MINOR TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES AFFECT GROW TH and YIELD
of PLANTED SOUTHERN PINES

/

/ /
/

BULLETIN 439 NOVEMBER 1972

64

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

AU BU RN
R. Dennis Rouse, Director

U NIV ER S IT Y
Auburn, Alabama

CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION AND METHODS .-----

--

-

3

Stand Establishment
Measurements

4
4

Thin n in g s -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Statistical Design and Analysis
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-

6 7
-------------

LITERATURE

CITED

13

APPENDIX -15

FIRST PRINTING

3M,

NOVEMBER

1972

Minor Topographic Changes Affect Growth
and Yield of Planted Southern Pines
KNOX W. LIVINGSTON"

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS
RECOGNIZING THAT WOOD, like any field crop, is a product of the soil, research workers of the Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station in 1932 selected a 9-acre strip of gently rolling terrain on which to investigate the relationship between topographic position and yield of planted southern pines. The experimental area, which is in a zone of transition between the Hilly Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Plateau, had recently been in cultivation. Maximum difference in elevation was about 30 feet. Topography was classified as follows: 1. Hill - dry ridge tops and upper or middle slopes that were mostly eroded, some with broken terraces. 2. Slope - middle and lower slopes, mainly with gentle gradients and not severely eroded. 3. Flat - nearly flat, lower slopes and well drained branch bottom. 4. Swamp - branch bottom permanently wet except during drought. 2 The soil was Norfolk, with local alluvium and colluvium in low areas. Texture of the topsoil varied from fine sand and loamy sand on the hills to sandy loam and loam on the flats and swamps. Ground cover in addition to topographic position was utilized in dividing the experimental area into the four site classes. In this way, the classification was made to reflect moisture regime. more accurately than was possible on the basis of topography alone.
Professor, Department of Forestry. 2Not included in the final analysis. A utility right-of-way was cut across the experimental area removing much of the Swamp Type from the experiment.

'Assistant

4

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT STATION

Scarcity of soil moisture on the Hill Type was indicated by the absence of all but a sparse, grassy ground cover, mainly Andropogon virginicus L. There was more abundant, grassy vegetation with a scattering of young hardwoods on the Slope Type. The Flat Type had a dense cover of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb.). The abundant moisture of the Swamp Type was reflected in a tangle of vines and canes (mainly Jap. honeysuckle and species of Vitis L., Smilax L., Rubus L., and Arundinaria Michx.) along with a rank growth of young sweetgum, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.), willow (Salix nigra Marsh.), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.), and miscellaneous other hardwoods. Woody vegetation was cut from all areas when the pines were planted.
Stand Establishment

Planting was begun in 1932 and completed in 1934. Locations of the individual species plantings in relation to the topographic situations are shown in Figure 1. All plantings were made manually with 1-year-old stock at a 6 X 6 foot spacing. Slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var. elliottii) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata Mill.) were planted the first year, longleaf pine (P. palustris Mill.) the second year, and loblolly pine (P. taeda L.) the third. This staggered planting was not planned but was necessitated by a shortage of seedlings.
Measurements

Six inventories of the planted areas were conducted, beginning 7 years and ending 31 years after planting was begun. Diameters of all surviving pines were measured at each inventory and recorded to the nearest 0.1 inch. Heights of all dominant and codominant planted trees were measured by Abney level or Haga hypsometer and recorded to the nearest foot in the last two inventories, while heights of other trees were estimated and recorded to the nearest 5 feet. Heights of all trees were not determined in earlier inventories, but enough were on record that the remainder could be estimated by a curvilinear regression on diameter and age for each species. Hardwoods were included only in the last two inventories. Ages in years from planting of the different species at successive inventories follow:

0I 0

Ig-z

ED--

Cleared Right-of-Way Hill Slope Flat Swamp

0

z
A

m

z
0 m

0

FIG. 1.

Diagram of planting area.

U
iul

6

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Slash and shortleaf pines

7, 10, 12, 19, 24, 31;

Loblolly pine 5, 8, 13, 17, 22, 29; Longleaf pine 6, 9, 14, 18, 23, 30. Individual tree volumes were derived from appropriate cubic foot formulas adapted from Bamping and Oliphant (1), then accumulated for per-acre values and placed on a mean annual basis. Comparisons of periodic annual growth and yield were omitted because of the age differences.
Thinnings

Concurrently with the third, fourth, and sixth inventories, low thinnings were conducted. Shortleaf and longleaf pine plantings, however, were left intact the first time because their density was insufficient to require thinning. The thinnings were applied uniformly as normal silvicultural measures, not as additional experimental treatments.
Statistical Design and Analysis

Although this experiment was not designed for a standard statistical analysis, it was adaptable to an approximate analysis. Examination of Figure 1 reveals that the planting may logically be divided into 2 blocks, each with all 4 species planted on equalsized strips that cross the minor topography in a north-south direction. The swamp area, however, was omitted from the analysis because of the low survival rate of trees planted there, the loss of much of the original swamp area to a utility right-ofway, and the extreme variability of the small area remaining. The analysis adopted was a split plot in time and space (3) with species planted the main treatment, site class defined as topographic position the split in space, and age class defined as inventory number the split in time. Age could not be treated as a covariate because several species-site combinations exhibited growth curves with different shapes. Replicated in two blocks, there were four species, three sites, and six inventory ages for total values, which include both cut and uncut trees. There were three thinning ages for only the trees cut. In addition to the split plot in time and space, ordinary split plot (in space) analyses of the final age class alone were computed to provide error terms appropriate for comparing species and sites in this restricted but important category. Since error

TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND PINE GROWTH

7

terms from the main analyses were inappropriate for these comparisons, the consequent reduction in degrees of freedom for the final split had to be accepted. Significance levels of individual comparisons were estimated by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (2), which provides special protection against finding false significant differences at the probability chosen but may fail to detect every truly significant difference. A 95 per cent or greater probability of real difference between means was considered significant. The reader is reminded that the original plan of analysis foi the experiment is unknown and a design that fit as nearly as feasible was adopted. One basic assumption of the adopted analysis is that main treatments (species) be assigned at random to plots within blocks. Since species appeared in the same sequence within each block and randomization is not mentioned in the records, it seems highly unlikely that the assumption is valid. The consequences, if any, of this violation are unknown. Independence of treatments is also assumed, but this is erroneous because of differential competition between species along the approximately 1,000 foot borders of plots that were only 48 feet wide. A strong bias in favor of rapid early growth, as well as a smaller bias due to priority of planting, can be surmised but not quantitatively determined. Although age is not assumed to be random in the analysis, a bias of undetermined extent is involved because the individual species were inventoried at slightly different ages. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The early investigators' premise that tree growth would differ with small changes in topographic position was demonstrated to be correct by periodic inventories of the plantations. Generally considered to be the best indicator of site quality, height growth of average dominant and codominant trees of the same species on different positions differed by as much as 19 feet 31 years after the first plantings. Loblolly pine showed the greatest height growth response to changes in topography. Features of the dominant and codominant planted stand at the last inventory are presented in Table 1. Stand tables from all inventories appear in the Appendix. Early survival of all species was greatly affected by site class, probably a result of differences in competition. Despite several

8
TABLE 1. SUMMARY
AND

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
BY SPECIES AND
CODOMINANT

TOPOGRAPHIC SITE
PLANTED

CLASS
AT

OF THE
THE

DOMINANT

TREES,

STAND

LAST INVENTORY

(AGE 29 TO

31

YEARS)

Topographic site class

Tes Averg TreesAverage per DBH acreheight In. No. 187 203 171 28 10.5 11.4 12.2 13.2

oa total Ft. 66 74 78 76

Site index Ft. 85 95 100 95

Slash pine (age 31 years) -------------------- ---Hill..-------- ----------Slope.... ....------------------Flat ----------------------------------------------- ----------Swam p .......------------------Loblolly pine (age 29 years)

H ill ---------------- ------- -------------------------Slope.. .. .. ..--------------------

173 200
157 16 76 71 31

9.7 11.2
13.6 14.6 7.9 8.5 8.7

64 75
83 76 52 56 58

90 100
110 100 75 80 80

--------------Flat... ... ..------------------------ ------Sw am p ......-------------.----Shortleaf pine (age 31 years) ---- -----H ill.. .. ...------------------------ ----Slope.... ....------------------..------------------------------------Flat . Longleaf pine (age 30 years)

Hill .----------------------------------------- ----------Slope.... ....------------------method. Bark was included.
2 Base age is 50 years. USDA curves (4).

95 74 11.3 28 ------ ---------Flat.... ....------------------1 Diameters here and throughout the article were averaged by the basal area Site index was estimated to the nearest 5 feet from

134 50

9.9 10.5

68 70

90 90

cleanings to free the planted seedlings of competition from sprouting woody vegetation, longleaf and shortleaf pine plantings in the swamp were failures and the other species were near failures. Hardwoods eventually accounted for 60 per cent of total net basal area growth in the slash pine swamp planting and 74 per cent in the loblolly. Best early survival of all species of pine was on the hills and slopes, where competition from weeds and hardwoods was lightest. Upper crown class trees of all species grew tallest on the flats, and their average diameter increased from dryer to wetter sites. Loblolly pine showed the greatest absolute and relative difference, with a 50 per cent increase in diameter from hill to swamp. Site quality estimates based on total height of the dominant stands suggest that the flat should be the most productive site for all of the planted species. It can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, however, that actual volume production was greater on at least one other site class for every species, though the difference among species averages was not significant. Failure of the flat to produce

TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND PINE GROWTH
TABLE 2. MEAN ANNUAL TOTAL STEM VOLUME INCREMENT PER ACRE THROUGH THE FINAL INVENTORY, PLANTED PINES LARGER

9

THAN 4.5 INCHES DBH

SpeciesSite

class Hill Slope Flat
Cu.

Average 2
Cu.

Cu. ft.

Cu. ft.

ft.

ft.

Slash' ----------------------------------------176 a 249b 231ab 219b Loblolly --------------------------------------- 207b 148 a 247b 225b Shortleaf'---------------------63 a 75 a 25 a 54 a Longleaf ---------------------------93 a 42a 28a 54a 2 Average -----------------------------120 a 153a 127a 133 1 Site values within the same species not followed by the same letter are significantly different. 2 Site or species averages not followed by the same letter are significantly
ferent.
TABLE 3.

dif-

MEAN ANNUAL MERCHANTABLE (4-INcH Top) VOLUME INCREMENT PER ACRE THROUGH THE FINAL INVENTORY, PLANTED PINES LARGER THAN 4.5 INCHES DBH

Species

Hill

Slope

Flat
Cu.

Average2
Cu.

Cu.

ft.

Cu.

ft.

ft.

ft.

Slash- .---------------------------------------165 a 236 b 223 ah 208b Loblollyi------------------------------134 a 232b 219hb195b Shortleaf'------------------------------------- 22 a 54 a 66 a 52 a Longleafl. -----------------------88a 40a 27a 47a 2 Average lil----------------------------------111 a 143a 123a 126 1 Site values within the same species not followed by the same letter are significantly different. 2 Site or species averages not followed by the same letter are significantly different.

its potential was the result of the reduced early survival. The overall pattern differed among species, but significant differences
between sites were confined to slash and loblolly.

tion of slash and loblolly pines was far higher than that of shortleaf and longleaf. Much of this species difference was expected, but the extremely low production of shortleaf and longleaf pines must be attributed in part to competition from their faster growing neighbors. Shortleaf and longleaf pines were also less able to compete effectively with weeds and hardwoods than were slash and loblolly. Yields from thinning appear in Table 4. They follow volume increment fairly closely, but there are a few additional significant differences. Most prominent is the higher yield from slash pine than loblolly. This probably was caused by heavier infection of the larger slash pines with southern fusiform rust (Cronartium fusiforme Hedg.), which encouraged heavier cutting.

pines.

Produc-

10

10 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 4. MEAN ANNUAL MERCHANTABLE YIELD PER ACRE, FROM
THINNINGS ONLY

class Hill Slope Flat Average' Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. Cu. ft. 102 b 107ab 83 a 116b Slash'-------------------85b 91b 106b 57 a ---------- Loblolly' 24a 34a 26a Shordleaf'_____________________19a 9b -- - 35a Longleaf'--------------57 54 a 50 a 68 b Average 2 ________________________________ 1 Site values within the same species not followed by the same letter are significantly different. 2 Site or species averages not followed by the same letter are significantly different. SpeciesSite
11a _15ab

Volume increment of sawtimber material in cubic feet is shown in Table 5. Shortleaf pine had a negligible volume in this size; longleaf pine, a significantly larger production. Slash and loblolly pines were almost equal and each was vastly greater in volume than longleaf. Unlike total merchantable volume, sawtimber volume apparently reflected the superiority of the flat site quality. Though the flat was not significantly higher in volume than the slope, both definitely surpassed the hill, which showed the lowest site quality. Neither shortleaf nor longleaf pine exhibited significant site class differences. Table 6 shows that sawtimber yield from thinning loblolly pine was significantly higher on flats than on slopes. Otherwise, sawtimber yield from thinning follows practically the same pattern as sawtimber production. The thesis that the flat was potenitially the most productive site is supported by the superior basal area increment of volunteers there, Table 7. Although average basal area growth of the
TABLE

5.

MEAN ANNUAL SAWTIMBER Top) VOLUME INCREMENT PER ACRE THROUGH THE FINAL INVENTORY, PLANTED PINES LARGER THAN 9.5 INCHES DBH

(8-INCH

SpeciesSite SeisHill
Cu.

class Slope Flat
Cu.

Average'
Cu.

ft.

Cu.

ft.

ft.

ft.

Slash'1_______________________
Loblolly' _____________________
2
___________________

71 a 3a 43 a
42 a

Shortleaf-------------------Longleaf'l_________________ __
Average
1-

0a

145hb

140 b
9a 22 a
79
b

158hb
173 b

125 b
121hb

2a 18a
88
b

4a 28 a
70

Site values within the same species not followed by the same letter are significantly different. 2 Site or species averages not followed by the same letter are significantly different.

TOPOGRAPHIC

CHANGES

AND

PINE

GROWTH

11

TOPOG'RAPHIC CHANGIES
TABLE 6.

AND PINE G'ROWTH

1

MEAN ANNUAL SAWTIMBER YIELD PER ACRE, FROM THINNINGS ONLY

Species

Hill
Cu. ft.

Site class Flat Slope
Cu ft. Cuft.

Average2
Cu.ft.

Slash 1 _______________________
Shortleaf' 2

Loblolly--------------------Longleaf----------------

8a
5a
0a
1a

42 b
35 b
1a

54b
56c
1a

388b
32 b
0a

Oa Q------------------4a

-----_ 8a Average ___________________

6a

19 20 b 28 b 1 Site values within the same species not followed by the same letter are significantly different. 2 Site or species averages not followed by the same letter are significantly different.
~I1~IILlt;ill __-----------------------------------. Cu. ft. A/yr. 250 " Slash o Loblolly 200 Slope v;a I

150L

100

50

o

e=
0 5

78

10 1213
Age

78

(yrs.)j

17 19

22 24

29 31

FIG. 2. Net merchantable mean annual increment to different ages of slash and loblolly pines planted on hill, slope, and flat.

12

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

12
TABLE 7.

ALABAM

AGRICUILTURLEPRMN

TTO

MEAN ANNUAL BASAL AREA INCREMENT PER ACRE FOR ALL TREES AND ALL TREATMENTS THROUGH THE FINAL INVENTORY

Trees

and

treatment

Hill Sq. ft.

Site class Flat Slope Sq. ft. Sq. ft. 7.10a 6.18 a 1.09 b
.92b

Average Sq. ft. 7.47a 7.10 a 2.77 b
1.83b

Planted pines

8.41a 6.89 a Slashl---------------------------------8.56b 6.55 a Loblollyl-----------------------------3.79 a 3.44 a Shortleaf'----------------------- ----1.38ab 3.21 a Longleaf'-----------------------------5.53 a 5.02 a Average'-------------------------------Other pines

3.82 b 0.71a .00 a.
.33 a 1.87 b

4.79 0.42 a 1a
.14 a .66 a

0.33 a .00 a .02 a .08 a .02 a Shortleaf'______________________________ .10 a .00 a Longleaf------------------------------.13a .05 a - ----Average-------Slash '---------------------------------Loblolly' ------------------------------All pines

0.17 a

.74b

.31 7.88a
7.10 a

7.85a 7.06 a 8.74a Slash'---------------------------------6.18 8.56b 6.57 a Loblolly'------------------------------------ a 1.42 b 3.87 a 3.46 a Shortleaf1------------------------------ -2.79 a 1.49 a 3.21 a Longleaf'-----------------4.56 b 5.66 a 5.07 ab Average'-------------------------------Hardwoods

2.91 b
2.49 b

5.10

Slash Loblolly'------------------------------Shortleaf1-------

-------

0. 12 a O---

Longleaf'---------------------------------Average--------------All trees

.10 .10 .02 .09

a a a a

0.246a .17 a .06 a .28 a .19a 9.01 a 8.73 a
3.92 a

1.69 b 1.94 b 2.20 b 1.69b 8.85 a 7.78 a
3.36 a

.62 a .70 a .84 a .66 8.35 a 7.72 a
3.61 b

Slash '---------------------------------Loblolly'----------6----------------Shortleaf'-------------------

7.18 a 6.67 a
3.56 a

Longleaf1------------------Average2--------------------

3.23 ab 5.16 a

1.77 a 5.86 a

4.99 c 6.24 a

3.33 b 5.75

1 Site values within the same species not followed by the same letter are significantly different. 2 Site or species averages, in the same group, not followed by the same letter

are significantly different.

planted pines was definitely lowest on the flat, pine and hardwood volunteers made the combined basal area of all trees highHowever, the between site differences in increest on the ment of all trees were not significant. The basal area superiority of all trees in both the slash and loblolly, pine plantings over either the shortleaf or longleaf plantings was highly significant despite the inclusion of volunteers. The differences between species within both of the two pairs could be accidents of sampling.

flat.

TOPOGRAPHIC

CHANGES

AND

PINE

GROWTH

13

TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND PIE

GROWTH

1

Reference to Figure 2 will show that slash pine grew more rapidly than loblolly on every site during the early years. However, slash pine increment leveled off after 19 years, while mean annual production of loblolly pine continued to increase significantly. On both the flat and the slope, loblolly pine equalled slash at about 30 years and appeared to be still increasing its rate of production. Even on the: hill, the difference between the two species was not found significant at the final age.
LITERATURE CITED (1) J. H. AND L. M. OLIPHANT. 1961. Southern Pine Cubic Foot and Board Foot Formulae for the Southeastern United States. School of Forestry, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga., and the Division of State and Private Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga. (2) DUNCAN, D. B. 1955. Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests. Biometrics, Vol. 11. (3) STEEL, R. G. D. AND JAMES H. TORRIE. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. (4) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 1929. Volume, Yield, and Stand Tables for Second-Growth Southern Pines. Office of Forest Exp. Sta., Forest Service, USDA. Washington. Misc. Pub. 50.
BAMPING,

TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND PINE GROWTH

15

APPENDIX

.r

APPENDIX TABLE 1.

SLASH PINE PLANTED ON HILLS, 0.482 ACRE. STAND-PEE-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

All diameters
Age ortaon

DBH larger than 4.5 in.
Basal Av. DBH

ofsad Yrs. Planted pines
7

Tre Tes No.

Basal Av. DBH AverageTre

area

(o.b.) In.
2.8 3.8

Sq.

ft.

height Ft.
15 24

Tre No.
58 233

area Sq.
8 38

ft.

(ohb.) In.
5.0 5.4

AverageTre height Tre
Ft.
24 30

DBH larger than 9.5 area Sq.
0 0

in.
height Ft.

Basal Av. DBH Average

No.
0 0

ft.

(ohb.) In.
___ ___

Total ---Total

10 12 12 19 19 24 31 31

Cut &lv. Cut only Cut& lv. Cut only Toa
Cut& lv.

172 1,066

384 573
28~9 254 250

977
102 27 27 27

47 86

109 29

4.5 3.7

135
51 98

6.6
5.7 8.4

30 26 46
44 56

402 75 500
219 253

72 14 128
45 97

5.7

36

2

1

9.6'

--46'
46' 55
61

5.8
6.9
6.1 8.4

36
47
45 56

2
13 0
52

1
8 0
32

9.6'
10.5
___

I-

10.6

-66 67
0 c
I-

Cut only

133 47 2 4 5

9.9 9.2 3.7

63 62 22 27 33

246 102 10

133 47 1

9.9 9.2 4.8

64 62 29

l17 31

80 20

11.2 11.1

Other pines 7 Total____
10 Total

12 12
19

Cut & lv. _ Cut onlyCut &lIv.Cut only-

---.___

5.0
6.0

16
22 22 0

3 5
5 0

6.0
6.8 6.8 ---

31
39 39 --

27
0 0
0

5
0 0
0

6.0
-------

33
----

19
24

31 Cut &lv. _ 31 Cut onlyHardwoods 24 Total____ 31 Total____ - - --- --\1111~:1 1111~117\ ------ -----

Total

0

---7.4 7.1

0
0

0
0

------

---

r

0

0
0 4 14

0
0 1 3

--7.4 7.2

-49 53 0 2 0 1 --9.8' --

x
m m

0 4 18

0 1 4

-49 52

z

54'

'Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates.

NI -I

equivalent thinning, Total, used class. only. The other 'One replicatewhen there was nohas no treesis in this size to cut and leave.

z

APPENDIX TABLE 2.

SLASH PINE PLANTED ON SLOPES, 1.189 ACRES. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

0I 0

Age

Portion2

sstandof
lV.------

All diameters Trees
Basal Av. DBH Average

area

(o.b.)

height

Trees
No.
69
26 540 129 499

DBH larger than 4.5 in. Basal Av. DBH Average area (o.b.) height

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Basal Av. DBH Average area (oh.) height

Yrs.
Planted pines 7 Total________________

No.

Sq. ft.
53 101
129 38

In.
3.0
4.2 4.9 4.2 7.3

Ft.
16
26 32 29 51

Sq. ft.
9
59 103 24 155

In.
4.9
5.4

Ft.
24
32 37 37 53

No.
0
0 1 0 45

Sq. ft.
0
0 0 0 27

In.

Ft.

10

12
12

Total-Cut & Cut Cut &

1,069 1,048
967 391 546

19
19
24

only ------

5.9
5.8

9.9'
___

49' 60

-62
67

lV.-----Cut only______

158

7.5

10.4

z
-TI

Total --------Cut &lv.-------

259
259 257

58
121

6.4
9.3

50
63

224
251

55
120

6.7
9.4

50
64

8
97

5
63

10.9
10.8

31

166

10.9

72

253

165

11.0

73

188

140

11.7

74

31 Cut only______ 102 56 10.1 Other pines 7 Total.-------38 3 3.9 10 Total.-------37 6 5.6 12 Cut & lv.-41 9 6.5 12 Cut only--40 9 6.5 19 Cut & Iv.----2 1 9.9 19 Cut only--1 1 11.2' 24 Total ------------------5.9 2 1 31 Cut & lv. 1 1 12.1' 31 Cutonly0 0 Hardwoods 24 Total8 2 5.9'

72 21 33
40

102 12 26 30 28 2 1 1 0 8 35

56 2 6 9 8 1 1
1

10.1 5.3 6.2 7.1 7.1 9.9 11.2'
10.2'

72 28 37 43 43 59 61'
60'

58 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

38 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

11.0 ----10.0'3 10.0' 11.2' 11.2' 10.2' 12.1' --9.7'

74 --51' 51' 61' 61' 60N 68' --

-

40
59
6

--

37 68'

1 0 2 8

12.1' --5.9' 6.0

68' -41' 46

31

41'
44

Total. - -- -- --- ---- - - --

41

8

5.8-'

I ~

74'

1

Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. 'One replicate only. The other is blank.

..
APPENDIX TABLE 3. SLASH PINE PLANTED ON FLATS, 0.323 ACRE.
STAND

STAND-PER-ACRE
AGE'

BY SIZE CLASS,

SPECIES GROUP,

PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND

Pgetin or Yrs. Planted pines
7

PrinAll

diameters Basal Av. DBH Average Tes area (ohb.) height No. Sq.

DBH larger than 4.5 in. Basal Av. DBH Average Tre area (ohb.) height No. Sq. 11

ft.

In.

Ft.

ft.

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Tre Basal Av. DBH Average Tre area (ohb.) height No. 0 Sq. 0

In. 5.2'

Ft. 27'

ft.

In. __

Ft.

10 12

12
19 19 24 31 31
7
10

Total Total Cut& Cut

---lV.

792 733
630

43 81
101
24

2.9 4.4
5.3
4.8

16 29
37
34

72 330
407
92

56
85
19

5.5
6.1
5.9

34
41
41

0
0
0

0
0
0

___
__
___

only Cut& lv. Cut only

182

Total

391 171
194 191 75 54 57
61 38 13

131

7.8

55

351

128

8.2

57

64

38

10.0'

--__
63

Cut&

lV.

Cut only

47 106 149 50 4 10
15 11

7.0 10.0 12.0' 11.0 3.8 5.9
7.1 7.5

54 67 77 77 23 38
46 48 63

148 190 191 75

45 106 149 50
2
9

7.4 10.1 12.0 11.0
5.5'
6.5

55 68 77 77
313
42

12 113 173 63
0
0

8 75 141 45
0
0

10.7 11.0 12.3 11.4
_
___

64 69 78 78

Other pines

Total

.___

12 19 19 24 31 31

12

Total----

40

14

Cut & lv. _

Cut onlyCut &lv. _ Cut onlyTotal____ Cut &lv. _ Cut only-

47 34
13
3

14

7.5

48

6

3

10.03

--55'
55 71'
793

C C

3 6
9 3

7 1 6
11 2

9.8 6.5' 13.8'
14.4 10.4'

11 7
1
6

7.7 9.8
6.53
13.8'

49 63
56' 79'

3 3
0
6

2 3
0
6

10.1' 14.1'
_

56' 79'
83 80'

69

m

13.8'

3
60

11 2
16

14.4 10.4'
7.2

83 80'
45

9 3
6

11 2
5

14.4 10.4'
11.6

83 80'
69

x Z

m
mI

Hardwoods 24 Total____ 31 Total____
1'Except

67 100

17 31

7.0 7.5

44 55

86

30

7.9

56

10

10

14.6

87

HI 0n

where noted, each value is the raw averageof 2 unequally sized replicates. 'Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave.

'One

replicate only. The other is blank.

APPENDIX TABLE 4.

SLASH PINE PLANTED IN SWAMPS, 0.808 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

0I

.0 0

Age

ortand
ofsad9-

All diameters Tre
Tes Basal Av. DBH

area Sq.

(o.b.) In.

AverageTre
height Ft.
Tre

DBH larger than 4.5 in.
Basal Av. DBH

AverageTre
height Ft. 26
Tre

DBH larger than 9.5 iB.
Basal Av. DBH Average

area Sq.

(ohb.) In.

Yrs.

No.

ft.

No.

ft.

area Sq.

No. 0 0 0 0 48

ft.

(ohb.) In.

height Ft.

z
0

Planted pines
7

10 12 Cut&lv. Cut only 12 19 Cut& lv. 19 Cut only 24 Total Cut& lv. 31 31 Cut only Other pines 7 Total ---10 12

Total Total

.___

471 388

527

33
57

2.7
4.4

15
27 36 40 51

80
252 292 43 333

10
42 64 12 107

4.7' 5.9
6.8 6.9 9.0

35
42 42 54

45 338 164
134 131 2 * 0

75
13 111

5.7
6.4 8.2

0_ 0 0 0 35

___
___

--59

z z
0
m

11.4

47 87 131 2 0

9.6 10.1 12.5
10.5'

55
59 71

783
----

164 129 129
2

47 82 131 2 00 0 0. 0

9.6 11.1 13.2 10.5'

55
65

2
86 129 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 18

76
--

2 67 131
2

12.1' 12.1 13.2
10.5'

78'

60W 65 76
78'

12
19 24
31

19

Total Cut &lv.Cut only-

----

----

*
-

2
0

0
0 0

2.0'
-----

23'
31'

0

Cut & lv._

31

Cut onlyTotal.-.-Cut & lv.Cut only-

2
0
0

--

2
0

0 0

50 3
---

0
0

5.2'
-___

---57'
--

0. 0 10

0

---

-I

o
0

---38 62

2

0 0' 0
0

2

5.0' -- --

0

---

0

5.2'
----

31' ---

57'

0

Hardwoods 24 Total---31 Total----

123 120

26 48

5.9 8.7

108 115

25 48

6.1 8.8

40 63

8 17

12.3' 13.4'

70' 81'

' Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. 'Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. ' One replicate only. The other is hlank.

0

APPENDIX TABLE 5.

LOBLOLLY PINE PLANTED ON HILLS, 0.853 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

Age

otin

ostn

2

Tre Tes No.

DBH larger than 4.5 in. All diameters Basal Av. DBH Average Basal Av. DBH AverageTre height (ohb.) area Tre height (o.b.) area Sq.

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Basal Av. DBH Average Trees height (ohb.) area No. 0 0 0 0 2
03

Yrs. Planted pines
5

ft.

In. 2.0 3.2 4.4 4.7 5.3 4.7 6.7 8.0 7.3 2.1 2.4 4.03 4.03 3.73 3.73 2.6

Ft. 14 20 29 31 36 34 46 56 56
9

No. 0 69 470

Sq.

ft.

In.
-

Ft.

Sq.

ft.

In.

Ft.

Total

.___

8 13 13 17 17 22 29 29
5

Total____ Cut& lv. Cut only Cut&lv. Cut only
Total

v Ct Cut only

1,112 1,093 1,036 314 664 278 355 341 147 6 3 5 5 2 2 2
0

26 63 112 37 103 34 86 119 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0

154
430 139 289 292 140
0

0 9 76 25 87 23 84 117 42
0

4.9

5.5 5.4
6.1 5.5 7.3 8.6 7.4

28 35 34 41 39 51 60 57

0 0'0

1
8 52 5 0

10.7

493

13 86 9

10.1 10.7 10.3

57 67 69

Other pines

8
13 13
17

Total---Total

--_

----

Cut &lv._ Cut onlyCut &lIv.-

19 313
313

0 0
0

0 0
0

C

--

17
22 29

Cut onlyTotal Cut &

--lv.-

253 253
243

0 0
0

0 0
0 0 0

-_----

0
m

--

x
0 31' 34

29
29
1

---

0

mv m

Cut only-

0

0

Hardwoods
22

4.7 3 Total ___ ------------------------- 24 Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. 2Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. 'One replicate only. The other is hlank.
v.

Total.___

3

0

4.3'

1 15

0 2

4.8' 4.9

z

o

0
OI
Z,

APPENDIX TABLE 6. LOBLOLLY PINE PLANTED ON SLOPES, 0.836 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'
Age

-l 0 0

ostand' Portion
of
tn

2

Tre No.

re

All diameters
Basal Av. DBH AverageTre area (ohb.) height Tre

DBH larger than 4.5 in.
Basal Av. DBH AverageTre area (ohb.) height Tre

DBH larger than 9.5 in.
Basal Av. DBH Average area (ohb.) height

Yrs.
Planted

Sq.

ft.

In. 2.0 3.5 5.0

Ft. 10 22 37 36 46 44 58 69 69
113

No. 0 139

Sq. 0 19 108 40 114 33 113 157 56
0 0

ft.

In.

Ft.

No. 0

Sq. 0
0

ft.

In.

Ft.

n

pines
Total ____ Total ____ Cut & lV.Cut only__
-1,076

5 8
13

13

1,038 984

23 72 134

z
0 10.0' 10.4

5.0

29

17 17
22

Cut & lv. _ Cut only__

393 549
231 296 283 122
1

52
121 38 114 158 56
0

4.9
6.4

574
224 436 165 264 262 121
0

5.8
5.7 6.9 6.1 8.8 10.5 9.2

41

0

0
1

0
1

41

Total

.___

29

29
5

Cut & lv. Cut only__
Total

--.

5.5
8.4 10.1
9.1
2.1'

49 47 62
72 70

18
0

11
0

80

52

--10.9
11.8 11.1

52'
58 69 77 77

l1

z z
0 0I

160 46

121 31

Other pines

---------

8 13 13
17

Total.-----

0
1 1

0
0 0

-4.0' 4.0
--

0

---

Cut &lv.----------

32'
32'

0
0

0
0 0

---

17
22

29
29

Cut only--------Cut & lv.--------0 Cut only-----------. 0 Total ---------------2 Cut & lv.------0
Cut

0

0

---

0
0 0 0 2.4'
--

0
153

only

-

0

0 0
0

0

----

0

0

0

Hardwoods 22 Total 6 1 5.3' 4.6 10 1 5.0 33 5 37 21 4 5.5 29 Total 1 Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. 2Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. ' One rephicate only. The other is hlank.

30

34'

41

0 0

0 0

IN

APPENDIX TABLE 7.

LOBLOLLY PINE PLANTED ON FLATS, 0.340 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACHE BY SIZE CLASS, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

SPECIES GROUP,

iNN)

Age

Portion of stand'

Trees
No.

All diameters Basl Av. DBH Average height area (ohb.)
Sq.

Yrs. Planted pines

ft.

In. 1.6 3.5 5.6 4.6

Ft. 9 24 42 39

DBH larger than 4.5 in. Trees Basal Av. DBH Average (o.h.) height area In. Ft. No. Sq. f t.
0 90 275 49 0 12 66 8
_-_ __

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Trees Basal Av. DBH Average (ohb.) height area
No. 0 0 8 0 Sq. 0 0 6 0

ft.

In.

Ft.

8 13
5

Total

----

640
_. 551

Total ____

13 17 Cut&lv. 17 Cut only 22 Total 29 Cut & 29 Cut only Other pines

Cut & lv._ Cut only

443 129

9 37 77 14

5.0 6.6 5.5

32 47 44

11.0r,

278 109
158

96 28
99

7.9 6.8
10.7

56 53
70

249 91
158

94 26
99

8.3 :7.2
10.7

57 55
70

50 6
105

30 3
81

10.6 10.13
11.5

-- -59' -___ ___

63 623 86
86

Iv.

74

n~I

153
66

138 47

12.7
11.5

82 79

153
66

138 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0

12.7 11.5

82 79

123 45

127
40

13.2
12.8

cr~I

c

8 Total 13 Cut & lv.13 Cut only.___

5

Total----

17

Cut &lv.-

17
22

Cut only-

Total

.___

29

29
22

Cut & lv.Cut only-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 186 38 46 7.0 7.9 41 56 127 123

m x Im

0
m

Hardwoods

29 Total.___ -- - -- - - -- -

Total ----

35 45

7.4 8.2

43 58

20 25

16 23

11.8 12.9

67 85

z

'Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. 2Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. sOne replicate only. The other is blank.

0I
zn

APPENDIX TABLE 8.

LOBLOLLY

PINE PLANTED IN SWAMPS, 0.334 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

BY SIZE CLASS,

SPECIES GROUP,

0 0
0

All diameters
Age

DBH larger than 4.5 in.

DBH larger than 9.5 in.
Basal Av. DBH

of stand'2

Treeson aeal(.DBH) Tes ae (o.) No. 153 98 40 0 34 Sq.

AverageTre
height Ft. 6 19 42 -53 Tre No. 0

Basal Av. DBH

AverageTre
height Ft. -Tre No. 0

Average
height Ft.

Yrs. Planted pines 5 Total____ 8 Total_____ 13 Cut&lv. 13 Cut only Cut& lv. 17 17 Cut only 22 Total 29 Cut & lv. 29 Cut only Other pines
5
8

ft.

In. 1.1 2.8 5.7 --8.0

area Sq. 0

ft.

(ohb.) In. ---

area Sq. 0 0 0

ft.

(ohb.) In. -----

1 4

z
-----

7
0 11

7
22 0 29

1
6 0 11

5.4

30
46 -54

0
0 0

0 5 0
15 16 3

---11.8

0 m

7 22
18

1 15
17

6.8 --8.4

5.6 11.2
12.6

7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10.2'
----------

51 68 77 653
-------

7
22 18

1
15 17 4 0
0

5.6
11.2 12.6 10.23

51
68

7 0
20 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-------

Hn

59
68 78 78'

z
m

7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

77
653

11.5 13.1 11.4'

Total Total

0 0
aI

.___ .___

13 13
17

17 22
29

Cut &lv._ Cut only__ Cut & lv._ Cut only__ Total ____
Cut &lIv._

0
0

29 Cut only__ Hardwoods 22 Total____ 29 Total____
1'Except

-----------

------

0 0 0 0 0

232 170

57 65

6.8 8.2

39 56

190 153

53 63

7.2 8.6

41 58

28 35

22 37

12.2 14.3

70 85

'One

where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. replicate only. The other is hlank.

N

APPENDIX TABLE 9.

SHORTLEAF

PINE PLANTED ON HILLs, 0.659 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE 1 STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE

BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP,

AgeAldimtrDBlagrta4.inDBlagrta9.inotn stand Trees

of

Basal Av. DBH Average area (o.b.) height

Trees
No.
12

Basal Av. DBH Average

Trees

Basal Av. DBH Average

Yrs. Planted pines
7

No.

Sq.

ft.

area Sq.

In. 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.3 4.3 5.0 6.0 5.5 2.3 3.8 4.03
4.01 4.81
4.41 49:3

Ft.

ft.

(ohb.) In.

height Ft. No. 0 0 0 0 0 0

area Sq.

ft.

(o b.) In.

height Ft.

10 15 19 19 24 31 31

Total Total Total

.___

Cut& lv.
Cut only Total Cut& lV. Cut only pines

986 950 956 813 3551 427 366 181 11 4 5 5 3 3

15 35 69 85 35 59 72 30 0 0 0 0 0
0 0

8

014 1

4.8

22 28 27 34 41 40 15 21 303 323 363
341

176 307 122 236 272 137 0 0 0 3 3 0

26 50 19 46 66 26 0 0 0 0 0
0

5.3 5.5 5.4 6.0 6.6 5.9 -----4.81'

21 29 32 31 40 45 43

0 0
0

---

P-

7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4
0

10.3

58

-C

Other
7
10 15

Total____

Total

.___

19
24
31

19

Total---Cut & lv. Cut only-

-

Total

.___

31
24

Cut &lv. Cut only-

-

40:3

3

4.8'
4.9:

--363 363
403

0

--

0

---

-36' 50

x
m

Hardwoods

STotal,

3 32 4.5 5 1 Total .___ 16 3 5.9 46 13 Total____ 31 Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and 'One replicate only. The other is hlank.

5.0,3 0 3 6.2 sized replicates. leave.

0 0

z
-1

0

z

0
0 0

APPENDIX TABLE 10. SHORTLEAF PINE PLANTED ON SLOPES, 0.776 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE' Age Portion of stand'

All diameters
Trees Basal Av. DBH Average area (ohb.) height

DBH larger than 4.5 in. Trees Basal Av. DBH Average area (ohb.) height

Trees

Yrs. Planted pines 7 Total __ 10 Total15 Total
19

No. 1,210 *1,138 1,067 900 448 360 277 150 25 16 5 5 0 5 5 1

Sq. f t. 24 55 88 105 47 61 70 30 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0

In. 1.9 3.0 3.9 4.6 4.4 5.6 6.8 6.1 3.1 5.3 4.93 6.43 --7.43

Ft. 9 16 25 31 30 37 46 45 18 29 403 503 -453

No. 0 25 272 433 189 251 235 123

Sq. f t. 0 3 41 73 30, 53 66 28

In. ___ 4.8 5.3 5.6 5.4 6.2 7.2 6.4

Ft. __ 24 30 35 34 42 49 47

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Basal Av. DBH Average area (ohb.) height No. Sq. f t. In. Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 1 ___ ___ ___ ___ 10.53 10.7 9.73
___

n z
m

Cut& lv.

19 24 31 7
10 15

Cut only Total Cut& lv. Total ____

31 Cut only Other pines

0 0 0 0 0 3 19 2

__ P-I __
__

NDz z
m

__ __ 533 56 423

19 19
24

Total Total Total Total

1
8 4 5 0 5 5 1

0
2 1 1 0 2 2 0

4.63
6.0 5.33 6.43 -7.43

263
30 423 503 -453

0
0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
0
--

0
--

.___ .___

Cut & lv._ Cut only.
.___

0
10.43 ---

31 31
24

Cut &l1v.. Cut only-

9.23 6.83

553 503

9.23 6.83

553 503 --53

2

573

0 0 0

- -

--

Hardwoods

31
1'Except

2Total,

.___ 0 0 0 0 ---Total____ 14 2 5.0 49 7 1 5.3 where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates.

used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. 3 One replicate only. The other is blank.
IU'

--

0N APPENDIX TABLE 11. SHORTLEAF PINE PLANTED ON FLATS, 0.489 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE' BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP,

Age Yrs. Planted 7 10 15 19 19 24 31 31 7 10

of

instand
Trees No.
622

All diameters Basal Av. DBH Average area (o.b.) height

Sq.

ft.

DBH larger than 4.5 in. Trees Basal Av. DBH Average area (o.b.) height No.
0 15

In.
1.9 3.2

Ft.
8 18

Sq.
0 2

ft.

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Trees Basal Av. DBH Average area (ohb.) height No. 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0
3

I-

In.
___

Ft.

Sq.

ft.

In.

Ft.

pines Total_____

Total
Total Total

517

13 28

4.8

-22

Cut &

lV. lV.

Cut only
Cut& Cut

only

382 245 112 87 52 18 22 13 12 12 3 11 11 4 138 135

40 38 16 19 17

4.4 5.3

30 37

5.1
6.3

37
43 56 52 14 24' 50' 52' 58' 58' 65' 59' 43 58

7.8
7.2 2.1 5.33 7.5' 9.03 8.2' 11.2' 12.6' 13.2' 6.7 8.5

5
1 2 4 5 1

160 171 79 71 51 16 3 8
9

25 32 14 18 17 5 0 2
4

5.4 5.8 5.7
6.7 7.8 7.4 5.7' 6.3'
8.3'3

33 39 38 45 56 52 32' 27'
53'

a

1 2

10.03 11.5'

573 71'

r a-

Other pines
15
19

Total_____ Total____ Total_____

0

-12.0' 13.03 10.5' 15.8' 18.1' 20.9' 12.3' 12.0 63' 693 65'
C

cut &lv..Cut Total---

24

19

only--

31 Cut only Hardwoods
24

31

7

12 3 11
11

5 1

7
4

9.0' 8.2' 11.23
12.6'

52' 58' 58'
65'

4 1 4
4

2 4 1 6

Cut & lv.

9 4 38 60

77'
823

I-

9

7
3 10 35

m
m m

4 103 131

13.2' 7.3 8.6

59' 46 59

1 13 41

72' 733
76

-v

31

Total-----

Total_____

33 60

z
-I

'Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. 'Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. 'One replicate only. other is blank.

The

-u OI

0

APPENDIX TABLE 12. SHORTLEAF PINE PLANTED IN SWAMPS, 0.332 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE1

SPECIES GROUP,

-I 0 0

All diameters
Ae

DBH larger than 4.5 in.
Trees height Baa
area

DBH larger than 9.5 in.
Trees BalAvDHAerg
area

G)
X

Portion

BslA.DHAeaeBslA.DHAeae

Ae

of stand'

Trees

BalAvDHAerg
area

Yrs.

No.

Sq.

ft.

(ohb.)

In.

Ft.

No.

Sq.

ft.

(oh.b) B
v

vrge height

In.

Ft.

No.

Sq.

ft.

(ohb.)

height

In.

Ft.

z
n

Planted pines 7 Total---------.
10 Total

15
19

Total---------Cut &lv.

----------

57
6

34
12 0 0 0 3 21
15

19 24
31

Cut only------Total ---------Cut &lv.

------

1 1 1 1 0

0 ------

31 Cut only------Other pines 7 Total.-------10OTotal---0-----015 Total-19 Cut &lV--19 Cut only----------24 Total 31 Cut& lv . 31 Cut only-----Hardwoods 24 Total_
31
1Except

0 0

1.4 1.7' 1 3.1' 3.1"3 -0-1.0' 0 7.9'
7.7'

6 12' 27' 33' ----

3 0 0 0 0
0 0

1 0 0 0 0
0 0

6.1' -------

17' -------

0 0 0 0 0
0 0

0 9' 0 50'
55'

0 0 7
5

--

--

0 0 0 6 3 0 18 18 3 9 21

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 17 23 3 9 22

m 0

0 7
5

0 15
12

8.93
8.3'

53'
57'

0 25 21 6 160 159

0 18 23 4 42 58

11.6' 14.1' 11.2' 7.9 8.3

63' 703 65' 46 56

0 25 21 6

0 18 23 4

11.6' 14.1' 11.2'

10.5' 10.9' 12.93 15.0' 14.4' 12.4 15.1

55'
60'

-I

63' 70' 65' 49 57

653 74'

84'

Total-

137 39 8.3 150 57 8.5 where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates.

7080

Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. One replicate only. The other is blank.

APPENDIX TABLE 13.

LONGLEAF PINE PLANTED ON HILLS, 0.808 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

BY SIZE CLASS,

SPECIES GROUP,

Age Yrs. Planted
6

Porion of stand'

Tee re No.

DBH larger than 9.5 in. DBH larger than 4.5 in. All diameters Basal Av. DBH AverageTre Basal Av. DBH AverageTre Basal Av. DBH Average re re height area (ohb.) (o.b.) height height area area (ob.) Ft. Sq. In. Ft. No. No. Sq. In. In. Ft. Sq.

pines
Total

ft.

ft.

ft.

----

347

9

Total ----

14 Total_ 18 Cut& lv. 18 Cut only 23 Total 30 Cut & lv. Cut only 30 Other pines
6

328 344 321 115

5
14 36 55 16

197 207

1.7 2.8 4.4 5.6 5.0

8 16 29 39 38

0 7 148 220 64

0 1 26 50 12

___

__

4.7 5.7 6.5 5.9

25 37 45 43

0 0 0

0 0 0

___
___

-----56 66 66

0
0

0
0

___
___

ar

68

55 80 27

7.2 8.4

50 56

156 163

53 79

8.5 ---------------4.13

64

65
0

27
0

7.9 9.4 8.6

55 64 64

18 73 20

10 46 12

9.9 10.8 10.5

a

a

Total ---Total ---Total. --Cut & lv._

9 14

18
23

18 80 30
23

Cut only-

Total ---Cut & lv._

Cut only-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- ------283

0
0

0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 -473 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I-

m

x z
-I

Hardwoods
453 1 5.0' 4 3 0 5.5' 2 unequally sized replicates. Except where noted, each value is the raw average 2Total, used only when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. 3One replicate only. The other is blank.

30

Total ---Total ----

of

z

P-I
APPENDIX TABLE 14. LONGLEAF PINE PLANTED ON SLOPES, 0.589 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, SPECIES GROUP, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND AGE'

0 0

Age

ortan o
Total

All diameters tnad Tes No.
Tre
Basal Av. DBH Average

DBH larger than 4.5 in.
Tre
Basal Av. DBH

area Sq.

(O.b.) In.
1.4 2.6 3.7

height Ft.
6 14 23

Tre No.
0 4 53

Yrs. Planted pines
6

ft.

area Sq.

ft.

(o.b.) In.
___

Average
height Ft.
_-

DBH larger than 9.5 in.
Tre
Basal Av. DBH Average

Tre No.

area Sq.
0 0 0

ft.

(o.b.) In.
___
___

height Ft.

n
NLfl

9 Total

---.___

141

14 Total 18 Cut& lV. 18 Cut oniy 23 Total 30 Cut& lV. 30 Cut only Other pines 6 Total ____ 9 Total.___
14

* *

151

125

2 5 13

0 1 10

0
0 0

4.9' 6.0

243 37

--__

5-v

n z
0

rr

___

148 27 108 103 32 0

22 5 25 37 12
0

4.9 5.7 6.1 7.6 8.0
_

34 40 43 54 61

77
17 64 70 28 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 2 9 35

19 4 23 35 12 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 1 2 8

6.4 6.4 7.6 9.0 8.3

43 43 54 64 63

3 0 10 31

7
0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0

2 0 6 22 4
0

10.43 10.8' 10.9 10.9'

59' 62' 70 70'

z z
0

Total

18 23

18

Cut & lv.

30
30
23
30

Cut Total---Cut & lv. Cut only-

only.___

-

0 4 0 4 4 2 20 45

0

-----

-10.6' 12.4' 13.9' -- 59' 633 86' --

0I

0 0 2 0 3 3 1 3 8

--

--9.4' 10.83 11.9' 9.5' 5.1 6.0

-57' 633 83' 80'3 34 48

--9.4' -10.8' 11.0' 9.5' 6.0 6.2

--57' -633

1 2 2 0 0 0

83' 803 38 50

Hardwoods

Total

.___

Total ----

where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. Total, used only when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. 'One replicate only. The other is hlank.
1Except

0 APPENDIX TABLE

15.

LONGLEAF PINE PLANTED ON FLATS, 0.402 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND

AGE'

BY

SIZE CLASS,

SPECIES GROUP,

Age
Yrs.

o
Total

PrinAll

diameters re No. 89

DBH

larger than 4.5 in.

DBH larger than 9.5 in.

tin

Basal Av. DBH AverageTre (ohb) ~area hih
Sq.

ft.

Basal Av. DBH Average height ra (~ .)
Sq. 0

Trees
No. 0

In. 1.2

Ft. 7

No. 0

ft.

Basal Av. DBH Average height area (o.b.)
Sq. 0

In.
___

Ft.
__

ft.

In.
___

Ft.

Planted pines Total 6 9 Total

2

79
61

4
10

2.1
5.53

14
383

6
41

1
9

4.8'
6.4'

30'
44'

0
0

0
0

__
___

14 18
18 23 30

Cut & lv
Cut

only

Total Cut &lv.

87 39 31
43

18
7

5.8
5.4

44
44

51
20

15
5

6.9
6.5

51
49

8
0

4
0

10.2'
___

16 21 0

7.8 11.03
---

58

72"
--

37 31 0

16 21 0

7.9 11.0'
---

58 72'
-_0_0_

16 20 0 0

11 17 0 0

11.2' 12.6'

---61' 65' 70'

I-

Other pines 6 Total ------9 Total ------14 Total.------18

0

0
53 50 54 28
181

-11.8 13.0 15.2 15.6
13.2

r

23 30
30

18

Cut & lv.-----

Cut only-----

Total . -----Cut& lv.----Cut

only

025 038 56 33
49

9.5 12.6 14.0 15.2
7.1

0 0

59 72 78 80
41

50 50 54 28
136

0--24 0--38 56 33
45

9.7 12.6 14.0 15.2
8.3

0 0

59 72 78 80
46

20 40 47 25
20

0

0-15 0 0-34 54 31
19

-66 -72 82 81 73 82

0
m R

M
mi

Hardwoods
23 30 Total-------Total

-------

197

66

7.9

56

164

63

8.5

58

29

32

14.2

z

'One

'Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. 'Total, used only when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave.
replicate only. The other is blank.

APPENDIX TABLE 16.

LONGLEAF PINE PLANTED IN SWAMPS, 0.306 ACRE. STAND-PER-ACRE BY SIZE CLASS, STAND PORTION IN RELATION TO THINNING, AND ACE'

SPECIES GROUP,

0I 0
0

Age

o

stand'

All diameters Treesn No.
Basal Av. DBH AverageTre

DBH larger than 4.5 in.
Basal Av. DBH

offTes

area Sq.

(o.b.) In.

height Ft.

Tre No.

Yrs.

ft.

area Sq.

ft.

(ohb.) In.

Average
height Ft.

DBH larger than 9.5 in. Tre Tre No.
Basal Av. DBH Average

area Sq. f t.

(ohb.) In.
----

height Ft.

0
n~I

Planted pines
6

9
14 18 18 23 30 30

Total
Total

-------

Total
Cut

Cut &lv.

only

Total

Cut & lv. Cut only

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 12 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----48' 70'

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 5

00
0

z
0
--

m

O0 O0

z
m

Other pines 6 Total ____

0 -----6.2' 8.93

14

9

Total---Total---Cut & lv. _

18 Cut only23 Total____ 30 Cut & lv. _ 30 Cut onlyHardwoods 23 Total____ 30 Total____

18

o
5 77
103

0--

---6.23 8.9'

0-0-0 0 0
12 12

-----483 70'
70'

0 0 0 0 0
0 4

0

0 0 0
0

0-09 -- -

-----

0

4 --

1

7.5'
7.2 8.5

70'
42
59

4

1

7.53 7.8
8.9

0 52
60

272
260

218
231

72
100

45
62

35
56

11.1
13.1

62 81

Except where noted, each value is the raw average of 2 unequally sized replicates. Total, used when there was no thinning, is equivalent to cut and leave. One replicate only. The other is hiank. w

---

---

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM OF ALABAMA'S LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY

With an agricultural
research unit in every

major soil area, Auburn University serves the needs of field crop, livestock, forestry, and horticultural producers in each regiuo in Alabama. Everv citizen of

1 0
,

the State has a stake in

this research program,
since any advantage from new and more
economical wvavs of producing and handling farm products directly benefits the consuming

0 0 © ©
_

®

o
® (

public.

0

Research Unit Identification
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullmar. Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. Forestry Unit, Autouga County. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. Block Belt Substation, Marion Junction. Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. Wiregrass Substation, Headland. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.