1. Do stem form differences mask responses to silvicultural treatment? Doug Maguire Department of Forest Science Oregon State University

2. Typical responses monitored during silvicultural trials -Dbh -Height -Height to crown base? -Upper stem diameters?? -Branch diameters??

3. Monitor Dbh and Ht (perhaps crown size), but do regional or subregional volume/taper equations adequately estimate tree volumes? How would you test statistically for silvicultural treatment effects on stem form?

4. Lennette thesis – Effects of stand density regime on stem form in larch Garber thesis – Effects of initial spacing and species mix on tree and stand productivity Scott Ketchum, Robin Rose – Does relative stem profile respond to early control of competing vegetation? Mark Gourley et al. – Are Swiss needle cast and/or nutrient amendments changing stem form in Douglas-fir?

5. Wider spacing  (same relative stem profile?) (increasing dbh)

6. Wider spacing  Larger crowns (length and width)  Change in relative stem profile? Influence on distribution of bole increment 

7. Are any responses in stem form accounted for by monitoring treatment effects on crown size (length)? Andy Lennette. 1999. Twenty-five-year response of Larix occidentalis stem form to five stand density regimes in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University

8. Lexen (1943): bole surface area as measure of growing stock (Approximation of cambial surface area on which wood accrues) =>Measurement of bole surface area to regulate stocking

9. Catherine Creek Levels-of-growing- stock study Stocking regulated by bole surface area =>Accomplished with Barr and Stroud optical dendrometer =>Many upper stem measurements over time

11. Growing stock levels 1:5,000 ft 2 /ac 2:10,000 ft 2 /ac 3:15,000 ft 2 /ac 4:20,000 ft 2 /ac 5:25,000 ft 2 /ac

12. 35 yrs old in 1966 at start of study Thinned twice, ages 45 and 65 (last thinning in 1965 Last measurement in 1991 – upper stem diameters retrieved for 25-29 trees per treatment On average 10 d.o.b.s per tree

13. GSLDbh (in)Ht (ft) I16.183.6 II12.274.1 III11.473.7 IV10.772.6 V 9.574.8

14. Increasing thinning intensity dob Height on tree

15. Crown ratio Increasing thinning intensity

16. Analysis: Kozak variable exponent model Dob/DBH = X C where X = [1-(h/H) 0.5 ] / [1-(4.5/H) 0.5 ] C = a 1 sin -1 (h/H) + a 2 (h/H) 2 Fitted to each individual tree, then SUR for a 1 = f( GSL or tree attributes (e D/H ) ) a 2 = g( GSL or tree attributes (CR) )

17. Increasing thinning intensity dob Height on tree

18. Heavy thinning Light thinning

19. Heavy thinning

20. Light thinning Heavy thinning

21. Conclusions: Relative stem profile was significantly different between the 2 most intensive thinning treatments, and these 2 were significantly different than the 3 least intensive thinnings There was no marginal effect of treatment beyond its effect on D/H and crown ratio

22. Production analysis requires development of taper/volume functions (without attempt at explicit test of treatment effects on stem profile) Sean Garber. 2002. Crown structure, stand dynamics, and production ecology of two species mixtures in the central Oregon Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University

23. Ponderosa pine/lodgepole pine mixed species spacing trial, planted in 1967 Grand fir/ponderosa pine mixed species spacing trial, planted in 1974 Both sampled in fall 2001 (34 and 27 yrs old, respectively)

25. Upper stem measurements from trees felled outside of permanent spacing trials Analysis based on Kozak variable exponent model: Dob/DBH = X C where X = [1-(h/H) 0.5 ] / [1-(4.5/H) 0.5 ] C = f(h, H, and D)

26. Objective was NOT to test for spacing and species effects on stem form, but rather on relative productivity. BUT needed a reliable volume or taper function for the site. Rather than two-stage approach, can a mixed-effects model be applied ? Is a random tree effect sufficient to eliminate autocorrelation among observations within a tree?

27. Nonlinear residuals NLME with two random tree effects NLME + CAR(1)

28. Grand fir Ponderosa pine Lodgepole pine Ponderosa pine Subtle spacing effects on relative stem profile (but estimated adequately from D/H) Average tree in each spacing

29. Spacing effect was not tested explicitly in taper model since trees were felled off the plots Instead profiles were plotted for the tree of average dbh and height within each spacing-species combination Effect of species composition was even more subtle

31. Conclusions: Random tree effect dramatically reduced the order of autocorrelation, but did not eliminate it. A first-order continuous autoregressive error process eliminated the remaining autocorrelation.

32. Conclusions (continued): The taper functions had <3% bias in almost all cases. Regional volume equations (Cochran 1985) differed from the taper equation estimates by 20-30% for grand fir, 20- 60% for lodgpole pine, and 2-10% for ponderosa pine.

33. Rose, Ketchum, & Hanson. 1999. Three- year survival and growth of Douglas-fir seedlings under various vegetation-free regimes. Forest Science 45:117-126. 8 treatments, 3 reps/trt @ each of 2 sites Area of herbaceous and woody control (1 st two growing seasons): 0, 4, 16, 36, 64, 100 ft 2 + 100 ft 2 woody only + 100 ft 2 herbaceous only

35. 1-ft 2-ft 3-ft 4-ft 5-ft 4 ft 2 64 ft 2 16 ft 2 36 ft 2 100 ft 2

36. Planted in February 1993 with 1+1 Douglas-fir Rose et al. (1999) present 3-yr results: Maximum growth response under the largest (Summit) or 2 largest (Marcola) areas of treatment (height, D 2 H, basal diameter) Greater growth under herbaceous only, not under woody only, relative to controls

37. Winter 2001-2002, stem d.o.b. measurements Does the intensity of early weed control affect stem profile beyond the effect on diameter and height? Do existing volume equations accurately predict stem volume of weeded plantations?

42.  Potential for systematic bias by treatment To test for treatment effects on stem profile, mixed-effects linear and non-linear models start finish

43. Analysis: Kozak variable exponent model Dob/DBH = X C where X = [1-(h/H) 0.5 ] / [1-(4.5/H) 0.5 ] C = b 1 (h/H) + b 2 (h/H) 2 Fitted to each individual tree, then SUR for b 1 = f( site, treatment, tree attributes ) b 2 = g( site, treatment, tree attributes )

44. Tentative conclusions: No treatment effects, but significant site effects. Relative stem profiles similar even without accounting for differences in height and diameter.