Determination of Current Growth in an Evenage Stand of Lodgepole Pine, by the Lateral Surface Method and its Comparison with the Stand Projection Method
Document Type
Full Issue
Publication Date
1968
Abstract
A study was planned to compute growth by the lateral surface method (Russian method) and by the most commonly used conventional method, the stand table projection method, in an evenage stand of lodgepole pine (Pines contorta Dougl), near the school forest. One-quarter acre plots (40 plots) were taken at random to measure D.B.H., bark thickness, and heights of the trees. Increment cores for the last 10 years were taken from the trees from sub-plots of 1/50 acres in every alternate one-quarter acre plot. The data were summarized into the stand table, placing the trees in one-inch classes, from 4.5 inch to 21.5 inch classes. The growth was computed by both methods and the results tested statistically. The study shows that there is no significant difference in quantity of growth in cubic feet by these two methods. The computational procedure of the lateral surface method is less complicated, faster, and more economical in comparison with the stand table projection method, but it has only been employed in evenage stands. Its application too all age stands requires investigation. The growth was also computed for the past 13 years from a single permanent sample plot located in the Utah State University forest. Stand projection method overestimated the growth, lateral surface yield less than the stand projection method, but a little more than the growth computed on the basis of actual D.B.H. measurements in 1954 and 1967. No conclusion is being drawn from this plot's results, because the sample is to small to conclude anything. However, it appears that the stand projection method overestimates volume growth where a small range in diameter of the trees exists in the stand.
Recommended Citation
Chaudry, Abdul M. (1968). Determination of current growth in an evenage stand of lodgepole pine, by the lateral surface method and its comparison with the stand projection method. MS. 48p.
Comments
This item is a thesis published by a student who attended Utah State University. Abstract can be accessed through the remote link. Fulltext not available online.