PE EIE[R-Rg RESEARCH ON - HJ Andrews Experimental Forest

Table 4. Biomass and growth increments from harvested Pinus contorta trees
Stand and tree D .b .h .
Total
shoot
Bole 2
Stem wood Living branches Green needles
Ws
p /Ws Wb WWb Wn L\/Wn Wn/S 3
cm • kg kg % kg % kg %+ %
LH2 5 19 .3 145 111 .2 103 .1 2.2 12 .4 4 .9 12 .3 22 8 . 9
4 16 .5 91 68 .0 63 .1 1 .4 7 .8 3 .3 5 .8 18 7 . 1
3 12 .4 49 42 .0 38 .8 2.2 2 .7 4 .8 2 .7 17 5 . 7
2 10 .0 27 23 .4 21.0 1.5 1 .1 3 .6 1 .0 27 3 .9
1 7 .6 11 9 .2 8 .5 .7 .4 3 .9
Mean 1 .8 4 .2 2 1
1 .1 5 10 .0 23 17 .9 16.1 1 .9 1 .4 5 .5 1 .4 25 6 . 3
4 7 .6 13 9 .6 8.6 1 .3 .8 4 .5 .8 30 6 .7
3 7 .6 13 10 .8 9 .8 2.2 .7 5 .7 .8 28 6 .4
2 5 .1 4 3 .5 3 .1 .8 .13 4 .6 .16 31 4 . 1
1 3 .6 2 1 .8 1 .6 .05 .02 1 . 1
Mean 1 .6 5 .1 2 8
4 .3 5 14 .0 44 24 .2 22 .5 1 .7 6 .5 5 .1 4 .9 25 12 .6
4 12 .7 30 19 .3 18 .1 1 .8 4 .2 4 .3 3 .0 24 10 .6
3 11 .7 25 17 .4 15 .8 1 .9 3 .2 5 .3 2 .6 27 10 . 8
2 10 .7 18 10 .7 9 .7 2 .2 2 .5 4 .8 2 .6 20 15 .5
1 8 .9 15 9 .0 8.6 2 .3 2 .0 7 .5 2 .4 26 17 . 1
Mean 5 .4 24
Includes bole, living and dead branches, cones, and needles .
2 Stem wood plus stem bark .
3s refers to total shoot less dead branches .
Table 6 suggests that organic production
and turnover in the three stands is approximately
steady (Kira and Shidei 1967) . The
only meaningful net annual accumulation is
the stem wood component (and the unmeasured
root wood). Of course, my branch mortality
model assumed a steady state condition
for these stands, but the assumption is not
disturbed in table 6 where new growth and
branch mortality are balanced by the observed
contribution of branches and needle s
to the litter fall .
The inherent photosynthetic capacity o f
stand LH2 is high by virtue of the great lea f
biomass and surface display of current-year
foliage (Moir and Francis 1972) . The tw o
stands of the drier habitat have considerably
less foliage. Stand 4.3 has only half the increment
of current-year foliage as stand 1 . 1
(table 6). Since current-year foliage has
greater photosynthetic capacity than older
pine foliage (e .g., Larson and Gordon 1969) ,
this difference may account for the reduce d
amount of net stem wood production in stand
194