• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Introduction
 Measurements
 Analyses
 Results and discussion
 Application
 Literature cited
 Acknowledgement
 Appendix
 Back Cover














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations ; no. 819
Title: Volume prediction for genetically improved slash pine trees
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027566/00001
 Material Information
Title: Volume prediction for genetically improved slash pine trees
Series Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations ; no. 819
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Rockwood, D. L.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Publication Date: 1981
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027566
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Measurements
        Page 1
    Analyses
        Page 2
    Results and discussion
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Application
        Page 9
    Literature cited
        Page 10
    Acknowledgement
        Page 10
    Appendix
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Back Cover
        Page 18
Full Text


I February, 1981


Bulletin 819 (technical)


Volume Prediction for
Genetically Improved Slash Pine Trees



D. L. Rockwood







HUME LIBRARY

MAR 10 1981

I.F.A.S. Univ. of Florida






Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
F. A. Wood, Dean for Research







Volume Prediction for
Genetically Improved Slash Pine Trees

D. L. Rockwood

Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida, Gainesville


INTRODUCTION
There are more than 5.1 million acres of planted slash pine (Pinus
Alliottii var. elliottii) in the southeastern United States. Over the
past 15 years, an increasingly larger proportion of each year's plan-
ting has been with genetically improved slash pine. Many forestry
companies now plant improved trees exclusively; in the near future,
all slash pine planted in Florida will be of superior genetic composi-
tion.
At this stage, volume models for improved trees are limited. Ex-
isting volume equations for planted slash pine are a) limited to mer-
chantable volume prediction [1, 5], b) restricted to young trees [3, 6],
c) derived from a restricted geographic area [3, 6], or d) based on
unimproved planting stock [1, 5, 6]. This bulletin presents a variety
of volume equations and tables which are applicable to improved
slash pine in Florida and other southeastern states. Standards,
data, and results reported in English units may be converted to
metric units by procedures presented in Appendix Table 11.

MEASUREMENTS
A total of 228 sample trees representing 17 superior progenies in
progeny tests located in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi
were measured (Table 1). The six test sites were generally typical of
areas where slash pine is currently planted, with the exception of
Test 6-5, which is located on an exceptionally good microsite. Spac-
ings in the tests ranged from 8' x 8' to 6' x 12'. The progenies
measured in each test were representative of fast growing slash
pines now widely available for planting. Diameter and height
classes represented are shown in Table 2.
Diameters at stump height (0.5 ft.) and breast height (4.5 ft.) were
taken by diameter tape for all trees. Bark thickness at breast height
was determined by bark gauge. Other stem diameters and total
height of trees in five tests were obtained with a Barr and Stroud







Volume Prediction for
Genetically Improved Slash Pine Trees

D. L. Rockwood

Associate Professor
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida, Gainesville


INTRODUCTION
There are more than 5.1 million acres of planted slash pine (Pinus
Alliottii var. elliottii) in the southeastern United States. Over the
past 15 years, an increasingly larger proportion of each year's plan-
ting has been with genetically improved slash pine. Many forestry
companies now plant improved trees exclusively; in the near future,
all slash pine planted in Florida will be of superior genetic composi-
tion.
At this stage, volume models for improved trees are limited. Ex-
isting volume equations for planted slash pine are a) limited to mer-
chantable volume prediction [1, 5], b) restricted to young trees [3, 6],
c) derived from a restricted geographic area [3, 6], or d) based on
unimproved planting stock [1, 5, 6]. This bulletin presents a variety
of volume equations and tables which are applicable to improved
slash pine in Florida and other southeastern states. Standards,
data, and results reported in English units may be converted to
metric units by procedures presented in Appendix Table 11.

MEASUREMENTS
A total of 228 sample trees representing 17 superior progenies in
progeny tests located in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi
were measured (Table 1). The six test sites were generally typical of
areas where slash pine is currently planted, with the exception of
Test 6-5, which is located on an exceptionally good microsite. Spac-
ings in the tests ranged from 8' x 8' to 6' x 12'. The progenies
measured in each test were representative of fast growing slash
pines now widely available for planting. Diameter and height
classes represented are shown in Table 2.
Diameters at stump height (0.5 ft.) and breast height (4.5 ft.) were
taken by diameter tape for all trees. Bark thickness at breast height
was determined by bark gauge. Other stem diameters and total
height of trees in five tests were obtained with a Barr and Stroud







Table 1. Summary of sample trees by test, location, age, and size.
Size Range
Test Location Age No. of Trees DBH Height
(in.) (ft.)
1-2 Wayne Co., GA 16 13 7.7-10.6 53.6-69.4
3-2 Nassau Co., FL 15 31 7.8-11.5 57.0-68.2
4-3 Long Co., GA 11 23 4.6- 6.4 29.4-40.5
6-5 Nassau Co., FL 11 62 4.8- 8.6 39.4-54.9
7-1 Greene Co., MS 17 32 5.7-10.8 53.8-66.1
7-10 Escambia Co., AL 10 67 3.4- 6.5 24.0-37.2
228


Table 2. Number of sample trees by dbh and total height.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 E
(in.)
3 1 1
4 10 10 1 21
5 3 28 17 3 3 54
6 4 11 6 15 1 1 38
7 8 7 11 6 6 38
8 7 6 9 11 2 1 36
9 1 18 6 25
10 1 4 6 11
11 2 1 1 4
L 14 42 29 17 32 17 18 42 15 2 228


optical dendrometer. At the minimum, upper stem diameters were
taken at crown base, midway between crown base and breast height,
and midway between crown base and stem tip. In Test 7-10, stem
diameters of trees were taken by diameter tape at 4-foot intervals,
and tree heights were measured by logger's tape.


ANALYSES

Volume calculations were performed by the STX computer pro-
gram [4]. Tree volume in cubic feet was derived as the sum of in-
dividual section volumes calculated by the formula
cubic feet volume = 0.001818(D,2 + DD, + D )L (1)
where







L = length of section (feet)
D,, DT = diameters inside (dib) or outside bark (dob), as appro-
priate, at the base and top of the section, respectively
(inches).
A constant bark thickness ratio (dib/dob) was assumed for volume
inside bark calculations, based on the results of Bennett and
Swindel [2]. A minimum merchantable stem length of 16 feet was
employed for volumes to various top diameter limits. For metric
yields, total tree volume in cubic meters was obtained as the sum-
mation of individual section volumes calculated by a formula
similar to (1) with diameter and length entered in centimeters and
meters, respectively.
Four regression models were examined to develop the best volume
equations:
V = bo + bD2H (2)
InV = b0 + b,lnD + blnH (3)
VID2H = bo(1/D2H) + b, (4)
V/(D2H)2 = bo(1/(D2H)2) + b, (5)
where
V = volume inside or outside bark to a particular specification,
D = diameter breast height
H = total or merchantable height,
In = natural logarithm, and
b0, b,,... = regression coefficients.
Each model was evaluated by its coefficient of determination (R2),
standard error of the estimate, and distribution of residuals.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The range of diameters and heights included in our data may en-
compass the tree sizes normally encountered in a 25-year pulpwood
rotation. Even though diameters from 3 to 11 inches were sampled,
the bulk of the sample trees were 4 to 10 inches in diameter. Conse-
quently, application of the reported equations to trees smaller than
4 inches or larger than 10 inches should be avoided.
Overall, equation (3) was the best predictive model, i.e., had the
highest R2 and the lowest standard error on an untransformed
volume basis, and was employed to predict volumes inside and out-
side bark for the total stem and to 2-, 3-, and 4-inch dob top limits.
Each volume equation in Table 3 had a R2 of 0.97 or larger and an
associated standard error, as a ratio to mean volume, of approx-
imately 10 percent. For example, the equivalent standard error of












Table 3. Volume equations for genetically improved slash pine.
Inside Bark Outside Bark
Merchantability Standards, Height
Variable, and Volume Unit n R2 bo b1 b, R2 b0 b, b2
Total Stem
Total Height ft.3 228 .98 -6.3219 1.9160 1.0702 .99 -5.0623 1.8440 .8703
m3 .98 -10.4006 1.9160 1.0702 .99 -9.3115 1.8440 .8703

2" DOB Top
Total Height ft.3 227 .98 -6.3944 1.9552 1.0667 .99 -5.1627 1.8847 .8727
Merchantable Height ft.3 .99 -5.8181 1.6641 1.1190 .99 -4.6323 1.6938 .8743

3" DOB Top
Total Height ft.3 215 .98 -6.4978 2.0019 1.0633 .99 -5.3666 1.9653 .8771
Merchantable Height ft.3 .99 -5.3317 1.5488 1.0782 .99 -4.3884 1.6208 .8686

4" DOB Top
Total Height ft.3 163 .97 -6.3797 2.1020 .9704 .98 -5.5902 2.1340 .8338
Merchantable Height ft.3 .98 -4.7096 1.4040 1.0176 .99 -4.1650 1.4971 .8986






the total cubic foot outside bark equation was 0.585 cubic foot, or
8.7% of the mean observed tree volume of 6.753 cubic feet.
Input specifications to a volume equation depend on the equation
format. Diameter input to the metric equations is in centimeters,
and height is in meters. Height input into the merchantable cubic
foot equations is height in feet to the appropriate diameter limit.
Volume tables derived from the cubic foot and cubic meter volume
equations based on total height are given in the appendix.
For most diameter classes, inside bark volumes predicted by our
equations slightly exceeded volumes estimated by two other
sources but were less than predictions from a third reference (Table
4); these differences are likely due to a combination of genetically
and culturally induced stem form differentials among the sample
trees and differences in the diameter distributions of the sample
trees. With reference to the Goddard and Strickland study, our data
were probably derived from progenies that grow faster and have
better stem form. Differences in stem form may also exist in com-
parison with the Schmitt and Bower data; their sample trees may
have had lower height to diameter ratios as a consequence of wider
spacing, therefore, producing their higher per tree volumes
estimates. A factor common to all comparisons of volume estimates
for the lower diameter classes is that our sampling in the 3- and
4-inch classes was less intensive, and resulting predictions, par-
ticularly in the 3-inch class, may be weak.
A stronger indication of improved stem form in genetically im-
proved trees, and a resulting greater total volume inside bark, is
derived from a comparison with Brister's results. Through the
8-inch diameter class, our volumes for improved trees are larger
than Brister's estimates, which were based on data obtained from
plantations in large areas of southeast Georgia and north Florida
and represent the best available information to characterize
volumes of unimproved slash pine now established in the Southeast.
While the Brister volumes for the 9- and 10-inch diameter classes
were larger, conclusions concerning these diameters are tentative
since both data sets had relatively few observations in this range.
Comparisons of merchantable volume predictions indicated that
the improved slash pine volume predictions were higher for all
diameter classes in the case of outside bark volume (Table 5) and
through the 8-inch diameter class for inside bark volume (Table 6).
While these comparisons are empirical, they suggest that
genetically improved trees may have less stem taper and conse-
quently more merchantable volume than the commercial stock
characteristic of many slash pine plantations. A similar conclusion
has been obtained from comparing the 228 trees reported here with
commercial checks in the same tests [D. L. Rockwood, unpublished














Table 4. Comparison of total cubic foot volume inside bark predictions derived from various volume equations.
Tree Dimensions Equation Source
Total Goddard and Schmitt and
DBH Height Strickland [3] Bower[6] This Study Brister'
(in.) (ft.) ---- ..-----. ------------------------- ------.........-------- (ft.) ----------------------------------- ---------------
3 16 .272 .327 .287 .264
4 21 .604 .732 .665 .628
5 28 1.353 1.498 1.388 1.332
6 35 2.677 2.499 2.431
7 42 4.358 4.082 4.018
8 48 6.082 6.057
9 54 8.645 8.700
10 60 11.842 12.028
1. G. H. Brister, personal communication:
volume inside bark = 0.0016552-D.1299".H'. 01137




-h.


Table 5. Comparison of merchantable outside bark volumes derived from three volume equations.
Tree Dimensions VOB to 4" DOB VOB to 3" DOB VOB to 2" DOB
Total McGee and This McGee and This McGee and This
DBH Height Brister' Bennett [5] Study Brister Bennett Study Brister Bennett Study
(in.) (ft.) ------------------------------------------- (ft) .............------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 35 1.51 1.32 2.25 2.10 1.94 2.50 2.34 2.20 2.65
6 40 3.11 2.85 3.70 3.60 3.44 4.02 3.81 3.71 4.19
7 45 5.13 4.92 5.68 5.57 5.49 6.03 5.75 5.75 6.21
8 50 7.66 7.61 8.24 8.05 8.14 8.60 8.21 8.41 8.76
9 55 10.76 11.01 11.47 11.11 11.49 11.78 11.26 11.76 11.89
10 60 14.48 15.19 15.44 14.81 15.61 15.64 14.94 15.88 15.64
1. G. H. Brister, personal communication:

volume outside bark = 0.0061645-D2 05779".H74679 1 *61529-d3 27
D 3.47b361


where d = merchantable top diameter













Table 6. Comparison of merchantable inside bark volumes derived from three volume equations.
Tree Dimensions VIB to 4" DOB VIB to 3" DOB VIB to 2" DOB
Total McGee and This McGee and This McGee and This
DBH Height Brister' Bennett [5] Study Brister Bennett Study Brister Bennett Study
(in.) (ft.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------(ft. ) .----------------------------- ---------------------.....--... ------....
5 35 1.02 .79 1.57 1.45 1.18 1.65 1.62 1.37 1.73
6 40 2.23 2.01 2.62 2.60 2.43 2.75 2.74 2.58 2.84
7 45 3.82 3.66 4.07 4.14 4.07 4.24 4.27 4.21 4.36
8 50 5.87 5.81 5.96 6.16 6.14 6.19 6.28 6.34 6.33
9 55 8.46 8.52 8.38 8.73 8.82 8.68 8.83 9.02 8.82
10 60 11.66 11.85 11.38 11.90 12.12 11.75 12.00 12.32 11.90
1. G. H. Brister, personal communication:


volume inside bark = 0.0016552-D2'" "'."H37 ( 1.0 .71674d3....
D 3.65027

where d = merchantable top diameter


f w







manuscript]. If this is the case, expected per unit area yields from
plantations of improved slash will exceed the level anticipated sim-
ply based on expected diameter distributions, tree frequencies, and
volume equations for unimproved trees.
Comparisons such as the above assumed the same diameter and
height for a genetically improved tree and an unimproved tree.
While in this situation the improved tree may have more volume, in
reality, the improved tree typically attains a larger tree size than
the unimproved tree when planted on the same site. Consequently,
plantations of improved trees should have a higher volume due to
the individual trees being taller in height (perhaps as much as 3 per-
cent more) and greater in diameter at the end of a rotation in addi-
tion to having slightly better tree form.


APPLICATION
Predictions of 10 different volume yields of genetically improved
slash pine trees over a wide area of the Southeastern coastal plain
may be obtained by use of the equations in Table 3 and the tables in
the appendix. These predictions are most suitable for trees between
4 and 10 inches dbh.
The equations may be readily solved by computer or calculator.
Diameter and height inputs to the equation must be expressed in
natural logarithms. To derive a respective volume, the antilog of the
output must be taken. For example, the total cubic foot volume out-
side bark of a 7-inch, 50-foot tree is determined as follows:
1) ln(total ft.3o.b.) = -5.0623 + 1.8440-ln(D) + .8703-In (H)
2) ln(7) = 1.9459, ln(50) = 3.9120
3) ln(total ft.3o.b.) = -5.0623 + 1.8440-1.9459 + .8703-3.9120
= 1.9306
4) total ft.3o.b. = e1.9306 = 6.894








LITERATURE CITED

1. Bennett, F. A., C. E. McGee, and J. L. Clutter. 1959. Yield of old-field
slash pine plantations. USFS Southeast. For. Exp. Stn. Paper 107,
19pp.
2. Bennett, F. A., and B. F. Swindel. 1972. Taper curves for planted slash
pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-179, 4pp.
3. Goddard, R. E., and R. K. Strickland. 1968. Volume and weight tables
for five-year-old plantation grown slash pine. Univ. of Florida, Sch. of
Forestry Research Report No. 14, 7pp.
4. Grosenbaugh, L. R. 1974. STX 3-3-73: Tree content and value estimation
using various sample designs, dendrometry methods, and V-S-L con-
version coefficients. USDA For. Ser. Res. Paper SE-113, 112pp.
5. McGee, C. E., and F. A. Bennett. 1959. Cubic foot volume tables for
slash pine plantations of the middle coastal plain of Georgia and the
Carolina sandhills. U.S. For. Serv. Southeast. For. Exp. Sta. Res. Note
129, 2pp.
6. Schmitt, D., and D. R. Bower. 1970. Volume tables for young loblolly,
slash, and longleaf pines in plantations in south Mississippi. USDA
For. Serv. Res. Note SO-102, 6pp.



A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Trees measured in the study were available through the Cooperative
Forest Genetics Research Program at the University of Florida, and the
assistance of the following cooperators is acknowledged: Brunswick Pulp
Land Company, Container Corporation of America, Continental Forest In-
dustries, ITT-Rayonier Inc., and Scott Paper Company.
Field measurements were possible by the provision of a Barr and Stroud
dendrometer by ITT-Rayonier Inc. Assistance in data collection and proc-
essing was provided by W. D. Bartoe, M. S. F. Campbell, J. A. Hen-
drickson, R. M. Reich, and F. J. Spirek. Modification of the STX program to
accommodate our processing requirements was conducted by L. R. Grosen-
baugh.








LITERATURE CITED

1. Bennett, F. A., C. E. McGee, and J. L. Clutter. 1959. Yield of old-field
slash pine plantations. USFS Southeast. For. Exp. Stn. Paper 107,
19pp.
2. Bennett, F. A., and B. F. Swindel. 1972. Taper curves for planted slash
pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SE-179, 4pp.
3. Goddard, R. E., and R. K. Strickland. 1968. Volume and weight tables
for five-year-old plantation grown slash pine. Univ. of Florida, Sch. of
Forestry Research Report No. 14, 7pp.
4. Grosenbaugh, L. R. 1974. STX 3-3-73: Tree content and value estimation
using various sample designs, dendrometry methods, and V-S-L con-
version coefficients. USDA For. Ser. Res. Paper SE-113, 112pp.
5. McGee, C. E., and F. A. Bennett. 1959. Cubic foot volume tables for
slash pine plantations of the middle coastal plain of Georgia and the
Carolina sandhills. U.S. For. Serv. Southeast. For. Exp. Sta. Res. Note
129, 2pp.
6. Schmitt, D., and D. R. Bower. 1970. Volume tables for young loblolly,
slash, and longleaf pines in plantations in south Mississippi. USDA
For. Serv. Res. Note SO-102, 6pp.



A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Trees measured in the study were available through the Cooperative
Forest Genetics Research Program at the University of Florida, and the
assistance of the following cooperators is acknowledged: Brunswick Pulp
Land Company, Container Corporation of America, Continental Forest In-
dustries, ITT-Rayonier Inc., and Scott Paper Company.
Field measurements were possible by the provision of a Barr and Stroud
dendrometer by ITT-Rayonier Inc. Assistance in data collection and proc-
essing was provided by W. D. Bartoe, M. S. F. Campbell, J. A. Hen-
drickson, R. M. Reich, and F. J. Spirek. Modification of the STX program to
accommodate our processing requirements was conducted by L. R. Grosen-
baugh.


















APPENDIX







Appendix Table 1. Total cubic foot volume inside bark for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 0.802 0.975 1.149 1.326
5 1.230 1.494 1.763 2.033 2.306 2.582
6 1.744 2.119 2.499 2.883 3.271 3.661 4.054 4.450 4.848
7 3.358 3.874 4.395 4.919 5.447 5.979 6.514
8 5.004 5.676 6.353 7.035 7.722 8.413
9 7.962 8.817 9.677 10.543
10 9.743 10.789 11.842 12.901
vib = e**[-6.32187 + 1.91597-ln(D) + 1.07021-ln(H)]



Appendix Table 2. Total cubic meter volume inside bark for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (m)
DBH 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
(cm)
10 0.023 0.029 0.036 0.042
13 0.038 0.049 0.059 0.070 0.081 0.091
16 0.057 0.072 0.088 0.104 0.120 0.136 0.152 0.169
19 0.122 0.144 0.167 0.189 0.212 0.234
22 0.191 0.221 0.250 0.280 0.310
25 0.320 0.358 0.396
28 0.397 0.445 0.493
vib = e** [-10.40065 + 1.91597-ln(D) + 1.07021-ln(H)]


I A I .


*" v i


. I




- I U r


Appendix Table 3. Cubic foot volume inside bark to a 2-inch dob for genetically improved slash pine.

Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 0.779 0.946 1.115 1.286
5 1.205 1.463 1.725 1.989 2.255 2.523
6 1.720 2.090 2.463 2.840 3.221 3.604 3.989 4.377 4.768
7 3.330 3.839 4.354 4.871 5.393 5.917 6.445
8 4.985 5.652 6.325 7.002 7.683 8.367
9 7.963 8.815 9.672 10.534
10 9.784 10.831 11.885 12.944
vib = e** [-6.39438 + 1.95520-ln(D) + 1.06674-In(H)]



Appendix Table 4. Cubic foot volume inside bark to a 3-inch dob for genetically improved slash pine.

Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 0.741 0.899 1.059 1.221
5 1.158 1.406 1.656 1.909 2.163 2.420
6 1.668 2.025 2.386 2.750 3.117 3.486 3.858 4.232 4.608
7 3.248 3.744 4.243 4.746 5.252 5.762 6.273
8 4.891 5.544 6.201 6.862 7.527 8.196
9 7.850 8.687 9.529 10.375
10 9.693 10.727 11.766 12.812
vib = e** [-6.49779 + 2.00194-ln(D) + 1.06327-ln(H)]


r







Appendix Table 5. Cubic foot volume inside bark to a 4-inch dob for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 0.710 0.848 0.984 1.121
5 1.135 1.355 1.574 1.791 2.008 2.224
6 1.665 1.988 2.308 2.628 2.946 3.263 3.579 3.895 4.209
7 3.192 3.633 4.073 4.512 4.949 5.385 5.820
8 4.811 5.393 5.974 6.553 7.130 7.706
9 7.652 8.394 9.133 9.871
10 9.549 10.474 11.397 12.318
vib = e** [-6.37969 +2.10196-ln(D) + 0.97039-ln(H)]



Appendix Table 6. Total cubic foot volume outside bark for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 1.344 1.575 1.801 2.023
5 2.028 2.377 2.718 3.053 3.382 3.707
6 2.838 3.326 3.804 4.273 4.734 5.189 5.637 6.081 6.520
7 5.055 5.678 6.290 6.895 7.491 8.080 8.663
8 7.263 8.047 8.820 9.582 10.336 11.082
9 10.959 11.907 12.844 13.770
10 13.309 14.460 15.598 16.723
vob = e** [-5.06233 + 1.84401-ln(D) + 0.87034-ln(H)]


A I


< k t


r




'1 .


Appendix Table 7. Total cubic meter volume outside bark for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (m)
DBH 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
(cm)
10 0.039 0.047 0.055 0.063
13 0.063 0.076 0.089 0.102 0.114 0.127
16 0.092 0.111 0.131 0.149 0.168 0.186 0.204 0.221
19 0.179 0.205 0.230 0.255 0.280 0.304
22 0.269 0.302 0.334 0.366 0.398
25 0.423 0.464 0.504
28 0.521 0.571 0.621
vob = e** [-9.31149 + 1.84401-ln(D) + 0.87034-ln(H)]



Appendix Table 8. Cubic foot volume outside bark to a 2-inch dob for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 1.296 1.519 1.738 1.953
5 1.973 2.313 2.646 2.973 3.295 3.613
6 2.782 3.262 3.731 4.192 4.646 5.094 5.536 5.972 6.404
7 4.989 5.606 6.213 6.811 7.402 7.986 8.563
8 7.210 7.991 8.760 9.520 10.271 11.014
9 10.937 11.886 12.824 13.751
10 13.340 14.497 15.640 16.772
vob = e** [-5.16268 + 1.88467-ln(D) + 0.87265-ln(H)]


w S


rr







Appendix Table 9. Cubic foot volume outside bark to a 3-inch top for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in.)
4 1.198 1.406 1.610 1.810
5 1.858 2.180 2.496 2.806 3.112 3.413
6 2.659 3.120 3.572 4.015 4.452 4.883 5.309 5.730 6.147
7 4.835 5.436 6.028 6.611 7.188 7.758 8.322
8 7.067 7.837 8.595 9.345 10.086 10.819
9 10.834 11.779 12.713 13.637
10 13.326 14.488 15.637 16.775
vob = e** [-5.36655 + 1.96528-ln(D) + 0.87706-ln(H)]



Appendix Table 10. Cubic foot volume outside bark to a 4-inch dob for genetically improved slash pine.
Total Height (ft.)
DBH 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
(in).
4 1.053 1.226 1.394 1.559
5 1.696 1.974 2.245 2.509 2.768 3.022
6 2.502 2.913 3.312 3.702 4.084 4.459 4.828 5.192 5.550
7 4.603 5.145 5.675 6.196 6.709 7.214 7.712
8 6.841 7.547 8.239 8.921 9.592 10.254
9 10.594 11.470 12.333 13.184
10 13.265 14.362 15.443 16.508
vob = e** [-5.59022 + 2.13397-ln(D) + 0.83376-ln(H)]


A 4 *


1 a


1 A I








Appendix Table 11. English to metric conversion factors.
Multiply By To Obtain

inches 2.54 centimeters
feet .3048 meters
acres .4047 hectares
cubic feet .02832 cubic meters



































This public document was promulgated at an annual cost of
$1,322.24 or 66 cents per copy, to provide foresters with
volume equations applicable to improved slash pine.



All programs and related activities sponsored or assisted by the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Stations are open to all persons regardless of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or handicap.


..... IF S
REEAC




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs