1. 1902 2007

2. FOR 406 Silviculture Writing a Report FOR 406 Silviculture Writing a Report

4. Dickmann’s Expectations: Becoming a professional silviculturist begins now!

5. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted

6. FOR 406 Silviculture Laboratory Report Thinning northern hardwoods Submitted by your name Student #10987654321 Feb. 18, 2007 Title page

7. I. Introduction II. Methods (can be + brief--usually given in detail in the lab handout) III. Results IV. Discussion V. Conclusions VI. Bibliography (References cited) Sections in body of report (with data)

8. I. Introduction II. Methods (can be + brief--usually given in detail in the lab handout) Results Discussion III. Results & Discussion IV. Conclusions V. Bibliography (References cited) Sections in body of report (with data)

9. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct

11. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked

12. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data

14. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data Professionally presented

15. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data Professionally presented –Succinct, serious (a report is no joking matter!)

16. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data Professionally presented –Succinct, serious –Proper technical language

17. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data Professionally presented –Succinct, serious –Proper technical language –Clearly constructed graphs, maps, & tables

22. Figure (or Fig.) 12. Area of forest types in Michigan prior to European settlement (circa 1800). Data from the Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

26. Figure 1. Effect of spring prescribed burning treatments on woody understory cover in a mature red and white pine stand. Burned once Unburned Biennially burned

27. Figure 4. Mid-canopy woody understory structure in a mature red pine stand following prescribed burning treatments.

29. Table 1: Root-weight densities at different distances from alley cropping contour hedgerows of Gliricidia sepium.

31. Figure 5. Relationship between basal area and volume for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.

32. Figure 5. Relationship between basal area and volume for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.

34. Figure 4. Relationship between basal area and density for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.

35. Figure 4. Relationship between basal area and density for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.

37. Figure 3: Duff and Nolan Type 2 (radial) ring sequences for four x-sectional disks taken along the stem of a red pine tree.

38. Figure 3: Duff and Nolan Type 2 (radial) ring sequences for four x-sectional disks taken along the stem of a red pine tree.

40. Site preparationNumber of species treatment (stems >0.5 m tall) ______________________________ Burn18 Herbicide30 Disk29 Control34 Table 9: Effect of site preparation on richness of woody taxa in a shelterwood understory at Kellogg Forest (year 11 after harvest).

42. Figure 2. Effect of site preparation on density of oak regeneration (Quercus rubra + Q. velutina + Q. alba) under a shelterwood overstory (year 11 after harvest)

44. Fig. 8 -- Yearly height increment of white pine seedlings before and after release (from Grafton & Carvell 1970).

45. Fig. 8 -- Yearly height increment of white pine seedlings before and after release (from Grafton & Carvell 1970).

46. Fig. 8 -- Yearly height increment of white pine seedlings before and after release (from Grafton & Carvell 1970). Bar or line?

47. Figure 2. Effect of site preparation on density of oak regeneration (Quercus rubra + Q. velutina + Q. alba) under a shelterwood overstory (year 11 after harvest)

48. Fig. 2. Relationship of acorn production to tree size (From Downs & McQuilkin 1944) Gridlines?

49. Fig. 2. Relationship of acorn production to tree size (From Downs & McQuilkin 1944)

50. Pie charts?

51. What makes a good graph, map, or table? Relevant data—don’t show everything Numbered and appropriately titled Axes, series, columns & rows clearly labeled Units given (abbreviations ok) Numbers & letters readable & properly proportioned Not too complex or busy—KISS Avoid distracting backgrounds, excessive use of color, 3-D, & other flashy effects A report is about professional communication, not paper conservation

53. Measurements: Length and diameter at 30 cm of longest stem per stool of the interior 2 x 8 = 16 plants per plot and survival of all 48 plants in each plot recorded in late November 2001. Results: The NM poplars by far performed best during the first year (Fig. 2); some plants were over 3.5 m tall, virtually all were single stemmed, and survival was 99%. Among the willows, the two S. miyabeana clones (SX 64, SX 67) stood out as exceptionally good performers, both in terms of growth and survival. The S. purpurea clones (P 12, 94001, 94003, 94012) showed good vigor, as well. These clones also performed best in our 1999 field planting (see May 2001 Wisconsin/Michigan progress report). On the other hand, some clones grew poorly, even in the pampered nursery setting (e.g. SV 1), clone S 287 was nearly prostrate, and several (S 25, S 301) had relatively low survival. Because all plants appear to be well established, they will be cut back early next spring and allowed to coppice. Fig 2. First-year mean stem length of 2 poplar and 14 willow clones in the MSU Tree Research Center nursery, East Lansing, MI.

54. Dickmann’s Expectations: Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data Professionally presented Handed in on time

55. Properly formatted Legibly printed Well written, grammatically correct Spell-checked Correct, technically sound data Professionally presented Handed in on time Everyone contributes to team reports Dickmann’s Expectations:

56. Your Expectations:

57. Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated

58. Your Expectations: Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated Help available during preparation

59. Your Expectations: Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated Help available during preparation Graded fairly and objectively

60. Your Expectations: Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated Help available during preparation Graded fairly and objectively Constructive comments given

61. Your Expectations: Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated Help available during preparation Graded fairly and objectively Constructive comments given Handed back in a timely fashion (usually before next report is due)

62. FOR 406 Silviculture Laboratory Report Thinning northern hardwoods Submitted by your name Student #10987654321 Feb. 18, 2007 The reward Great report—well done! 20/20 DID