Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas-fir.

Abstract

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Mis-scans identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Yield tables generated by the stand simulation program DFSIM (Douglas-Fir SIMulator) are presented for. a number of possible management regimes. These include a "normal" yield table; tables for stands planted or precommercially thinned to 300 and 400 trees per acre; tables for commercially thinned stands with and without prior commercial thinning; and tables illustrating the effect of fertilization with nitrogen. Guides are presented for number of trees to be planted or left after precommercial thinning and expected time of first commercial thinning. AuthorsThese tables can be used as aids in choice of management regimes, guides to stocking control, and as a partial basis for estimating probable yields of future managed stands. Their limitations arise mainly from limitations of the basic data used in construction of DFSIM. Users are cautioned on some misinterpretations.

Evaluating Douglas-fir and western hemlock volume growth in response to thinning and fertilisation

“…Four stand types were compared (natural, planted, planted and commercially thinned, natural with pre-commercial thinning and fertilisation) at three levels of site index (25.9, 32.0, and 38.1). These correspond to Tables 1, 2, 7, and 11, parts A, B, and C in Curtis et al (1982). The simulations started at age 30.…”

“…The fitted Douglas-fir model was compared graphically to published yield tables calculated using the Douglas-fir simulator (DFSIM) (Curtis et al 1982). The DFSIM is a whole-stand growth and yield model developed specifically for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest region of North America (Curtis et al 1981).…”

“…The simulations started at age 30. The starting volumes for the fitted model were taken from the corresponding tables in Curtis et al (1982). A utilisation limit of 4 cm (1.6 inches) was used in the comparison when more than one utilisation limit was published.…”

Modelling ingrowth in Mediterranean pine forests: a case study from Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Mediterranean Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.) stands in Spain

“…Usually, ingrowth is not taken in account in growth and yield models (Curtis et al, 1981;Curtis et al, 1982;Wensel et al, 1987;Rojo and Montero, 1996;Hann et al, 1997;Bravo and Montero, 2001;Montero et al, 2001) or, when considered, the resulting prediction is poor or not compatible with concentric plot design. Usually, the low performance of ingrowth models is due to the fact of not considering the stochastic nature of this event and fitting linear models based on database containing a large number of zero events (no ingrowth).…”

“…However, most standard forest models do not include an ingrowth explicit submodel. Among others, CACTOS (Wensel et al, 1987), DFSIM (Curtis et al, 1981;Curtis et al, 1982), FVS (Wykoff, 1990) and ORGANON in North America; SILVA (Pretzsch et al, 2002) or GLOBTREE (Soares and Tomé, 2003) in Europe; and other models and yield tables developed recently (e.g., Rojo and Montero, 1996;Montero et al, 2001;Bravo and Montero, 2003;Valbuena et al, 2008) do not consider an ingrowth model. Relevant exceptions are some of the FVS variants (e.g., Northern Idaho) do have a recruitment prediction submodel (Ferguson and Crookston, 1991) while PROGNAUS, developed to Austrian forests (Ledermann, 2002;Monserud et al, 2005) and the model developed to Nandewar Bio-Region forests in Australia by Muhairwe (Muhairwe, 2003).…”