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 . S c , Southern I l l i no 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 t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f f~h/te-S'/y^/ The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) - i i -ABSTRACT Twenty Douglas-fir plantations, ranging from 5 to 15 years o ld , 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. In each plantation, part of the area has been burned and part was unburned. Stocking of planted Douglas-firs was found to be greater on the burned than on the unburned areas of 16 sites and height growth of planted Douglas-firs was greater on the burned than on the unburned areas of 18 s i tes . Some degree of nitrogen deficiency was inferred for 17 s i tes , but was not attributed to burning. Height and percent cover of salal was greater on unburned areas. 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. - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i 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 17 3.1 Stocking 17 3.2 Cumulative Growth 21 3.3 Annual Height Growth Trends 25 3.4 Salal 28 3.5 Salal-tree Interactions 33 3.6 Fol iar Nutrient Concentrations 37 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 43 LITERATURE CITED 44 APPENDIX I Soil/Landform Description Forms 47 APPENDIX II Foliar 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 Information Soils Information Summary of Stocking Data Height, Basal Diameter, and Browsing of Planted Douglas-fir Height and Percent Cover of Sa la 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 Salal . Number of Sites Significant at 0.1 or Greater. T-Test Results on Foliar Nutrient Concentrations Summary of Foliar 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 Ltd. for their financial and techni-cal support, and Terry Rollerson for his help on the soi ls 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 Act, as admin-istered 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. I wish to thank Bev Wilson and Liz Steele for processing of the manuscript. Special thanks must go -to Peg Thesing for l imitless patience and constant support throughout the entire time of the project. - 1 -1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW The projected f a l l down in timber supply has caused forest managers to look closely at the future crop of trees. There is currently a high level of concern about the quality of reforestation on Bri t i sh Columbia's forest lands. The amount and kind of s iIvicultural treatment are being more carefully considered. Up to the mid-1970s, broadcast burning of logging slash was done1 primarily for hazard reduction. In the late 1970s, concerns about the effects of slashburning on site productivity were being expressed. As a result of th i s , the Ministry of Forests drast ical ly reduced the number of burning permits issued for hazard reduction and hectares burned f e l l from 37,000 ha in 1966 (Brit ish Columbia 1966) to 3,000 ha in 1979 (Brit ish Columbia 1979). The new philosophy which emerged was that f i re should be used as a s i lv i cu l tura l tool for site preparation and only on sites where the ecological damage was minimal. This philosophy led to considerable debate over what types of sites were suitable for the application of f i r e . Before using prescribed burning as part of a s i lv i cu l tura l program, more information is needed concerning f i re ' s effects on the productivity of the s i te . The present l i terature on f i re 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 Fel ler (1982). In a l l cases, the authors have found conflicting evidence on various f i re effects. Fel ler (1982) states, "A notable - 2 -feature of the l i terature on slashburning is that for any effect reported in one study, i t is usually possible to find the opposite effect reported in another study." This being the case, few generali-zations concerning f i re effects can be stated with confidence. Inherent in the problem of apparent conflicts in the l i terature is the need for more site or ecosystem-specific information. Boyer and Dell (1980) f e l t that the confusion or contradiction in the l i terature was due to incomplete data on, or definition of, conditions on the area studied. Fel ler (1982) relates that much of the l i terature 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 ires themselves. It has been recognized by most reviewers that intensity and duration or depth of burn are significant factors in determing the effects. The omission of specific information relating to the ecosystems in which studies are done results in the inabi l i ty to extrapolate the findings of such studies to other areas. Without recognizing th i s , researchers may use inappropriate findings to support their own conclusions. This increases the confusion and undermines the search for clear answers. The l i terature on the effects of prescribed burning on the early growth of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) has not escaped this confusion. The l i terature shows that one group of researchers have concluded that burning had a positive effect on subsequent growth of Douglas-fir seedlings (Bever 1954, Mil ler et a l . 1974, Morris 1970, Steen 1966, Tarrant and Wright 1955). Other studies have shown that the - 3 -effects of burning on Douglas-fir regeneration were negative (Baker 1968, Baker and Phelps 1969, Isaac 1938, Knight 1964). S t i l l others found mixed results (Gockerell 1966, Jablanczy 1964). Therefore, there are no conclusive answers that can be stated regarding this subject. The need for ecosystem-specific information has been identif ied. 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 soi ls are usually dry and nutrient-poor. The l i terature relating direct ly to burning implications on these types of sites is very limited. Knight (1964) studied sites on southwest Vancouver Island and reported lower i n i t i a l growth on burned areas. Climate and other factors di f fer greatly on southwest Vancouver Island in comparison with the dry conditions prevalent on the sites on eastern Vancouver Island studied here. Typical ly , these west Vancouver Island sites have 2.5 times the mean precipitation (April - September) and one-tenth the water def ic i t of their east Vancouver Island counter-parts (Klinka et a l . 1979). They also do not have the salal brush problem. Jablanczy (1964), in his study at the University of Bri t i sh Columbia Research Forest, delineates the characteristics of a salal s i te . He describes these sites as having "mineral soi l seldom over one-half inch in thickness." While portions of some of the sites studied here approach this situation of shallow mineral soi l layers over bedrock, the mineral soi l layer on other sites was over one meter in depth and most sites f a l l somewhere in between. Jablanczy's salal sites therefore represent the most extreme soil conditions. On these sites Jablanczy reports best growth on moderately burned sites and worst on severely burned s i tes , with unburned sites 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. Most recent U.S. Forest Service designations (Boyer and Dell 1980) define any surface temperatures greater than 500°C (930°F) as severe burning in clearcuts. By these standards, Jablanczy's "moderate" burn, with subsurface temperatures of 1000°F, would be classed as "severe". The results from Jablanczy's laboratory study using soil 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 ld conditions. Even so, Jablanczy's study comes closest to giving an indication of the impact of burning on tree growth on these types of s ites. In general, the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Vancouver Region Guidelines for Prescribed Burning recommend against burning sites that are dry and nutrient-poor (Klinka 1977). The newer guidelines (Klinka et a l . 1984) refer to these sites as moderately to highly sensitive and recommend stringently controlled, low intensity burns at most. Many sites on eastern Vancouver Island are dominated by salal and are preferred sites for Douglas-fir. They appear to have a moisture deficiency and a range of nutrient regimes. Site preparation on these sites is a contentious issue and since the l i terature can provide no clear indications, they must be studied carefully to determine i f burning results in unacceptable site deterioration. - 5 -This study examined the effects of burning on the productivity of these s i tes . The performance of the Douglas-fir plantations was used as the indicator of s ite productivity. The objective of this thesis research was to examine the effects of slashburning on stocking, growth and nutrition 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 re effects on salal and salal relationships with Douglas-fir stocking, growth and nutri t ion. However, these were not major objec-tives of the study and did not influence sampling design. Newer site treatment records contain more detail than older records. Inference of f i re severity, location of plantation boundaries and identif ication 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 old. 2.0 METHODS Twenty sites 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 site supported a 5- to 15-year-old Douglas-fir plantation, and had been part ia l ly burned and part ia l ly unburned before planting. An important cr i ter ion for site selection was that both burned and unburned portions of a site must have v ir tual ly identical s ite characteristics in terms of aspect, slope angle, surface morphology, surf ic ia l materials, soi l type (depth and texture), planting stock and planting time. The area in which the study sites are located is the leeward slopes of the Vancouver Island Mountains. The underlying bedrock is typical ly volcanic or sedimentary. Most sites are on t i l l s of variable thickness. The soi ls are brunisols or podzols, with mor humus forms. 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 precipitation is 2060 mm, April-September precipitation is 404 mm, and mean annual temperature is 8 . 7 ° C . In the CWHbg, mean annual precipitation is 1904 mm, April-September precipitation is 373 mm, and mean annual temperature is 6 . 4 ° C . The climatic and f l o r i s t i c characteristics are described in detail in Klinka et a l . (1979). At each s i t e , general site information was recorded. This included aspect, elevation, slope angle, year logged, year burned, and year planted (see Table I). A summary of the soi ls information is found in Table II. For each s i te , general soils information was recorded, including landform surface morphology, soi l type and a brief profi le FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF STUDY AREA T a b l e I . S i t e I n f o r m a t i o n Burn T r o p h o t o p e S i t e S i t e S e v e r i t y E l e v a t i o n Slope B6C and I n d e x S t o c k H i s t o r y ( y e a r ) mber L o c a t i o n Age Aspec t C lass (m) (%) Subzone Hygro tope (m) Type Logged Burned P l a n t e d 1 Shaw U6B 1 8 SE h i g h 610 20 CWHb C-2 24 2 - 0 72 - 73 - 76 2 Shaw U6B 2 8 SW h i g h 610 20 CWHb C-2 24 2 - 0 72 - 73 - 76 3 Shaw U 3 6 SE med 490 10 CWHa B-2 24 2 - 0 77 - 77 - 78 4 Shaw S5g 9 SW h i g h 610 10 CWHa B - l 24 2 - 0 71 - 72 - 75 5 Shaw W l l ^ 8 S h i g h 550 50 CWHb C-2 24 2 - 0 72 - 73 - 76 6 Shaw W l l 2 8 SW h i g h 550 30 CWHb C-3 24 2 - 0 72 - 73 - 76 7 Shaw L70 8 S h i g h 670 20 CWHb B-2 21 2 - 0 73 - 75 - 76 8 Shaw W 8 S h i g h 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 h i g h 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 Table I (cont). Burn Trophotope Site Number Site Location Age Aspect Severity Class Elevation (m) Slope [%) BGC Subzone and Hygrotope Index (m) Stock Type History (year Logged Burned Planted 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 B132 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. Soils Information Site No. Slope Position Surface Morphology Surficial Material Depth to Bedrock (cm) Texture 1 lower Mb1 t i l l 100+ loam/sandy loam 2 upper to mid Mb to Mv^  t i l " 50-100+ loam 3 upper Mb t i l l 80+ loam 4 upper Mv t i l 1 20-80 loam/sandy loam 5 mid Mb to Mv t i V 80-100+ loam 6 mid to lower Mb t i l " 100+ sandy clay loam 7 upper to mid Mb to Mv t i l " 60-90+ loam 8 lower Mb t i l 1 100+ loam/sandy loam 9 mid Mb to Mv t i l 1 90+ loam 10 mid Mb t i l ' 100+ loam/sandy loam 11 lower Mb t i l l 80+ loam/sandy/loam 12 lower F f 3 f l u v ial 90+ sandy loam 13 crest Mb to Mv t i l " 80+ loam/clay loam 14 upper Mb to Mv t i l ' 80+ loam 15 mid to upper Mb t i l " 90+ loam 16 upper Mb to Mv t i l " 40-80+ loam 17 mid Mv t i l ' 30-80 loam/sandy loam 18 mid (bench) Mv t i l ' 20-60 loam/sandy loam 19 mid Mb to Mv t i l 70 loam 20 upper Mv t i l 1 30-50 loam/clay loam Morainal blanket Morainal veneer Fluvial fan - 11 -description (see Appendix I). Soil analysis was done in order to ascertain that both burned and unburned areas had similar soi ls (see Appendix IV). Vegetation was assessed so that i t , along with other data mentioned, could be used to assign each site 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 ircular plots were established within each s i te; 20 in the burned area and 20 in the unburned area. Plots were located in a 10 meter by 10 meter gr id , 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 ta l les t planted Douglas-fir. Estimations of percent mineral soi l exposure and percent cover of sa la l . Salal height. Browse damage. - 12 -One of the variables influencing f i re effects is the intensity of the burn. No data on the intensity of the burns on the study sites were available. No quantitative assessment of f i re intensity was possible. In l ieu of th i s , a qualitative estimate of the severity of the burn was made for each s i te . This was done by examining the characteristics of the fuel present on the burned areas of each s i te , and determining the difference in the percent of mineral soi l exposed on the burned versus the unburned area of each s i te . Severity was c lass i f ied at 3 levels - - low, medium and high (see Figure 2). Low severity was characterized by the presence of fine fuels (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 soi l exposure (0-4) between burned and unburned areas. Medium severity was charac-terized by absence of fine fuels , some consumption of medium and large fuels , heavy charring of stumps and also a small to moderate difference in percent mineral soi l exposure (0-15). High severity was charac-terized by absence of a l l fine and most medium fuels , considerable consumption of large fuels and stumps, and a large difference in percent mineral soi l exposure (15-60). Foliar sampling was done on a l l sites in late f a l l 1982 after dormancy began. Fifteen randomly selected planted Douglas-fir trees from each site portion (burned and unburned) were sampled. Only current year's foliage was collected. Where possible, only third-whorl foliage was collected. When more material was needed than the third whorl could provide, material was collected successively from those whorls closest to the th ird . For analysis, equal amounts of foliage were combined to form 5 composite samples, each representing 3 trees. - 13 -Figure 2a. Representative area of low burn severity FIGURE 2. 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 sulfuric acid and 30% hydrogen peroxide (Parkinson and Allen 1975), diluted to 75 mL with d i s t i l l e d H20 and analyzed colorimetrically for N and P in a Technicon Auto Analyzer II. Using the same solutions, analysis for K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Na, Mn, and Zn was done by atomic absorption spectro-photometry. Sulfur was determined using a Leco Sulfur Analyzer. Boron was analyzed using the method of Gaines and Mitchell (1979). Comparisons of the following parameters are made between the burned and unburned areas of each site using t-tests: - height and basal diameter of trees - f o l i ar nutrient concentrations of sampled Douglas-fir - height and percent cover of sa la l . Correlation analysis was done for tree height and basal diameter of planted Douglas-fir, height and percent cover of salal and percent mineral soi l exposure for each s i te . Internode measurements were used to develop height-over-age curves for the burned and unburned areas of each s i te . Browsing was tabulated by the number of trees browsed and the percentage of trees browsed for each area of each s i te . 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 -Fol iar 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 Br i t i sh Columbia by Dr. T.M. Ballard. The program has brought together the results of f o l i ar analysis research in relation to Douglas-fir nutrient def i -ciencies and used them to determine diagnostic c r i t e r i a . The cr i t er ia can be found in Ballard (1980). - 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 III). Three plantations were found to have equivalent stocking (within 100 trees/ha) on both areas. 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 sites 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 site met the stocking objectives, and here the burned area was also fu l ly stocked. Of the 20 sites sampled, 11 sites had fu l l stocking on the burned area and less than f u l l stocking of the unburned area. On none of the 20 sites 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 this study, which uses small-radius c ircular plots, i t is expressed as the percent of the plots which have at least one healthy planted Douglas-fir crop tree within the plot , and is an indication of the spatial distribution of planted trees (see - 18 -Table III. Summary of Stocking Data Number of sites where stocking was greater on burned areas: Number of sites where stocking was greater on unburned areas: Number of sites where stocking was equal (within 100 trees/ha): Number of sites fu l ly stocked (1100 Trees/ha ± 5 0 ) : p i . Df.' CR.' p i . CR.1 % d p i . Df. CR. p i . CR. % p i . Df. CR. p i . CR. % Burned Unburned 16 sites 15 sites 16 sites 14 sites 1 site 1 site 1 site 0 sites 3 sites 4 sites 3 sites 6 sites 13 sites 2 sites a p i . Df. = planted Douglas-fir k CR = 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 III). On 14 of the 20 s i tes , the percent stocking is greater on the burned area. On the other 6 sites percent stocking is approximately equal (within 10%) for the two areas. It appears from these results that stocking is l ike ly to be better on this type of site after burning. To get an indication of the magnitude of the increase (in trees/ha) by inferred burn severity, a comparison was made. Figure 3 shows the difference in number of trees between burned and unburned areas according to the three severity classes. The low and medium severities show almost identical results. Both show a moderate increase (242 trees/ha and 243 trees/ha respectively) and a large variation. 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 salal s i tes , one concern is for establishment and early survival . 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 sites indicates that this was not the case on these s i tes , 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 relation to survival , the impact of burning on these sites must be considered positive. - 20 -Legend X 90 % CONFIDENCE UMirS LOW MEDIUM HIGH BURN SEVERITY FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF PLANTED DOUGLAS-FIR PER HECTARE BY WHICH BURNED AREAS EXCEED UNBURNED AREAS BY SEVERITY CLASS Legend • 90 7. COWEENd UMTS LOW MEDIUM HIGH BURN SEVERITY 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 sites was greater on the burned areas (Table IV). On 15 of these 18 sites the difference was s ta t i s t i ca l ly s ignif icant. On one site the height was greater on the unburned area (but the difference was not s ta t i s t i ca l ly s igni f icant) , and on one s i te , the height was equal. 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 increase (38%), compared to low-severity sites (13%). Eighteen of the 20 sites showed larger basal diameters of planted Douglas-fir on burned areas with sixteen being s ignif icantly larger. Two sites had larger basal diameters on the unburned areas but neither was s ta t i s t i ca l l y s ignif icant. 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 ta l ly 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 sites showing significant differences in height growth. However, on the only two sites which did not show greater heights on the burned areas when comparing a l l planted Table IV. Height, Basal Diameter and Browsing of Planted Douglas-fir. Ht. P i . (m)a Df. B.D. Pi 1 • (cm)b Df. Sample Size Ht. (m)c UNB. p i . Df. B.D. (cm)d UNB. p i . Df. No. of Browsed Trees I of Trees Browsed Site #1 Burned 1.16 ± .39 e 2.88 + .83 e 58 1.36 ± .27 e 3.34 ± .74 e 38 65 Unburned .71 ± .33 1.66 + .79 28 .79 ± .32 1.65 ± .71 17 60 Site #2 Burned 1.22 ± .30 e 2.72 + .75 e 50 1.4 ± .27 e 2.98 ± .73 e 28 56 Unburned .74 ± .37 1.31 + .75 25 .74 ± .37 1.3 ± .75 0 0 Site #3 Burned .68 ± .29 e 1.39 + .69 e 32 .89 ± .24 e 1.85 ± .57 e 16 50 Unburned .52 ± .20 .91 + .41 33 .54 ± .22 1.0 ± .44 9 27 Site #4 Burned 1.8 ± .66 e 4.26 ± 1.27 e 33 1.86 ± .61 e 4.39 ± 1.15 e 4 12 Unburned .79 ± .33 1.27 + .63 15 .76 ± .35 1.18 ± .64 2 13 Site #5 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 Site #6 Burned 1.22 ± .33 e 3.14 + . 7 e 40 1.32 ± ,37 e 3.27 ± .77 e 32 80 Unburned .95 ± .32 1.98 + .7 25 .88 ± .27 1.76 ± .55 12 48 Site #7 Burned 1.15 ± .42 e 2.84 + 1.0 e 44 1.53 ± . 5 e 3.53 ± 1.17 6 38 86 Unburned .67 ± .37 1.54 + .71 17 .68 ± .34 1.53 ± .70 11 64 Site #8 Burned .92 ± .3 2.19 + .52 e 53 1.0 ± .34 2.27 ± .51 e 33 62 Unburned 1.03 ± .39 1.8 + .71 38 1.0 ± .38 1.75 ± .59 10 26 T a b l e IV ( c o n t ) H t . p i ( D f . B . D . P i ( c m ) b D f . S i t e #9 B u r n e d 1 .29 + . 4 3 2 . 7 5 + . 9 U n b u r n e d 1.27 + . 4 1 2 . 8 1 + . 9 S i t e #10 B u r n e d 2 . 5 2 + . 7 3 e 5 . 6 3 + 1.76" Unburned 1.77 + . 66 4 . 2 3 + 1.68 S i t e #11 B u r n e d 2 . 3 1 + . 8 5 e 4 . 9 1 + 1.99' tr U n b u r n e d 1 .48 + . 7 1 2 . 7 5 + 1.42 S i t e #12 B u r n e d 3 . 9 2 + 1 . 0 6 e 7 . 8 8 + 1.61* Unburned 2 . 6 3 + . 99 5 . 2 6 + 2 . 1 3 S i t e #13 B u r n e d 1 .81 + 1 . 6 1 e 3 . 4 3 + l . l l ' U n b u r n e d . 9 3 + . 26 1 .95 + . 6 1 S i t e #14 B u r n e d 1.6 + 1 . 0 e 3 . 2 5 + 1.09 1 Unburned 1 .0 + . 3 8 2 . 1 3 + . 8 7 S i t e #15 B u r n e d 2 . 1 2 + 1.02 4 . 2 1 + 1 .74 U n b u r n e d 2 . 0 9 + 1 . 0 3 4 . 1 1 + 1.77 S i t e #16 B u r n e d 1 .70 + . 5 9 e 3 . 9 8 + 1.34' Unburned 1.14 + . 4 6 2 . 6 2 + 1.21 . No . o f % o f Sample H t . (m) B . D . (cm) B r o w s e d T r e e s S i z e UNB. P i . D f . UNB. P i . D f . T r e e s B r o w s e d 39 1 .4 + . 3 6 2 . 7 1 + . 7 19 48 17 1 .26 + . 4 3 2 . 6 9 + . 8 9 4 23 41 2 . 6 8 + . 6 3 e 5 . 9 8 + 1 . 5 7 e 5 12 25 1 . 9 1 + . 6 2 4 . 4 5 + 1.7 5 20 16 2 . 5 1 + . 8 5 e 5 . 3 9 ± 2 . 0 e 6 37 11 1 .48 + . 8 2 . 8 + 1 .58 2 18 24 3 . 9 2 + 1 . 0 6 e 7 . 8 8 + 1 . 6 1 e 0 0 28 2 . 8 0 + . 9 1 5 . 5 1 + 2 . 1 1 3 10 53 1 .88 + . 5 9 e 3 . 5 3 + 1 . 1 3 e 8 15 33 . 9 3 + . 2 8 1 . 9 2 + . 6 2 5 15 85 1 .71 + . 6 e 3 . 4 5 + 1 . 1 2 e 17 20 71 1 .02 + . 3 7 2 . 1 7 + . 8 8 5 7 16 2 . 6 8 + . 9 4 5 . 3 6 + 1 . 5 3 8 50 28 2 . 2 2 + 1 .05 4 . 3 5 + 1 . 7 8 4 14 28 1 .7 + . 5 9 3 . 9 8 + 1 . 3 4 0 0 15 • 1 .25 + . 4 2 2 . 8 8 + 1 .2 3 20 T a b l e IV ( c o n t ) . H t . P i . ( m ) a Df . B.D. P i . ( c m ) b Df . Sample S ize H t . UNB. | ( m ) C p i . D f . B.D. UNB. . ( c m ) d p i . D f . No. o f Browsed T rees % o f T rees Browsed S i t e #17 Burned 1.27 ± . 5 f 2.75 ± 1 . 1 2 f 39 1.37 ± . 4 1 f 2 . 9 5 + 1 . 0 7 f 14 36 Unburned 1.09 ± .42 2 . 1 2 ± .75 41 1.19 ± . 4 1 2 . 2 7 + . 7 6 18 43 S i t e #18 Burned 1.03 ± . 4 5 e 2 . 1 3 ± . 9 8 e 36 1.35 ± . 3 9 e 2 . 7 9 + , 9 3 e 18 50 Unburned .76 ± . 2 3 1.45 ± .57 24 . 8 4 ± . 2 1 1.62 + . 5 1 7 29 S i t e #19 Burned 1.81 ± . 8 2 e 3 .94 ± 1.77 31 2 . 0 ± . 7 5 e 4 . 2 3 + 1 . 7 7 e 5 16 Unburned . 8 ± .33 1.53 ± .69 22 . 8 3 ± . 3 4 1.59 + .7 4 18 S i t e #20 Burned 2 .42 ± . 7 3 4 . 7 6 ± 1.18 40 2 . 5 4 ± . 6 4 4 . 9 4 + 1.09 4 10 Unburned 2 .42 ± 1.0 5 . 0 + 1.75 20 2 . 5 ± 1 5 . 1 6 + 1.68 1 5 a H t . (m) p i . D f . = T o t a l H e i g h t i n Me te rs o f P l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s . b B.D. (cm) p i . D f . = Basal D iamete r i n C e n t i m e t e r s o f P l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s . c H t . (cm) UNB. p i . D f . = T o t a l H e i g h t i n Mete rs o f Unbrowsed P l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s . d B.D. (cm) UNB. p i . D f . = Basal D iamete r i n C e n t i m e t e r s o f Unbrowsed P l a n t e d D o u g l a s - f i r s . e S i g n i f i c a n t a t 0 .05 ^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t 0 .10 - 25 -Douglas-fir, heights of unbrowsed Douglas-fir were greater on the burned areas. Of the 12 sites where browsing was a problem, 10 showed a greater percent of trees browsed on the burned areas and the other two sites showed similar browsing on both portions (within 10%). On 11 of the 12 problem s i tes , the percent difference between the mean height of a l l planted Douglas-fir and that of unbrowsed planted Douglas-fir was greater on the burned area than the unburned area. This shows that where browsing of planted seedlings is a potential problem on sites of this type, the problem wi l l l ike ly be more severe i f the site 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 tes , mean internode measurements for burned and unburned areas were graphed for each s i te . Figure 5 shows four representative types of curves which were found (see Appendix III for al l -curves) . Type A represents sites 5, 8, 9, 15, and 20. These were the sites where total heights were not s ignif icantly different between the burned and unburned areas. This is reflected in the very similar height/age curves. Type B represents sites 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18. These show similar shaped growth curves for burned and unburned areas with burned area curves consistently higher throughout the age range measured. Type C represents sites 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. FIGURE 5C. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES TYPE C 440 420 400 380 360 340 320 <r- 300 ^ 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 X o a x Ul Ul tr Legend BURNED (N=1B) • STANDARD ERROR ——1 1 1 9 1 0 II Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE 5B. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES TYPE B 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 8 0 1 6 0 1 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 i Legend PURNED (N=19) UNBURNED (N= I 6 ) • STANDARD ERROR / / / / X X 10 11 12 1 3 Sland Age (YRS) FIGURE 5D. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES TYPE D - 27 -Type D represents sites 4, 13, and 19. On these sites 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 wi 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 site 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 sites achieved greater heights. These two site types were mesic and mesotrophic. On his xeric and submesotrophic s i t e , the type most similar to the salal sites studied here, he found that the growth on burned sites was better throughout the 12 years and showed no indica-tion of reversal. Figures in Appendix III show the average yearly growth on the 20 sites studied. No crossovers of growth from greater on the burned to greater on the unburned were seen on my study s i tes , nor do the present shape and slope of the curves indicate that such cross-over wi l l be happening in the near future. There were sites 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 poss ibi l i ty could be that the burn raised the soil pH to a level unsuitable for conifer growth and until 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 are no doubt responsible for some of the small yearly rates of growth. The very long (10-12 yrs) periods of slow growth on the burned areas (Figure 5B) before f ina l ly an increase is seen could be the result of a combination of nitrogen def i -ciency and salal which grew back quickly as a result 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 site than on the unburned areas, with 19 sites showing s ta t i s t i ca l l y significant differences (see Table V). On 17 s i tes , the height of salal was less on the burned area, with 13 sites being signif icantly different. On two sites the height was greater on burned areas but neither difference was significant and on one site the height was equal. Figures 6 and 7 show the reduction, on the burned areas, of the height and percent cover of salal relative to the unburned areas, in relation to inferred burn severity. The percent difference in the height of salal increased on the burned area with an increase in severity class. 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 sites had similar 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 Sa la l , and Mineral Soil Exposure Ht. Salal % Cover % Mineral (cm) Salal Soil Exposure Site #1 Burned 15 + 5 16 + 9 26 ± 20a Unburned 28 + l l a 55 + 21a 0 Site #2 Burned 20 + 5 16 + 8 15 + 13a Unburned 29 ± 7 a 54 + 19a 0 Site #3 Burned 18 + 6 25 + 16 5 + 5 a Unburned 35 + 9 a 44 + l l a 1 + 2 Site #4 Burned 16 + 5 4 + 4 60 + 25a Unburned 49 + 13a 70 + 23a 0 Site #5 Burned 18 + 6 9 + 9 31 + 21a Unburned 32 + 10a 44 + 22a 2 + 5 Site #6 Burned 18 + 4 5 + 8 24 + 12a Unburned 22 + 8 40 + 13a 0 Site #7 Burned 14 + 5 9 + 8 36 + 19a Unburned 28 + l l a ' 47 + 16a 5 + 8 Site #8 Burned 14 + 5 7 + 8 25 + 20a Unburned 34 + 9 a 55 ± 13a 0 Site #9 Burned 28 + 5 16 + 12 6 + 9 Unburned 21 + 6 25 + 16b 10 + 17 Site #10 Burned 23 + 4 6 + 5 39 + 28b Unburned 24 + 7 15 + i o a 24 + 26 Site #11 Burned 22 + 4 15 + 12 4 + 10a Unburned 32 + l l a 40 + 15a 0 - 30 -Table V (cont). Ht. Salal % Cover % Mineral (cm) Salal Soil Exposure Site #12 Burned 25 + 6 26 + 15 2 + 5 Unburned 23 + 6 32 + 10 4 + 7 Site #13 Burned 26 + 6 41 + 11 0 Unburned 36 + 8 a 64 + 15 a 0 Site #14 Burned 23 + 6 34 + 10 6 + 12 a Unburned 36 + l a 52 + i o a 0 Site #15 Burned 31 + 9 47 + 18 4 + 6 a Unburned 34 + 10 60 + 15 a 0 Site #16 Burned 21 + 5 15 + 6 3 + 9 Unburned 21 + 6 26 + 10 a 0 Site #17 Burned 17 + 4 30 + 15 6 + 4 a Unburned 25 + 10 a 63 + 19 a 3 + 4 Site #18 Burned 16 + 3 24 + 12 1 + 2 Unburned 23 + 10 a 54 + 23 a 1 + 2 Site #19 Burned 20 + 5 19 + 10 11 + 6 a Unburned 25 + 4 a 38 + l l a 1 + 2 Site #20 Burned 26 + 5 40 + 9 1 + 4 b Unburned 30 + 9 51 + 16 a 0 a Significant at 0.05 b Significant at 0.10 - 31 -Legend " 90 X CWfTENCE LMTS LOW MEDIUM HIGH BURN SEVERITY FIGURE 6. PERCENT DECREASE IN SALAL HEIGHT ON BURNED AREAS COMPARED TO UNBURNED AREAS BY SEVERITY CLASS or U J > o o < CO U J CO < U J o U J 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 -LOW MEDIUM HIGH BURN SEVERITY Legend ' 90 % CONFIDENCE LIMITS F I G U R E 8. P E R C E N T C O V E R O F S A L A L O N B U R N E D A R E A S B Y S E V E R I T Y C L A S S - 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 significant positive correla-tion (18 s i tes) . The tree variables (height and basal diameter) showed significant negative correlations with the salal variables (height and percent cover) on almost half the s i tes , with basal diameter results being more consistent. Percent cover of salal and percent mineral soi l exposure showed a significant negative correlation on 15 of the 20 sites, while significant correlation between Douglas-fir growth and salal is seen on only some s i tes , the trends indicated by the correlation analysis support the same view as the previously mentioned comparisons of tree growth and sa la l . This study enabled comparison of parameters in relation to three levels of inferred f i re severity. Whether examining stocking (Fig. 3) or height growth (Fig. 4) of conifers, 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. If the rating system yields an index of actual f i re severity, one must conclude that the more severe the burn, the more advantageous for the Douglas-fir seedlings subse-quently planted, at least within the range of conditions and over the ages of plantations examined. - 34 -Table VI. Summary of Correlation Matrices for Mean Plot Height and Basal Diameter of Planted Douglas-fir, Percent Mineral Soil Exposure, Percent Cover and Height of Sala l . Number of Sites Significant at 0.1 or Greater. Variable Mean Plot Height vs. Percent Mineral Soil Exposure Number of Sites Positive Correlation Negative Correlation Mean Plot Height vs. Percent Cover of Salal Mean Plot Height vs. Salal Height 1 4 9 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 original reason for doing prescribed burning on these sites—to remove competition from sa la l . Tan et a l . (1977) showed that stomatal resistance of salal has a smaller response to vapor pressure def ic i t changes than that of Douglas-fir, especially when soi l becomes dry. Black et a l . (1980) showed that as extractable soi l water decreases, 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 characteristics of the salal sites in this study is a water def ic i t (Klinka et a l . 1979). Since salal appears able to out-compete Douglas-fir for water, i ts removal could be expected to result in better growth of the Douglas-fir. Salal competition for available nitrogen and other nutrients is another important considera-t ion. 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 factor, then there should be an increasing d i f fer -ence in the growth of Douglas-fir between burned and unburned areas as severity (and therefore successful salal removal) increases, as seen in Figure 4. This is further supported by the fact that seven of the eight sites where inferred burn severity was high showed a significant 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" sites as old as - 36 -15 years there is very l i t t l e re-invasion of the site by salal (6% cover). This may be explained by the reproductive characteristics of sa la l . Sabhasri (1961) showed that the germination rate of salal is low, migration is slow due to seed being disseminated primarily by animals, and root and shoot growth is better on a conifer needle seedbed than on mineral s o i l . The fact that 15 of 20 sites showed significant negative correlation between percent mineral soi l exposure and percent cover of salal would support this . 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 tes , salal returns quicker and grows better, and the smaller differences in growth of Douglas-fir between burned and unburned areas reflect th is . The "medium-severity" sites provide an interesting intermediate between the two extremes. On the "medium-severity" s i tes , the gains in growth are as large as on the "high-severity" s i tes , 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" sites. 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 sites could be achieved without taking some of the r i sks , such as greater chance of escape and potential site damage, that accompany high-severity burns. This should perhaps be tested where more direct assessment of severity or intensity could be made. - 37 -The long term effects of intense burns are not known conclusively, but present research results would suggest caution. Most major studies have concluded that f i re intensity is the controlling factor in the magnitude of a f i re ' s effects on soil properties and potential loss of s ite productivity (Boyer and Dell 1980, Clock and Grier 1979, Fel ler 1982, Wells et a l . 1979). Another aspect of the inabi l i ty 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 fo l i ar biomass in Douglas-fir stands. Turner et a l . (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 sites by the time crown closure is reached, how wil l that affect i t s future growth on these sites? Is i t possible that a much less severe salal problem wi l l occur when the areas are next logged? Could this eliminate the need for burning after the next harvest? Fol iar Nutrient Concentrations Table VII shows the results of t-tests on fo l i ar nutrient concentra-tions. 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 significant difference). - 38 -Table VII. T-Test Results for Foliar Nutrient Concentrations Nutrient Number of sites s ignif icantly greater on burned Number of sites s ignif icantly greater on unburned Number of sites where there was no significant 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 ppmb Fe 6 0 14 % Na 3 11 6 ppm Mn 0 12 8 ppm Cu 3 5 12 ppm Zn 2 3 15 ppm B 11 0 9 a at p = 0.05 b ppm = parts per mill ion - 39 -A diagnostic assessment of the fo l i ar nutrient concentrations measured was undertaken in an attempt to identify possible nutrient deficiencies (see Appendix II). The consistent problem indicated was that of n i tro-gen deficiency (see Table VIII). Only 3 of the 20 sites showed adequate nitrogen levels on both burned and unburned portions of the s i te . Three sites showed adequate levels of N on the burned areas but indicated deficiency on the unburned areas. The remaining 14 sites showed def i -ciency on both portions. 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 sites the most important nutrient loss would be nitrogen. Large losses of nitrogen by vo lat i l i zat ion during burning have been reported (DeByle 1976, Fel ler et a l . 1983, Isaac and Hopkins 1936, Knight 1964, Wells et a l . 1979). The significance of these losses in relation to site productivity is presently unclear. For one ecosys-tem studied in southwestern Bri t i sh Columbia Feller and Kimmins (1984) conclude that i t is unlikely that nitrogen lost as a result of slash-burning wil l be replaced.by normal atmospheric and weathering inputs over the next rotation (80 years). In the present study, f o l i ar nutr i -ent concentrations were used as an indicator of whether or not nutrient deficiencies existed and were f ire-re lated . Seventeen of 20 sites showed some nitrogen deficiency. On none of the s i tes , however, was a deficiency seen on only the burned areas. This indicates that the nitrogen problem does not arise as a result of burning. Since only 5 of the 17 sites where nitrogen deficiencies exist were signif icantly better (in terms of f o l i ar N) on the burned area, no indication was given that burning can relieve nitrogen deficiencies. - 40 -Table VIII. Summary of Fol iar Nitrogen Levels Number of sites where N is deficient on burned area only: 0 sites Number of sites where N is deficient on unburned area only: 1 (SL) a sites 2 (SV)C sites Number of sites where N is deficient on both areas: 3 (SL) sites 3 (M0D)b sites 8 (SV) sites Number of sites where N is not deficient on either areas: 3 sites a Slight Deficiency (SL) 1.30 to 1.45% b Moderate Deficiency (MOD) 1.05 to 1.30 % Severe Deficiency (SV) less than 1.05% - 41 -There is some concern in B.C. that boron deficiencies are responsible for poor growth on some sites . Of particular concern are Douglas-fir plantations in the CWHb subzones. This problem was recently studied in the Bri t ta in River Valley (Carter et a l . 1984). There was some speculation that f ire could have been a contributing factor in the boron deficiency. Ten of the 20 sites 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. (However, at 11 ppm in the foliage, i t is only 8% below the approximate deficiency threshold of 12 ppm, and thus not l ike ly to be seriously deficient.) There is no indication that burning has lowered boron levels , since 4 of the 10 CWHb sites have s ignif icantly higher boron levels on the burned area and the other 6 show no significant difference. It would be interesting to observe the response of newly planted seedlings to nitrogen f er t i l i za t ion on sites l ike those in this study. The fo l i ar nitrogen/sulfur ratios and N levels of these sites suggest that no sulfur deficiency is l ike ly to occur i f nitrogen is added. It is questionable whether f er t i l i za t ion would be as effective where salal has not been removed. Therefore, some l ike ly t r i a l sites would be those that were burned quite intensely. Comparison of response on unburned areas and areas burned at varying intensities would be worthwhile. The ab i l i t y of nitrogen f er t i l i za t ion 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 sites in this study is not easily answered. In the short term for which the measurements taken in this study apply direct ly (5 to 15 years after planting), the indication is that burning has been beneficial or benign on almost a l l s i tes . Burned areas had increased stocking and growth and no apparent fire-induced nutrient deficiencies. 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 wil l be. There is no doubt that the risks of long-term losses in productivity are higher on severely burned s i tes . 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 inabi l i ty of normal inputs to replace lost 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 rotation. The trade-off with this approach is that the potential for site damage is greatest when intensity is high. If a chemical treatment successful at controlling salal should become available i t would be a good alternative. Since there is none at present, f i re 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 planta-tions on the 20 sites studied. Burned areas on these sites 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 tes . A negative correlation was found between percent mineral soi l exposure and percent cover of sa la l . Salal appears to have d i f f i cu l ty invading high severity burn areas. Differ-ences in height growth of Douglas-fir and percent cover of salal between burned and unburned areas of the sites were greatest where inferred burn severity was high. (However, there is no evidence to ensure that pre-burn salal distribution was comparable on burned and unburned areas of each s i te . ) While nitrogen deficiency was a common problem on these s i tes , i t was not seen to be a result of burning. No other nutrient deficiencies 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 Bri t i sh Columbia, Vancouver. Ahlgren, I .F . and C E . Ahlgren. 1960. Ecological effects of forest f i re s . Bot. Rev. 26:483-533. Baker, J . 1968. Effects of slashburning on soil composition and seedling growth. Can. Dep. Fish, and F o r . , For. Res. Lab. , Vic tor ia . 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 soil samples. Can. For. Br. Info. Rep. BC-X-29. Bal lard, T.M. 1980. Interim guidelines for operational forest f e r t i l i z a t i o n in Bri t i sh Columbia. Unpublished Research Report to the Bri t i sh 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. Bu 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 Sc i . 60:625-631. Boyer, D.E. and J.D. De l l . 1980. Fire effects on Pacific Northwest forest so i l s . USDA For. Ser. PNW Region. Watershed Management and Aviation and Fire Management. Portland, Oregon. Braathe, P. 1973. Prescribed burning in Norway—effects on soil and regeneration. Tal l Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. Proc. 13:211-222. Bri t i sh Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1966. Annual Report. Bri t i sh 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 Bri t ta in 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 follow-ing clearcutting in northern Rocky Mountain l a r c h / f i r forests. Proc. Tal l Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. No. 14, p. 447-464. - 45 -Fe l l er , M.C. and J . P . Kimmins. 1984. Effects of clearcutting and slash burning on streamwater chemistry and watershed nutrient budgets in southwestern Bri t i sh Columbia. Water Resources Research, Vol . 20, No. 1:29-40. Fe l l er , M . C , Kimmins, J . P . , and K.M. Tsze. 1983. Nutrient losses to the atmosphere during slashburns in southwestern Bri t i sh Columbia. Paper presented at the Seventh Conference on Fire and Forest Meterology, Am. Meterol. S o c , Boston. Fe l l er , M.C. 1982. The ecological effects of slashburning with particular reference to Bri t i sh Columbia: A l i terature review. B.C. Min. For. Land Mgt. Rep. 13. B.C. Min. F o r . , V ic tor ia , B.C. Gaines, T.P. and G.A. Mitchel l . 1979. Boron determination in plant tissues by the azomethine H method. Comm. Soil Sc i . Plant Anal. 10:1099-1108. Gockerell , E .C. 1966. Plantations on burned vs unburned areas. J . For. 64:392-394. Isaac, L .A. 1930. Seedling survival on burned and unburned surfaces. J . For. 28:569-571. Isaac, L .A. 1938. Factors affecting establishment of Douglas-fir seedlings. USDA C i r . 486. Isaac, L .A. and H.G. Hopkins. 1936. The forest soi 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 Dis tr ic t : second approximation. For. Serv. Res. D iv . , Min. F o r . , Vancouver, B.C. Klinka, K . , Nuszdorfer, F . C . , and L. Skoda. 1979. Biogeoclimatic units of central and southern Vancouver Island. Province of B . C . , Ministry of Forests, V ic tor ia , B.C. Klinka, K . , Green, R . N . , Courtin, P . J . , and F .C. Nuszdorfer. 1984. Site diagnosis, tree species selection, and slashburning guidelines for the Vancouver Forest Region. Land Management Report Number 25. B.C. Min. F o r . , V ic tor ia , B.C. Klock, G.0. and C.C. Grier. 1979. Effects of f i re on the long-term maintenance of forest productivity. Proc. Forest Fert i l i zat ion Conf. Univ. of Wash., College of For. Res., Seattle, WA. - 46 -Knight, H. 1964. Some effects of slashburning and clear-cut logging on soil 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 Bri t i sh Columbia, Faculty of Forestry. M i l l e r , R . E . , Williamson, R . L . , and R.R. Si len. 1974. Regeneration and growth of coastal Douglas-fir. In O.P. Cramer (ed.) Environmental Effects of Forest Residues Management in the Pacific 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. Sc i . 16:258-270. Parkinson, J .A and S.E. Al len. 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 ires in one western Oregon loca l i ty . Northwest Sc i . 40:113-120. Tan, C . S . , Black, T . A . , and J . V . Nnyamah. 1977. Characteristics of stomatal diffusion resistance in a Douglas-fir forest exposed to soi l water def ic i t s . Can. J . For. Res. 7:595-604. Tarrant, R.F. and E. Wright. 1955. Growth of Douglas-fir seedlings after slashburning. USDA For. Serv., Pac. NW. For. Ran. Exp. Sta. Res. Note 84. Turner, J . , Long, J . N . , and A. Backiel. 1978. Under-story nutrient content in an age sequence of Douglas-fir stands. Ann. Bot. 42:1045-1055. Wells, C . G . , Campbell, R . E . , DeBano, L . F . , Lewis, C . E . , Fredriksen, R . L . , Franklin, E . C . , Frocl ich , R . C . , and P.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of f i re on s o i l . A state-of-knowledge review. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-7. - 4 7 -APPENDIX I SOIL/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORMS Stop numbers are equivalent to site numbers, with B indicating burned areas and U indicating unburned areas. - 48 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position Bl Lower Slope Terrain Classi f icat ion: Morainal Blanket Stop Number Slope Position UI Lower Slope Terrain Classif icat ion: Morainal Blanket Depth to Bedrock (an) 100+ Depth to Bedrock (an) 80+ Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth S > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume S u r f l d a l Material H 2 0 20 A e 0 1 20 5 tn B f l 1 20 40 4 ra B f2 20 50 40 2 m BC 50 80+ 40 1 m Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume S u r f l d a l Material H 6 0 20 A e 0 2 30 10 m B ml 2 20 50 3 m B m2 20 38 50 1 m BC 38 80+ 30 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position B2 Upper to Mid-Slope Terrain Classi f icat ion: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classi f icat ion: Morainal Blanket U2 Upper to Mid-Slope Depth to Bedrock (an) 50 Depth to Bedrock (an) mu+ Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2>2nm 2 Roots by Volume S u r f l d a l Material LFH 3 n 7 A e p % 20 5 m B f i 2 21 40 5 m BC 21 36 50 3 ra C 36 50 50 5 m R Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2>2mn 2 Roots by Volume S u r f l d a l Material LFH 10 0 30 A e 0 2 15 5 m B f l 2 24 50 5 m B f2 24 31 40 3 m B f3 31 50 40 5 m C 50 100 50 3 ra - 49 -SOILS/LANDFORH DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number B3 Slope Position Upper  Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80* Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth S>2nn> 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material 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 SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number B4 Slope Position Upper  Terrain Classification: Morainal veneer with some areas of hummocky rock JJ, (varies on the site Depth to Bedrock (cm) from 20-80 cm) SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number U3 Slope Position Upper Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth t >Zmm S Roots by Volume Surfidal Material 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 Stop Number U4  Slope Position Upper  Terrain Classification: Morainal veneer with scattered areas of rock ridges 70 (varies on this site Depth to Bedrock (an) from 30-80 cm) Hori zon Desig. Hori zon Depth % > 2 m % Roots by Volume Surflcial Material B f1 0 20 60 2 m B f2 20 40 60 1 m R Hori zon Desig. Horizon Depth % > 2 m % Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 10 0 30 A e disc mtir uous 40 5 m B ml 0 15 40 ' 2 m B m2 15 30 40 1 m BC 30 60+ 40 0 m - 50 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number 6 5 Slope Position Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cn) 100+  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number u s Slope Position M-iH-sinpp Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 100 Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2>2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material R. IPl 0 rfO 40 2 m R K 20 50 40 1 m PC 50 90+ 40 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Horizon Desig. Hori zon Depth 2>2ian 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 1 0 20 A e 0 2 50 10 m B ml 2 14 50 5 m B m2 14 34 50 1 m BC 34 80+ 50 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number B6 Slope Position M1d to Lower Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket with some areas of Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 100+ Stop Number lis Slope Position Mid to Lower Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket with some areas of Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 100  Hori zon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material IFH 1 (1 15 B m Q n 50 10 m BC 27 50 3 m C 47 90+ 50 2 m Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material 1 FH A 0 20 A e 0 1 25 7 m B ml i 19 60 5 m B m2 19 44 50 5 m c 44 90+ 50 2 m - 51 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position 87 Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of rock ridges Stop Number Slope Position U7 Upper to Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of rock ridges Depth to Bedrock (cm) 60 Depth to Bedrock (cm) 90+ Hori zon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 2 0 5 B f 0 20 40 4 m B m 20 35 40 1 m BC 35 56 40 1 m Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material 1 FH s fl n 3D fi f 0 ?n 40 10 m B m 70 40 2 m BC 70 90 40 0 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket B8 Lower Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket U8 Lower Depth to Bedrock (cm) _L£|Q+_ Depth to Bedrock (cm) 100+ Hori zon Desig. Horizon Depth 2>2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material B ml 0 30 50 2 m B m2 30 70 SO 1 m BC 70 100 30 1 m Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 6 0 30 A e 0 1 50 10 m B fj 1 16 50 5 m B m 16 36 50 3 m BC •36 80+ 50 1 m - 52 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number B9 Slope Position Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cn) gn+ Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material H 8 0 10 A e 0 1 2 m B f 1 12 50 2 m B m 12 32 40 1 in BC 32 90 40 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number BIO Slope Position Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket with parallel gullies Depth to Bedrock (cn) 90+  SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number U9  Slope Position Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket with scattered areas of Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 9 0 +  Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 5 0 15 B fj 0 25 50 3 m B m 25 70 50 2 m BC 70 90+ 60 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number U10  Slope Position Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket with parallel gullies Depth to Bedrock (cn) 100+ Horizon Deslg. Hori zon Oepth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 6 0 10 B ml 0 25 70 3 m B m2 25 50 60 1 m BC 50 30+ 70 1 m Horizon Deslg. Horizon Oepth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material B f 0 20 5 m B m 20 45 70 2 m BC 45 100+ 80 1 tn - 53 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position BIT Lower Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket Stop Number Slope Position Ull Lower Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2>2mm % Roots by Volume Surfidal Material H 7 0 40 A e 0 3 50 2 m B fj 3 15 70 2 m B m 15 30 70 1 m BC 30 80+ 70 1 m Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material w ?P 0 20 A e 0 2 5 2 tn B f,i 2 8 30 2 m B ml 8 28 50 2 m B m2 28 48 50 1 m BC 48 80 50 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position U12 Lower Terrain Classification: Rubbly Fluvial Fan Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Rubbly Fluvial Fan B12 Lower Depth to Bedrock (cm) 90+ Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material H 3 0 30 A e 0 2 80 5 F B fl 2 20 80 3 F B f2 20 50 80 2 F BC 50 90+ 80 1 F Hori zon Desig. Hori zon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material H 4 0 20 A e 0 2 80 5 F B fi 2 27 80 2 F B f2 27 52 80 2 F BC 52 80+ 80 1 F - 54 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position 813 Crest of Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Stop Number Slope Position U13 Crest of Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cn) 80+ Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm X Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 3 g 20 A e disc >nt1r uous 1 m B ml 0 35 30 2 m B m2 35 65 30 1 m BC 65 80+ 30 0 m Horizon Oesig. Horizon Depth 2>2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 4 0 20 A e disc jntli uous 5 m B ml 0 30 30 5 m B m2 30 70 30 2 m BC 70 80+ 30 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position B14 Upper Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Stop Number Slope Position U14 Upper Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ Horizon Deslg. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 m 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 2 0 20 B ml 0 25 30 3 m B m2 25 65 30 1 m BC 65 80+ 30 0 m Horizon Oesig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 5 0 20 ti ml 0 20 30 5 m B m2 20 55 30 1 m BC 55 80+ 30 0 m - 55 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number BIS Slope Position Mid to Upper Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80+ SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number U15 Slope Position Mid to Upper Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket Depth to Bedrock (cm) 90+ Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth * > 2 nsn 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 4 0 15 A e disc ont1 1UOUS 5 m B ml 0 30 30 4 m B m2 30 75 30 1 m BC 75 80+ 30 0 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position B16 Upper Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 80 Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 4 0 30 A e Q 1 40 5 m B f 1 21 40 5 m B m 21 45 40 2 m BC 45 80 40 1 m Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2>2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 5 0 20 A e disc ontl IUOUS 3 m B ml 0 40 30 2 m B m2 40 75 30 1 m BC 75 90+ 30 1 m SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position U16 Upper Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 40 Hori zon Desig. Horizon Depth 2>2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 10 0 25 A e 0 2 60 5 m B fi 2 17 60 2 m B m 17 40 60 1 m R - 56 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position B17 Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of exposed rock Stop Number Slope Position U17 Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer with scattered areas of exposed rock Depth to Bedrock (cm) Depth to Bedrock (cm) 30-80 Horizon Desig. Hori zon Depth %>2\m % Roots by Volume Surfldal Materi al I.FH 5 0 15 A e 0 2 40 5 m B fl 2 17 40 5 m B f2 17 37 40 2 m R Horizon Desig. Hori zon Depth % > 2 mo % Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 5 0 20 A e disi onti nuous 15 m B fl 0 16 40 15 m B f2 16 31 40 4 • m R SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer B18 Bench at Mid-Slope Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer U18 Bench at Mid-Slope Depth to Bedrock (cm) 20-60 Depth to Bedrock (cm) 30-60 Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth % > 2 ran % Roots by Volume Surfldal Material LFH 3 0 15 A e 0 1 40 2 m B f 1 16 40 2 m B m 16 31 40 1 m R Hori zon Desig. Horizon Oepth %> 2 mm % Roots by Volume Surf 1 ci al Material LFH 2. o 20 A e 0 1 40 5 m B ml 1 20 40 5 m B m2 20 45 40 2 m R - 57 -SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position B19 Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Stop Number Slope Position U19 Mid-Slope Terrain Classification: Morainal Blanket to Morainal Veneer Depth to Bedrock (cm) 60 Depth to Bedrock (cm) _Z£L Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2>2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material B ml 0 20 40 10 m B mZ 20 40 40 3 m BC 40 60 60 2 m R Horizon Desig. Horizon Depth 2 > 2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 3 0 20 A e 0 1 40 10 m B ml 1 16 40 5 m B m2 16 36 40 3. m BC 36 70 30 1 m R SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM SOILS/LANDFORM DESCRIPTION FORM Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer B20 Upper Stop Number Slope Position Terrain Classification: Morainal Veneer U20 Upper Depth to Bedrock (cm) 37 Depth to Bedrock (cm) 50 Horizon Desig. Hori zon Depth 2 > 2mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 4. 0 15 A e, 0 1 30 5 m B m 1 37 30 3 m Horizon Desig. Hori zon Depth 2 > 2 mm 2 Roots by Volume Surfidal Material LFH 5 0 20 A e 0 2 30 2 m B m 2 50 30 2 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 cited in pages 46-51 of Ballard (1980). - 59 -FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVB1 STAND AGS : 9 years LOCATION : latitude: 0* 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 610 metres| SHAW U6B-1 SGCL SYNTAXON : OTHB4 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotropnic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE a i ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % * DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu .rient status (%) N 1 .520 7 Adequate P 0.380 153 Adequate K 0.820 26 Adequate Ca 0.280 12 Adequate Mg 0.110 0 Adequate Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.000 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.929 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 2.545 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis t) : S 0.200 25 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 7.600 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Te 37.000 - 1 8 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 25S.000 932 No deficiency Zn 22.000 83 No deficiency Cu 7.000 169 No deficiency 3 22.000 93 No deficiency Supply of nutrients in ranked order : FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 33CDRVB2 STAND AGE : 8 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 610 metres| SHAH U6B-2 SGCL SYNTAXON : CVHB4 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xeric TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE B2 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or X DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu -rient status (%) N 1.400 -1 Slight to moderate deficiency P 0.320 113 Adequate K 0.790 22 Adequate Ca 0.300 20 Adequate Mg 0.110 0 Adequate Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.375 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.633 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 2.727 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis %) : S 0. 170 6 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 3.235 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Pe 26.000 -42 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 328.000 1212 No deficiency Zn 19.000 58 No deficiency Cu 7.000 169 No deficiency 3 20.000 67 No deficiency Supply of nutrients in ranked order : F e S N S M g s s s C a S K S Z n S B S P S C u S M n - 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status {%) H ! .240 -13 Severe deficiency ? 0.310 107 Adequate K o . a s o 31 Adequate Ca 0.290 12 Adequate Mg 0.120 9 Adequate Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.000 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 3.036 Possible ?e deficiency Ca/Mg 2.333 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis %) : S 0. 180 12 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 6.3S9 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm> : Fe 46.000 2 No deficiency Mn 438.000 16S2 Mo deficiency Zn 29.000 142 No deficiency Cu 10.000 28S No deficiency B 24.000 100 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 1 1 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 Cu 10.000 285 a 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 IS ? 0 . 3 5 0 133 K 0 . 7 4 0 14 Ca 0 . 3 5 0 40 Mg 0 . 120 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 (ppm Fe 3 3 . 0 0 0 - 2 7 Mn I 8 S . 0 0 0 644 Zn 2 8 . 0 0 0 133 Cu 1 0 . 0 0 0 2B5 a 1 9 . 0 0 0 58 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P deficiency; NID (No interpretation) (No interpretation) is unlikely 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: 0s 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 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or t * DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (%) N 1 .560 10 Adequate P 0.340 127 Adequate K 0.900 38 Adequate Ca 0.330 32 Adequate Mg 0.110 0 Adequate Element concentration ratios : N/P 1.588 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.727 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.000 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis «) : S 0.200 25 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 7.800 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 32.000 -29 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 298.000 1092 No deficiency Zn 26.000 117 No deficiency Cu 2.000 -23 Possible or near-deficiency 3 17.000 42 No B deficiency; NID unlikely Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe s Cu s Mg S N i s s Ca s K SBSZnsPSMn - 62 -POLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga u e n z i e s i i C o a s t a l D o u g l a s - f i r SAMPLE : 33CCRVB7 STAND AGE : 3 years LOCATION -. l a t i t u d e : 0* 0' l o n g i t u d e : 0* 0' e l e v a t i o n : 670 not r e a l SHAW L70 3GCL STNTAXON : CWHB* EDATOPE : 23 HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub meaotropnie PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN 3LUESERRY Di a g n o s i s i s based on a n a l y s i s of IS t r e e s . SITS 37 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % % DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut r i e n e s t a t u s (%) N 1 .570 1 1 Adequate ? 0.330 120 Adequate K 0.940 43 Adequate Ca 0.330 32 Adequate Mg O.tOO -9 L i t t l e i t any d e f i c i e n c y Element c o n c e n t r a t i o n r a t i o s : N/P 4.758 No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y K/Ca 2.348 (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) Ca/Mg 3.300 (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 *) : S 0. 190 19 No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y N/S 8.263 No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NIS 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) : re 31.0001 -31 P o s s i b l e or n e a r - d e f i c i e n c y Mn 330.000 1220 No d e f i c i e n c y :n 23.000 92 No d e f i c i e n c y Cu 4.000 54 No d e f i c i e n c y 3 22.000 93 No d e f i c i e n c y Supply of n u t r i e n t s i n ranked o r d e r : ?• i »5 s > i S s Ca U U « ! I s !n s M » FOLIA* NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i C o a s t a l D o u g l a s - f i r SAMPLE : 83CDRVB8 STAND AGE : 3 years LOCATION : l a t i t u d e : 0* 0' l o n g i t u d e : 0* 0' e l e v a t i o n : 530 matres| SHAW W BGCL STNTAXON : CWHS4 SDATOPB : 3B HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : sub mesocrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-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 IS t r e e s . SITS 38 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR br * * DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut r i e n t s t a t u s {*.) N 1 .540 a Adequate P 0.320 113 Adequate K 0.940 4! Adequate Ca 0.340 36 Adequate X<3 0. 120 9 Adequate Element c o n c e n t r a t i o n r a t i o s : ' N/P 4.312 No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y K/Ca 2.765 (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) Ca/Mg 2.333 (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 *> : S 0. 130 12 No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y N/S 8.536 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 stacus (ppa) : Pe 33.000 -27 P o s s i b l e or n e a r - d e f i c i e n c y Mn 414.000 1556 No d e f i c i e n c y Jn 23.000 92 No d e f i c i e n c y Cu 2.000 -23 P o s s i b l e or n e a r - d e f i c i e n c y 3 20.000 67 No d e f i c i e n c y Supply at n u c r i e n c s i n ranktd o r d t r : Fe 5 Cu M i «q S 5 i Ca U S 3 i :n S ? S !ln - 63 -FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal Douglas-fir SAMPLE : 83CDRVB9 STAND AGS : 8 years LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' elevation: 670 metres! CHEM C2S SGCL 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 39 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * I t DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE l i Macronutrient status (%) N 1 .430 1 P 0.290 93 K 0.790 22 Ca 0.350 40 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios 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 -4 Mn 222.000 788 Zn 19.000 56 Cu 3.000 15 3 23.000 92 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Mo P deficiency; MID 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 CURRENT TEAR or t t DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status ( t ) N 1 . 3 5 0 - 5 Slight to moderate deficiency P 0 . 3 3 0 120 Adequate s 0 . 3 3 0 28 Adequate Ca 0 . 2 7 0 a Adequate Mg 0 . 1 0 0 - 9 Little if any deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 4 . 0 9 1 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 3 . 0 7 4 Possible Fe deficiency Ca/Mg 2 . 7 0 0 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis t ) : S 0 . 170 6 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 7 . 9 4 1 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 5 9 . 0 0 0 31 No deficiency Mn 2 6 6 . 0 0 0 964 No deficiency Zn 1 8 . 0 0 0 50 No deficiency Cu 2 . 0 0 0 - 2 3 Possible or near-deficiency 3 1 9 . 0 0 0 58 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu .riant status (%) N 1.350 -S Slight to moderate deficiency P 0.270 80 Adequate K 0.780 20- Adequate Ca 0.3S0 44 Adequate Mg 0. 100 -9 Little if any deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 5.000 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely R/Ca 2.167 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.600 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis (%) : S 0.160 0 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 8.437 No s deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 33.000 -27 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 306.000 1 124 No deficiency Zn 23.000 92 No deficiency Cu 2.000 -23 Possible or near-deficiency a 22.000 83 No deficiency Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe S Cu S MgsNsS S KS CaSPSBSZns Mn 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 (%) : N 1 .260 - 1 1 P 0.2S0 67 K 0.360 32 Ca 0.320 29 Mg 0.090 - 1 8 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 Zn 16.000 3 3 Cu 3.000 1 5 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: 0a 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 1 5 trees. SITE BI3 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * % DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macranut rient status (%) N 1 .ISO -17 Severe deficiency P 0.340 127 Adequate K 1 .000 54 Adequate Ca 0.360 44 Adequate Mg 0. 1 10 0 Adequate Element concentration ratios : N/P 3.471 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.778 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.273 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis 4) : S 0.150 -6 S deficiency and NID are unlikely N/S 7.867 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status Cppm) : Fe 29.000 -36 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 304.000 3116 No deficiency Zn 23.000 92 No deficiency Cu 6.000 131 No deficiency 3 20.000 67 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 1 5 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 1 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 Cu 5.000 92 3 17.000 42 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status (%) N l .310 -8 Slight to moderate deficiency P 0.350 133 Adequate K 0.980 51 Adequate Ca 0.350 40 Adequate Mg 0.110 0 Adequate Element concentration ratios : N/P 3.743 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.800 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.182 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis ») : S 0. 150 -6 S deficiency and NID are unlikely N/S a.733 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 88.000 96 No deficiency Mn 540.000 2060 No deficiency Zn 18.000 50 No deficiency Cu 5.000 92 No deficiency B 22.000 83 No deficiency Supply of nutrients in ranked order : H ! S S « J i C l S ! » i K S B S Cu i P t ! f S K l 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 or t % DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (t) N . t .300 -8 Slight to moderate deficiency p 0.300 too Adequate K 0.380 35 Adequate Ca 0.310 24 Adequate Mg 0. 100 -9 Little if any deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.333 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.839 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3. 100 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis %) : S 0. 160 0 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 8. 125 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 36.000 -20 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 288.000 1052 No deficiency Zn - 21 .000 . 75 No deficiency Cu 5.000 92 No deficiency B 21.000 75 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 1 5 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) ; Mn Zn Cu S 31.000 522.000 29.000 2.000 26.000 -31 1988 142 -23 117 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status (%) N 1 .240 -13 Severe deficiency ? 0.230 37 Adequate K 0.830 28 Adequate Ca 0.320 23 Adequate Mg 0.100 -9 Little if any deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.429 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.594 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.200 (No Interpretation) Sulfur analysis %) : S 0.150 -6 S deficiency and NID are unlikely N/S 8.267 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 35.000 -22 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 462.000 1743 No deficiency 2n 19.000 58 No deficiency Cu S.000 92 No deficiency 3 IB.000 50 No B deficiency; but NID is possible Supply of nutrients in ranked order : F s S N S M g s s s K S C a S B S Z n S P S C u S M n 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 Mg 0.090 -18 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 menziesii Coastal D o u g l a s - f i r SAMPLE : 8 3CDRVTJI STAND AGE : 8 years LOCATION : l a t i t u d e : 0* 0' longitude: 0° 0' e l e v a t i o n : 610 metres) SHAW U6BI BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub xe r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis i s based on a n a l y s i s of 15 tree s . ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % * DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) N 1 .280 -10 Severe d e f i c i e n c y P 0.260 73 Adequate K 0.600 -8 L i t t l e i f any d e f i c i e n c y Ca 0.260 4 Adequate Mg 0. 1 10 0 Adequate Element concentration r a t i o s : N/P 1.923 No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y K/Ca 2.308 (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) Ca/Mg 2.364 (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 %) : S 0.140 -13 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 N/S 9. 143 No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 30.000 -33 Pos s i b l e or near-deficiency Mn 548.000 2092 No d e f i c i e n c y Zn 22.000 83 No d e f i c i e n c y Cu 7.000 169 No d e f i c i e n c y B 15.000 25 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 in ranked order : Pt i s s ii s u »j i Ci s j ( p s a s ca s » FOLIAR NUTRIENT ANALYSIS SPECIES : Pseudotsuga menziesii Coastal D o u g l a s - f i r SAMPLE : 83CDRVU2 STAND AGE : 8 yeers LOCATION : l a t i t u d e : 0° 0' longitude: 0" 0' e l e v a t i o n : 6t0 n e t r e s l SHAW U6B2 BGCL SYNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis i s based on a n a l y s i s of 15 t r e e s . CURRENT YEAR I % I* DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N 1.110 -22 P 0.250 67 K 0.580 -1 1 Ca 0.240 -4 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration r a t i o s N/P | 4.4401 I K/Ca 2.417 Ca/Mg | 2.182| | Sul f u r a n a l y s i s (%) i S I 0.1401 -13 I N/S | 7.929| | Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 24.000 -47 Mn 486.000 1844 Zn 17.000 42 Cu 6.000 131 B 11.000 -8 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 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 ) 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 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 in ranked order : 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 -F O L I A R N U T R I E N T A N A L Y S I S 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 / COMMENTS 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 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 N I D 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut .rient status (%) N 1 .360 -4 Slight to moderate deficiency P 0.260 73 Adequate K 0.630 -3 Little if any deficiency Ca 0.210 -t6 Little if any deficiency Mg 0.100 -9 Little if any deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 5.231 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 3.000 Possible Fe deficiency Ca/Mg 2. 100 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis *) : S 0.140 -13 Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 9.714 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 33.000 -27 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 948.000 3692 No deficiency rn 17.000 42 No deficiency Cu 3.000 208 No deficiency 3 15.000 25 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 Coastal Doug l a s - f i r SAMPLE : 83CDRVU5 STAND AGE : 8 years LOCATION : Latitude : 0° 0' longitude: 0° 0' e l e v a t i o n : 550 metresl SHAW Wl 1-1 3GCL STNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 2C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub x e r i c TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis 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 concentration r a t i o s N/P I 5.2501 I K/Ca 2.469 Ca/Mg | 2.909| | Sulfur a n a l y s i s (%) : S I 0.1 SO I -6 1 N/S | 9.800| | Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 33.000 -27 Mn 282.000 1028 Zn 23.000 92 Cu 8.000 208 B 16.000 33 Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID (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 ) i s u n l i k e l y S d e f i c i e n c y and NID are 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 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 order : 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 me n z i e s i i Coastal D o u g l a s - f i r SAMPLE : 83CDRVU6 STAND AGS : 3 years LOCATION : l a t i t u d e : 0° 0' longitude: 0* 0' e l e v a t i o n : 550 metres| SHAW Wl1-2 BGCL STNTAXON : CWHB4 EDATOPE : 3C HYGROTOPE CLASS : sub mesic TROPHOTOPE CLASS : mesotrophic PLANT ASSOCIATION : RHYTIDIADELPHUS LOREUS-ALASKAN BLUEBERRY Diagnosis i s based on a n a l y s i s of 15 tr e e s . ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * % DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu .rient status (%) N 1 .500 6 Adequate P 0.300 100 Adequate K 0.700 8 Adequate Ca 0.290 16 Adequate Mg 0.1 10 0 Adequate Element concentration r a t i o s : N/P 5.000 No P d e f i c i e n c y ; NID i s u n l i k e l y K/Ca 2.414 (No i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) Ca/Mg 2.636 (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 %) : S 0. 150 -6 S d e f i c i e n c y and NID are u n l i k e l y N/S 10.0Q0 No S d e f i c i e n c y ; NID u n l i k e l y Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 25.000 -44 Pos s i b l e or near-deficiency Mn 516.000 1964 No d e f i c i e n c y Zn 23.000 92 No d e f i c i e n c y Cu 11.000 323 No d e f i c i e n c y 3 15.000 25 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 1 5 trees. CURRENT YEAR % |» DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) N l .200 - 1 5 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 : FeSSSMgSNSKSCaf iBspsznSCuSMn 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 1 5 trees. CURRENT YEAR % It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N l .340 -6 ? 0.270 ao X 0.300 23 Ca 0.230 12 Mg 0. 130 1 8 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 67 Cu 7.000 1 6 9 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 : F e S S S N S C a S M g s K S B S Z n s p s c u S M n - 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (%) N l . 530 8 Adequate ? 0 . 2 9 0 93 Adequate K 0 . 7 0 0 8 Adequate Ca 0 . 2 9 0 16 Adequate Mg 0 . 0 9 0 - i a Slight to moderate deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 5 . 2 7 6 No p deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.414 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3 . 2 2 2 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis ( t ) : S 0 . ISO - 6 S deficiency and NID are unlikely N/S 1 0 . 2 0 0 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 3 8 . 0 0 0 -16 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 3 6 2 . 0 0 0 1348 No deficiency Zn 2 3 . 0 0 0 92 No deficiency Cu 4 . 0 0 0 54 No deficiency 3 1 2 . 0 0 0 0 No a deficiency; NID unlikely Supply of nutrients in ranked order : M g S F e s s s a s K S N S C a S C u s z n s p S M n 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 (t) N P K Ca Mg 1 .370 0.310 0.810 0.300 0. 100 -4 107 25 20 -9 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) : Fe 43.000 -4 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 / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu rient status (%) N l .440 1 Adequate P . 0.250 67 Adequate K • 0.690 6 Adequate Ca 0.340 36 Adequate Mg 0.100 -9 Little if any deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 5.760 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.029 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.400 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis *> : S 0.160 0 No S deficiency; NID unlikely N/S 9.000 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 25.000 -44 Possible or near-deficiency Mn 400.000 1500 No deficiency Zn 25.000 108 No deficiency Cu 2.000 -23 Possible or near-deficiencv.,. B 13.000 50 No S deficiency; but NID is possible Supply of nutrients in ranked order : Fe i Cu s Mg i S S N S K s Ca SBSPSZnSMn 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 or RATIO CURRENT YEAR * |* DEV / or PPM ADEQUATE Macronu N p K Ca Mg .rient status (%) 1.300 -8 0.280 87 0.610 -6 0.250 0 0.090 - 1 3 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 LOCATION : 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 U 1 3 CURRENT YEAR * I % DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) N I .250 -12 p 0.330 120 K 0.360 32 Ca 0.270 3 Mg 0. 100 -9 Element concentration ratios N/P I 3.7881 I K/Ca 3 . 1 8 5 Ca/Mg | 2.7001 | Sulfur analysis (%) : S I 0.1501 -6 I N/S I 8.333| | Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 2 8 . 0 0 0 - 3 8 Mn 7 4 4 . 0 0 0 2876 Zn 2 5 . 0 0 0 i o a Cu 3 . 0 0 0 15 B 1 6 . 0 0 0 33 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 PLANT ASSOCIATION : SALAL-RED HUCKLEBERRY Diagnosis is based on analysis of 1 5 trees. SITE DM CURRENT YEAR * I % DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (\) N l .210 -IS P 0.330 120 K 0.900 38 Ca 0.310 24 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios 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 Zn Cu 9 458.000 29.000 2.000 15.000 1732 142 -23 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 : 1 5 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 1 5 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 24 Mg 0.090 - 1 8 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 1 5 trees. SITE U 1 6 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or * DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (%) N 1 .200 - 1 5 Severe deficiency P 0.260 73 Adequate K 0.700 8 Adequate Ca 0.250 0 Little if any deficiency Mg 0.090 - 1 8 Slight to moderate deficiency Element concentration ratios : N/P 4.615 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.800 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 2.778 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis %) : Possible S deficiency; NID unlikely S 0. 130 - 1 9 N/S 9.231 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 12.000 -73 Deficiency likely Mn 408.000 1532 No deficiency Zn 18.000 50 No deficiency Cu 10.OOO 285 No deficiency B 15.000 25 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 LOCATION : latitude: 0° 0' longitude: 0s 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 is based on analysis of 15 trees. SITE UI7 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or \ 1% DEV / RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status (%) : N l .290 -9 P 0.290 93 K 0.770 18 Ca 0.320 28 Mg 0.110 0 Element concentration ratios N/P 4.446 | K/Ca 2.406 Ca/Mg 2.909 1 Sulfur analysis (%) : S j 0.1601 0 I N/S | 3.0621 j Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 12.000 -73 Mn 468.000 1772 Zn 21.000 75 Cu 10.000 ' 285 B 20.000 67 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 deficiency Supply of nutrients in ranked order : ?e i S i M9 i S S n Ca i 3 i Zn S P s Cu 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 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 018 ELEMENT CURRENT YEAR or % DEV / COMMENTS RATIO or PPM ADEQUATE Macronut rient status (*) N l .260 -1 1 Severe deficiency P 0.290 93 Adequate K 0.830 28 Adequate Ca 0.320 28 Adequate Mg 0. 100 -9 Little if any deficiency . Element concentration ratios.: N/P 4.345 No P deficiency; NID is unlikely K/Ca 2.594 (No interpretation) Ca/Mg 3.200 (No interpretation) Sulfur analysis %) : S 0.150 -« S deficiency and NID are unlikely N/S 8.400 No S deficiency; NID unlikely Micronutrient status (ppm) : Fe 9.000 -80 Deficiency likely Mn 732.000 2828 No deficiency Zn 24.000 100 No deficiency Cu 10.000 235 No deficiency B 22.000 92 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 : Fi s « s uj 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: 0s 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 ELEMENT or RATIO CURRENT YEAR t It DEV / PPM ADEQUATE Macronutrient status N P K Ca Mg . 140 0.290 0.950 0.310 0.090 (t) •20 93 46 24 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-3. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #3 Legend BURNED (N=K) UNBURNED (N=I7) • STANDARD ERROR x I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Slond Age (YRS) FIGURE A-2. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #2 5 • hi 160 ISO (40 130-120 110 too Legend * BURNED (N=I9) UNBURNED {N=16> • STANOARD ERROR 9 0 -80 70-A 60 X 50 /--''' 40 /-' 30 20 10 0 -t i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 Slond Age (YRS) 10 FIGURE A-4. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #4 2 X o • I hi 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Legend BURNED (N=I8) UNBURNED (M=I6) • STANDARD ERROR / 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 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stand Age (YRS) 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 #11 300-280-260-240-220-S 200-180-1— X 160-o UI 140-I a 120-cc 1- 100-80-60-40 20-0-Legend I BURNEO (N=12) / UNBURNED (N=6) / • STANDARD ERROR / z'1 A' X / . I -6 7 8 9 Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE A-13. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #13 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE A-15. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #15 Legend BURNED (N=I2) - 1 — 10 •—I— 13 - 1 — 15 Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE A-14. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #14 220 200 180 160-5 140 • X t l CK 120 100-8 0 -60 4 0 -2 0 -0 Legend BURNED (N=1B) UNBURNED (N=I5) • STANDARD ERROR —r— 10 —I 1— 12 13 -r— 15 Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE A-16. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #16 X o X UJ UI EC 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 8 0 60 40 20 0 Legend BURNED (N=19) UNBURNED (N=12) 1 • STANDARD ERROR / .1 9 10 11 12 Stand Age (YRS) I FIGURE A-17. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #17 1 6 0 - 1 I 1 P 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE A-19. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #19 3 0 0 - i .—. . 2 8 0 -Stand Age (YRS) FIGURE A-18. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #18 180 • ' 1 3 0 2 0 -10 0-1—:—i 1— 1 1 r — l 1 1 1 1 1 0 I 2 3- « 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 Stand Age (YRS) c-FIGURE A-20. HEIGHT/AGE CURVES FOR SITE #20 3 0 0-1 — ! 1 4 0 - jX 2 0 -0-\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 Stand Age (YRS) - 85 -APPENDIX IV SOIL ANALYSIS RESULTS .1 B Horizon Sample Designation Gravel % % % Text. % Sand S i l t Clay Class Org.C Pyrophosphate % % T OM Fe Al B - l B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-9 B-10 B - l l 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 - l l 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 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/S iL 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 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 Samples equal s i te numbers with B indicating burned areas and U indicating unburned areas. - 86 -APPENDIX V. Stocking Results by Site. # Planted # Crop # Planted Douglas-fir Trees Crop Trees % Stocking Site #1 Burned 1595 + 86 1512 + 86 1512 + 86 100 Unburned 770 + 123 770 + 123 715 + 123 75 Site #2 Burned 1375 ± 135 1320 + 123 1320 + 123 90 Unburned 688 + 110 660 + 110 605 + 98 75 Site #3 Burned 880 + 172 907 + 177 797 + 166 70 Unburned 907 ± 170 962 + 154 742 + 134 75 Site #4 Burned 880 + 128 880 + 128 880 + 128 80 Unburned 412 + 79 412 + 79 385 + 145 60 Site #5 Burned 1045 + 125 1045 + 125 1017 + 122 90 Unburned 577 + 93 577 + 93 550 + 88 75 Site #6 Burned 1100 + 119 1100 + 88 . 1072 + 93 95 Unburned 687 + 118 687 + 96 660 + 102 80 Site #7 Burned 1210 + 129 1210 + 129 1210 + 129 90 Unburned 467 + 71 467 + 71 467 + 71 75 Site #8 Burned 1457 + 160 1320 + 100 1292 + 98 95 Unburned 1045 + 131 990 + 123 880 + 114 90 Site #9 Burned 1100 + 126 1100 + 126 1100 + 126 90 Unburned 467 + 114 . 522 + 109 467 + 114 60 Site #10 Burned 1128 + 123 1072 + 108 1072 + 108 95 Unburned 660 ± 135 605 + 118 605 + 118 70 Site #11 Burned 440 + 85 440 + 85 440 + 85 70 Unburned 302 + 92 302 + 92 302 + 92 45 Site #12 Burned 660 + 93 550 + 68 550 + 68 85 Unburned 770 + 151 632 + 99 632 + 99 80 - 87 -APP. V (cont). # Planted # Crop # Planted Douglas-fir Trees Crop Trees % Stocking Site #13 Burned 1457 + 159 1320 + 138 1072 + 100 100 Unburned 907 + 126 1347 + 138 907 + 126 85 Site #14 Burned 2310 + 162 1677 + 121 1512 + 104 100 Unburned 1787 + 221 1485 + 164 1292 + 145 95 Site #15 Burned 440 + 84 550 + 97 440 + 84 65 Unburned 797 + 134 742 + 126 742 + 126 75 Site #16 Burned 770 + 83 770 + 83 770 + 83 95 Unburned 412 + 77 412 + 77 412 + 77 65 Site #17 Burned 1045 + 147 1210 + 129 990 + 141 85 Unburned 1127 + 179 115 + 190 962 + 153 85 Site #18 Burned 990 + 109 962 + 111 935 + 113 95 Unburned 660 + 135 715 + 89 577 + 83 80 Site #19 Burned 852 + 100 852 + 100 852 + 100 95 Unburned 605 + 104 660 + 116 605 + 104 75 Site #20 Burned 1045 + 118 1320 + 121 1017 + 106 95 Unburned 522 + 115 605 + 122 440 + 93 60 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 Sala l . Sal % = Percent Cover of Salal . MSE % = Percent Mineral Soil Exposure. CORRELATION MATRIX <1> SITE:! N- 35 DF» 33 RP .1000- .2826 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE R«» .0500= .3338 .0100= .4296 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14. SALT. 15. MSEX 1.0000 .9265 - .3181 -.6004 .3872 8. MPHT 1.000O -.4835 -.7251 .4845 9. MPBD 1.0000 .8110 -.4807 13. SALHT 1.0000 -.6285 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE% CO CORRELATION MATRIX <2> SITE:2 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT, PLOT MEAN B. D.. SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE 34 DF= 32 R* .1000= .2869 Re .0500= .3388 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 1 .OOOO 8. 9. 13. 14. 15. MPHT MPBD SALHT SAL% MSE% "CORRELATION MATRIX <3> S ITE:3 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D.. SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE N= 30 DF = 28 Re .1000= .3061 Re .0500= .3610 Re .0100= .4629 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL% 15.MSE% 1.0000 .8709 - . 3 8 2 7 - . 5 2 9 9 - . 1262 8. MPHT 1 .0000 - .3837 - . 5 0 2 0 - . 1517 9. MPBD 1.0000 .6399 - . 3459 13. SALHT 1.0000 - .2743 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE0/. i O I CORRELATION MATRIX <4> S ITE:4 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE 28 DF= 26 Re .1000= .3172 R» .0500= .3739 Re .0100= VARIABLE 8.MPHT 1 .OOOO 9.MPBD . 899 1 1 .0000 13.SALHT - .5326 - . 7 1 6 0 1.0000 14.SAL% - . 6393 - .7958 .9393 1 .OOOO 15.MSE% .6502 .7592 - . 7689 - .8113 1 .OOOO 8. 9. 13. 14. 15. MPHT MPBD SALHT SAL% MSE% CORRELATION MATRIX <5> S ITE:5 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D.. SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE N= 33 DF = 31 R@ .1000= .2913 Re .0500= .3440 Re .0100= .4421 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL% 15.MSE% 1.0000 .6749 .0631 .0922 - . 0607 8. MPHT 1.0000 .0424 -.0761 .0890 9. MPBD 1.0000 .7794 - . 4943 13. SALHT 1.0000 - . 6410 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE% l CORRELATION MATRIX <6> S ITE:6 CORRELATIONS—PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D.. SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE N= 35 DF= 33 Re .1000= .2826 Re .0500= .3338 Re .0100= .4296 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL% 15.MSE% 1 .OOOO .8477 - . 5668 - .5041 .3561 8. MPHT 1.0000 - .7418 - . 7 8 6 0 .5767 9. MPBD 1.0000 .7417 - .5721 13. SALHT 1.0000 - .7243 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE0/. ' CORRELATION MATRIX <7> S ITE:7 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT, PLOT MEAN B. D., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER, AND % MSE 34 DF = 32 Re .1000= .2869 Re .0500= .3388 R» .0100= VARIABLE 8.MPHT 1 .OOOO 9.MPBD .9252 1.0000 13.SALHT - .3378 - .4774 1.0000 14. SAL74 - . 5 0 5 9 - . 6185 .8250 1.0000 15.MSE% .3765 .4831 - .5292 - . 7 2 7 0 1.0000 8. 9. 13. 14. 15. MPHT MPBD SALHT SAL5S MSE% CORRELATION MATRIX <8> S ITE:8 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT, PLOT MEAN B. D., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER, AND % MSE N= 37 DF«= 35 Re .1000= .2746 Re .0500" .3246 Re .0100= .4182 ro VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL7. 15.MSE% 1 .OOOO .6722 .2969 .3926 - .2628 8. MPHT 1.0000 - .2573 - .2594 . 2645 9. MPBD 1.0000 .8681 - . 6063 13. SALHT 1.0000 - .6826 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE% •CORRELATION MATRIX <9> S ITE :9 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B . D. , SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE N» 28 DF " 26 Re .1000= .3172 R» .0500= .3739 Re .0100= .4785 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL% 15.MSEX 1.0000 .8242 - . 0464 - . 1 5 5 5 - . 1 4 2 3 8. MPHT 1.0000 - . 1605 - . 3093 - .0474 9. MPBD 1 .OOOO .0582 . 1224 13. SALHT 1.OOOO -.2661 14. SAL% 1 .0000 15. MSE% CORRELATION MATRIX <10> S ITE :10 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. D.. SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER, AND % MSE N= 33 DF« 31 Re .1000= .2913 Re .0500= .3440 Re .0100= .4421 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL* 15.MSE% 1.0000 .9201 - . 1110 - .1924 . 1795 B. MPHT 1.OOOO - .0915 - . 2135 .2331 9. MPBD 1.OOOO .5114 - .3004 13. SALHT 1.0000 - .6459 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE% CORRELATION MATRIX <11> SITE: 11 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT, PLOT MEAN B. 0.. SALAL HEIGHT, SALAL % COVER. AND % MSE N= 20 DF= 18 Ri? .1000= .3783 R« .0500= .4438 R<?> .0100= .5614 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SALH 15.MSE% 1.OOOO .9751 -.4345 -.5542 .4434 8. MPHT 1.OOOO -.51 17 -.5890 .5261 9. MPBD 1.0000 .7688 -.6050 13. SALHT 1.0000 -.4074 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE% CORRELATION MATRIX <12> SITE:12 CORRELATIONS--PLOT MEAN TREE HEIGHT. PLOT MEAN B. 0., SALAL HEIGHT. SALAL % COVER, AND % MSE N= 33 DF= 31 .1000= .2913 R*> .0500= .3440 R& .0100= .4421 VARIABLE 8. MPHT 9. MPBD 13.SALHT 14.SAL% 15.MSE% 1.0000 .8690 .3171 -.0757 .0358 8. MPHT 1 .OOOO . 1680 -.0735 .0711 9. MPBD 1.0000 .4742 -.2956 13. SALHT 1.0000 -.3647 14. SAL% 1.0000 15. MSE% C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <13> S I T E : 1 3 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T . P L O T MEAN B . D . , S A L A L H E I G H T . S A L A L % C O V E R . AND % MSE 3 7 DF = 3 5 R«> . 1000= . 2 7 4 6 R 9 . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 2 4 6 m . 0 1 0 0 = V A R I A B L E 8 . M P H T 1 . 0 0 0 0 9 . M P B D . 9 3 3 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 3 . S A L H T - . 1 9 2 3 - . 2 0 4 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 4 . S A L X - . 2 4 7 8 - . 2 4 6 4 . 7 1 9 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . M S E % - . 0 9 3 9 - . 0 9 6 2 - . 0 5 3 0 - . 0 6 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 8 . 9 . 1 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . MPHT MPBD S A L H T SAL?, MSE% I D cn C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <14> S I T E : 1 4 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN TRE.E H E I G H T . P L O T MEAN B . D . . S A L A L H E I G H T . S A L A L % C O V E R . AND % MSE N= 3 9 DF = 3 7 R© . 1 0 0 0 = . 2 6 7 3 K9 . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 1 6 0 RO . 0 1 0 0 = . 4 0 7 6 V A R I A B L E 8 . MPHT 9 . MPBD 1 3 . S A L H T 1 4 . S A L X 1 5 . M S E % 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 9 4 8 6 - . 4 0 6 8 - . 3 6 3 4 . 1 9 8 0 8 . MPHT 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 5 3 8 5 - . 4 7 2 1 t . 1 8 8 9 9 . MPBD 1 .OOOO . 7 7 9 4 - . 1 9 6 5 1 3 . S A L H T 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 3 5 4 2 1 4 . SAL% 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . MSE% ' C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <15> S I T E : 1 5 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T . P L O T MEAN B . D . . S A L A L H E I G H T . S A L A L % C O V E R . AND % MSE N= 2 9 DF = 2 7 R<? . 1 0 0 0 = . 3 1 1 5 R»> . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 6 7 3 R» . 0 1 0 0 = . 4 7 0 5 V A R I A B L E 8 . MPHT 9 . MPBD 1 3 . S A L H T 1 4 . S A L % 1 5 . M S E % 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 9 5 1 0 . 3 5 7 1 . 1186" - . 1 9 2 9 8 . MPHT 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 2 5 0 6 . 0 0 4 8 - . 1 1 2 2 9 . MPBD 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 7 1 9 5 - . 4 4 3 7 1 3 . S A L H T 1 . O 0 0 0 - . 4 4 9 9 14 . SAL% 1.OOOO 1 5 . MSE% l C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <16> S I T E : 1 6 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T . P L O T MEAN B . 0 . . S A L A L H E I G H T . S A L A L % C O V E R . AND % MSE 31 DF = 2 9 R@ . 1 0 0 0 = . 3 0 0 9 R»> . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 5 5 0 R* . 0 1 0 0 = V A R I A B L E 8 . M P H T 1 . 0 0 0 0 9 . M P B D . 9 0 9 4 1.OOOO 1 3 . S A L H T . 3 4 1 8 . 2 9 5 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 4 . S A L % - . 1 4 2 8 - . 1 7 9 6 . 2 3 6 2 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . M S E X . 2 7 2 2 . 3 0 5 4 . 1646 - . 3 3 1 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 8 . 9 . 1 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . MPHT MPBD S A L H T SAL% MSE% " C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <17> S I T E : 1 7 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T , P L O T MEAN B . D . . S A L A L H E I G H T . S A L A L % C O V E R . AND X MSE N - 34 D F - 3 2 R* . 1 0 0 0 = . 2 8 6 9 R*» . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 3 8 8 R e . 0 1 0 0 = . 4 3 5 7 V A R I A B L E 8 . MPHT 9 . MPBD 1 3 . S A L H T 1 4 . S A L % 1 5 . M S E X 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 9 1 7 8 - . 0 4 6 1 - . 1 5 7 6 . 0 8 0 0 8 . MPHT 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 1 3 5 9 - . 2 5 9 9 . 1 3 4 6 ' 9 . MPBD 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 7 4 7 6 - . 6 0 8 6 1 3 . S A L H T 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 6 3 0 7 1 4 . S A L X 1 .OOOO 1 5 . MSEX C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <18> S I T E : 1 8 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T . P L O T MEAN B . D . t S A L A L H E I G H T , S A L A L X C O V E R , AND X MSE 3 5 D F = 3 3 Re . 1 0 0 0 = . 2 8 2 6 R e . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 3 3 8 V A R I A B L E 8 . M P H T 1 . 0 0 0 0 9 . M P B D . 9 2 8 8 1 .OOOO 1 3 . S A L H T . 0 9 2 8 . 0 6 1 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 4 . S A L X - . 1 1 6 0 - . 1 3 7 5 . 7 1 6 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . M S E X - . 0 9 8 4 - . 1 3 1 4 - . 2 4 5 9 - . 2 7 B 1 8 . 9 . 1 3 . 1 4 . MPHT MPBD S A L H T S A L X 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . MS EX C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <19> S I T E : 1 9 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T . P L O T MEAN B . D . , S A L A L H E I G H T , S A L A L % C O V E R , AND X MSE N= 3 4 OF = 3 2 R e . IOOO= . 2 8 6 9 Rt> . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 3 8 8 R e . 0 1 0 0 = . 4 3 5 7 V A R I A B L E 8 . MPHT 9 . MPBD 1 3 . S A L H T 1 4 . S A L X 1 5 . M S E X 1.OOOO . 9 5 6 1 - . 0 3 8 9 - . 4 8 7 3 . 2 8 4 0 8 . MPHT I .OOOO - . 0 6 8 6 - . 5 0 1 4 . 3 4 9 7 9 . MPBD 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 6 5 5 3 - . 4 7 4 6 1 3 . S A L H T 1 . 0 0 0 0 - . 5 7 7 8 1 4 . S A L X 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . MSEX i UD 00 I C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X <20> S 1 T E : 2 0 C O R R E L A T I O N S - - P L O T MEAN T R E E H E I G H T , P L O T MEAN B . D . . S A L A L H E I G H T . S A L A L X C O V E R , AND X MSE 31 DF= 2 9 R«> . 1000= . 3 0 0 9 R e . 0 5 0 0 = . 3 5 5 0 R e . 0 1 0 0 = V A R I A B L E 8 . M P H T 1.OOOO 9 . M P B D . 9 2 9 5 1.OOOO 1 3 . S A L H T . 1 5 7 0 . 1 7 4 9 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 4 . S A L X . 1 9 9 9 . 2 8 2 0 . 7 5 9 4 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 5 . M S E X . 0 0 6 4 . 0 9 7 6 - . 2 4 3 8 - . 2 4 2 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 8 . 9 . 1 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . MPHT MPBD S A L H T S A L X MSEX *» 

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