPHT  MPBD  SALHT  14. SAL%  15. MSE /. 0  .4296  PLOT MEAN B.  D..  SALAL HEIGHT.  SALAL % COVER.  AND % MSE  ' CORRELATION 34  MATRIX  DF = 32  Re  <7> .1000=  SITE:7 .2869  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Re  .0500=  .3388  MEAN TREE HEIGHT,  PLOT MEAN B.  D.,  SALAL H E I G H T .  SALAL % COVER,  AND % MSE  R » .0100=  VARIABLE 8.MPHT  1.OOOO  9.MPBD  .9252  1.0000  13.SALHT  -.3378  -.4774  1.0000  14. SAL74  -.5059  -.6185  .8250  1.0000  15.MSE%  .3765  .4831  - .5292  -.7270  1.0000  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL5S  15. MSE%  ro  CORRELATION N=  37  MATRIX  DF«= 35  Re  <8> .1000=  SITE:8 .2746  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Re  .0500"  .3246  Re  MEAN TREE HEIGHT, .0100=  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.OOOO  9 . MPBD  .6722  1.0000  13.SALHT  .2969  -.2573  1.0000  14.SAL7.  .3926  -.2594  .8681  1.0000  15.MSE%  -.2628  -.6063  -.6826  . 2645  8.  9.  MPHT  MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  1.0000 15. MSE%  .4182  PLOT MEAN B.  D.,  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL % COVER,  AND % MSE  • C O R R E L A T I O N MATRIX N » 28  D F " 26  Re  <9> .1000=  SITE:9 .3172  CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. R » .0500=  .3739  Re  .0100=  PLOT MEAN B . D. , SALAL HEIGHT.  SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE  .4785  VARIABLE 8. MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .8242  1.0000  13.SALHT  -.0464  -.1605  1 .OOOO  14.SAL%  -.1555  -.3093  .0582  1.OOOO  15.MSEX  -.1423  -.0474  . 1224  -.2661  1 .0000  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  CORRELATION MATRIX N= 33  D F « 31  Re  <10> .1000=  SITE:10 .2913  CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. Re  .0500=  .3440  Re  .0100=  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .9201  1.OOOO  13.SALHT  - . 1110  -.0915  1.OOOO  14.SAL*  -.1924  -.2135  .5114  1.0000  15.MSE%  . 1795  .2331  -.3004  -.6459  1.0000  B. MPHT  9. MPBD  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  13. SALHT  .4421  PLOT MEAN B.  D..  SALAL HEIGHT.  SALAL % COVER, AND % MSE  CORRELATION MATRIX N= 20  DF= 18  <11> SITE: 11  Ri? .1000= .3783  CORRELATIONS--PLOT  R« .0500= .4438  MEAN TREE HEIGHT, PLOT MEAN B. 0.. SALAL HEIGHT, SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE  R<?> .0100= .5614  VARIABLE 8. MPHT  1.OOOO  9. MPBD  .9751  1.OOOO  13.SALHT  -.4345  -.51 17  1.0000  14.SALH  -.5542  -.5890  .7688  1.0000  15.MSE%  .4434  .5261  -.6050  -.4074  1.0000  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  CORRELATION MATRIX N= 33  DF= 31  <12> SITE:12 .1000= .2913  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R*> .0500= .3440  MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. 0., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER, AND % MSE  R& .0100= .4421  VARIABLE 8. MPHT  1.0000  9. MPBD  .8690  1 .OOOO  13.SALHT  .3171  . 1680  1.0000  14.SAL%  -.0757  -.0735  .4742  1.0000  15.MSE%  .0358  .0711  -.2956  -.3647  1.0000  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  CORRELATION 37  DF =  MATRIX 35  R«>  <13> . 1000=  SITE:13 .2746  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R9  .0500=  .3246  m  MEAN  TREE  HEIGHT.  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D.,  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND  % MSE  .0100=  VARIABLE 8.MPHT  1.0000  9.MPBD  .9330  1.0000  13.SALHT  -.1923  -.2043  1.0000  14.SALX  -.2478  -.2464  .7191  1.0000  15.MSE%  -.0939  -.0962  -.0530  -.0600  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  1.0000  14.  15. MSE%  SAL?,  ID  cn  CORRELATION N=  39  MATRIX  DF = 3 7  R©  <14> .1000=  SITE:14 .2673  CORRELATIONS--PLOT K9  .0500=  .3160  RO  MEAN .0100=  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .9486  1.0000  -.4068  - .5385  -.3634  -.4721  13.SALHT 14.SALX 15.MSE%  . 1980 8. MPHT  . 1889 9. MPBD  1 .OOOO .7794  t  -.  1965  13. SALHT  1.0000 -.3542  1.0000  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  TRE.E  HEIGHT.  .4076  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D..  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND  % MSE  ' CORRELATION N=  29  MATRIX  DF = 2 7  R<?  <15> .1000=  SITE:15 .3115  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R»>  .0500=  .3673  R»  MEAN .0100=  TREE  HEIGHT.  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D..  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND  % MSE  .4705  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .9510  1.0000  13.SALHT  . 357 1  .2506  1.0000  14.SAL%  . 1186"  .0048  .7195  1.O000  1929  -.1122  -.4437  -.4499  1.OOOO  14 . SAL%  15. MSE%  15.MSE%  -. 8.  9.  13.  MPHT  MPBD  SALHT  l  CORRELATION 31  DF =  MATRIX 29  R@  <16> .1000=  SITE:16 .3009  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R»>  .0500=  . 3550  R*  MEAN .0100=  VARIABLE 8.MPHT  1.0000  9.MPBD  .9094  1.OOOO  13.SALHT  .3418  .2951  1.0000  14.SAL%  -.1428  -.1796  .2362  1.0000  15.MSEX  .2722  .3054  . 1646  -.3313  1.0000  13. SALHT  14. SAL%  15. MSE%  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  TREE  HEIGHT.  PLOT  MEAN  B.  0..  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND  % MSE  " CORRELATION N-  34  DF-  MATRIX 32  R*  <17> .1000=  SITE:17 .2869  CORRELATIONS--PLOT R*»  .0500=  .3388  Re  MEAN  TREE  .0100=  HEIGHT,  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D..  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  % COVER.  AND  X  MSE  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D.  SALAL  HEIGHT,  SALAL  X  COVER,  AND  X  MSE  .4357  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.0000  9 . MPBD  .9178  1.0000  13.SALHT  -.0461  -.1359  1.0000  14.SAL%  -.  -.2599  .7476  1.0000  -.6086  -.6307  .0800  15.MSEX  CORRELATION 35  DF=  1576  Re  1 .OOOO  8.  9.  13.  14.  15.  MPHT  MPBD  SALHT  SALX  MSEX  MATRIX 33  .1346'  <18> .1000=  SITE:18 .2826  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Re  .0500=  MEAN  .3338  VARIABLE 8.MPHT  1.0000  9.MPBD  .9288  1.OOOO  13.SALHT  .0928  .0616  1.0000  14.SALX  -.1160  -.1375  .7167  15.MSEX  -.0984  -.1314  -.2459  8. MPHT  9. MPBD  13. SALHT  1 .0000 -.27B1 14. SALX  1.0000 15. MS E X  TREE  HEIGHT.  t  CORRELATION N=  34  MATRIX  OF = 32  <19>  Re  . IOOO=  SITE:19 .2869  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Rt>  .0500=  .3388  Re  MEAN .0100=  TREE  HEIGHT.  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D.,  SALAL  HEIGHT,  SALAL  % COVER,  AND  X  MSE  .4357  VARIABLE 8 . MPHT  1.OOOO  9 . MPBD  .9561  I .OOOO  13.SALHT  -.0389  -.0686  1.0000  14.SALX  -.4873  -.5014  .6553  1.0000  15.MSEX  .2840  .3497  -.4746  -.5778  1.0000  8.  9.  13.  14.  15.  MPHT  MPBD  SALHT  SALX  MSEX  i UD  00 I  CORRELATION 31  DF=  MATRIX 29  R«>  <20> . 1000=  S1TE:20 .3009  CORRELATIONS--PLOT Re  .0500=  .3550  Re  MEAN .0100=  VARIABLE 8.MPHT  1.OOOO  9.MPBD  .9295  13.SALHT  . 1570  . 1749  14.SALX  . 1999  .2820  .7594  1.0000  15.MSEX  .0064  .0976  -.2438  -.2423  8. MPHT  1.OOOO  9. MPBD  *»  1.0000  13. SALHT  1.0000  14.  15.  SALX  MSEX  TREE  HEIGHT,  PLOT  MEAN  B.  D..  SALAL  HEIGHT.  SALAL  X  COVER,  AND  X  MSE  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096325/manifest

Comment

Related Items