Post on 13-Jan-2016
19022007
FOR 406Silviculture
Writing aReport
FOR 406Silviculture
Writing aReport
Dickmann’s Expectations:
Becoming a professional silviculturist begins now!
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted
FOR 406 Silviculture
Laboratory Report
Thinning northern hardwoods
Submitted by your nameStudent #10987654321
Feb. 18, 2007
Titlepage
I. Introduction
II. Methods (can be + brief--usually givenin detail in the lab handout)
III. Results
IV. Discussion
V. Conclusions
VI. Bibliography(References cited)
Sectionsin bodyof report(with data)
I. Introduction
II. Methods (can be + brief--usually givenin detail in the lab handout)
Results
Discussion
III. Results & Discussion
IV. Conclusions
V. Bibliography(References cited)
Sectionsin bodyof report(with data)
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked• Correct, technically sound data
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked• Correct, technically sound data• Professionally presented
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!)
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked• Correct, technically sound data• Professionally presented
– Succinct, serious– Proper technical language
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
What makes a good graph, map, or table?
What makes a good graph, map, or table?
• Relevant data—don’t show everything
What makes a good graph, map, or table?
• Relevant data—don’t show everything• Numbered and appropriately titled
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7M
illio
ns
of
ac
res
Upper Peninsula
Northern Lower Peninsula
Southern Lower Peninsula
Figure (or Fig.) 12. Area of forest types in Michigan prior to European settlement (circa 1800). Data from the Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
LemmienLoop Road
Cmpt. 15--pine
Cmpt. 22A--pine
Cmpt. 22C--pine,yellow poplar
To
tal b
low
do
wn
KelloggForestNatural Area
Forestboundary
Open field
(not to scale)
To
tal blo
wd
ow
n
blo
wd
ow
n
Scattered
N
What makes a good graph, map, or table?
• Relevant data—don’t show everything• Numbered and appropriately titled• Axes, series, columns & rows clearly
labeled
Figure 1. Effect of spring prescribed burning treatments on woody understory cover in a mature red and white pine stand.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
12-May 11-Jun 10-Jul 8-Aug 4-Sep 1-Oct
Me
an p
erc
en
t co
ve
r
Burned once
Unburned
Bienniallyburned
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
No burns 1 burn 2 burns 4 burns
Ste
ms
pe
r h
a
2.0 - 5.9 cm DBH
6.0 - 10.0 cm DBH
Figure 4. Mid-canopy woody understory structure in a mature red pine stand following prescribed burning treatments.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Noburns
1 burn 2 burns 4 burns
Ste
ms
per
ha
2.0 - 5.9 cm DBH
6.0 - 10.0 cm DBH
Figure 4. Mid-canopy woody understory structure in a mature red pine stand following prescribed burning treatments.
First sampling Second samplingSampling position &distance from hedgerowbase Root-weight
density(mg/dm3)
Coefficient ofVariation
(%)
Root-weightdensity
(mg/dm3)
Coefficient ofVariation
(%)
Lower hedgerow at 0 cm 0.71 182 0.58 223
Lower hedgerow at 25 cm 0.52 256 0.41 396
Lower hedgerow at 50 cm 0.46 297 0.15 421
Upper hedgerow at 0 cm 0.63 232 0.35 250
Upper hedgerow at 25 cm 0.58 282 0.53 339
Upper hedgerow at 50 cm 0.28 308 0.17 465
Table 1: Root-weight densities at different distances from alley croppingcontour hedgerows of Gliricidia sepium.
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)
Figure 5. Relationship between basal area and volume for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Volume
Ba
sa
l a
rea
SI 35
SI 30
SI 35
Figure 5. Relationship between basal area and volume for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Volume (cubic m per ha)
Ba
sa
l a
rea
(s
q.
m p
er
ha
)
SI 35 m
SI 30 m
SI 35 m
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2000 1665 1084 665 426
Stems per ha
SI 35 m
SI 30 m
SI 25 m
Figure 4. Relationship between basal area and density for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2000 1665 1084 665 426
Stems per ha
Ba
sa
l a
rea
(s
q m
pe
r h
a)
SI 35 m
SI 30 m
SI 25 m
Figure 4. Relationship between basal area and density for self-thinning plantations of radiata pine on different site indexes in New Zealand.
What makes a good graph, map, or table?
• Relevant data—don’t show everything• Numbered and appropriately titled• Axes, series, columns & rows clearly
labeled• Unitsgiven (abbreviations ok)• Numbers & letters readable & properly
proportioned• Not too complex or busy--simple is best
Figure 3: Duff and Nolan Type 2 (radial) ring sequences for four x-sectionaldisks taken along the stem of a red pine tree.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year of Ring Formation
Rin
g W
idth
(m
m)
Disc Height 1.2 m Disc Height 13.7 m
Disc Height 21.8 m Disc Height 26.2 m
Figure 3: Duff and Nolan Type 2 (radial) ring sequences for four x-sectionaldisks taken along the stem of a red pine tree.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year of Ring Formation
Rin
g W
idth
(m
m)
Disc Height 1.2 m Disc Height 13.7 m
Disc Height 21.8 m Disc Height 26.2 m
Table 11. Significant variables in logistic regression models relating vegetation characteristics to beetle activity. Variables included
in each model are indicated by Pr > 2 or not significant (NS); a dash indicates that a variable was not included in the model.
Model variablesaBeetle type, model, and yearBiennially
burnedBurned
onceOverstory Saplings Large
woodyseedlings
Herbs Smallwoody
seedlings
Spring Summer
Individual taxa
C. soldalis 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 NS NS -- --
T. vulpeculusb -- -- NS NS 0.04 NS NS -- --
P. stygicus withtreatments
NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.004 0.001 NS
P. stygicus withouttreatments
-- -- NS 0.09 NS NS 0.007 NS NS
Total carabids
Woody vegetation &season—1994
-- -- NS 0.001 NS -- -- 0.06 0.0001
Woody vegetation &season—1995
-- -- NS NS 0.03 -- -- NS 0.0001
Treatment, woodyvegetation & season—1994
NS NS NS 0.05 NS -- -- NS 0.0001
Treatment, woodyvegetation & season—1995
0.004 NS NS NS NS -- -- NS 0.0001
Treatment, all vegetation& season—1995
0.002 NS NS NS 0.07 NS NS NS NS
All vegetation &season—1995
-- -- NS 0.15 0.15 0.09 NS NS 0.04
All vegetation &season—1995c
-- -- NS NS 0.02 NS NS NS 0.02
a Overstory = basal area at each trap location for trees >6 cm dbh; saplings = stems per ha 2.0-5.9 cm dbh; seedlings = stems per ha >1 m tall and 0-1.9 cm dbh;herbs = percent ground cover of herbaceous ground flora; woody = percent ground cover of small (<1 m) woody seedlings; spring season, or trapping periods 1,2, and 3; summer season, or trapping periods 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (cf. Fig. 1).b This model used five response categories—0 beetles, 1 beetle, 2 beetles, 3-4 beetles, and >4 beetles. All other models used six categories—0 beetles, 1 beetle,2 beetles, 3-4 beetles, 5-7 beetles, and >7 beetles.c Model included block variables; only block 2 was significant (Pr > 2 = 0.09).
Site preparation Number of speciestreatment (stems >0.5 m tall)______________________________
Burn 18Herbicide 30Disk 29Control 34
Table 9: Effect of site preparation on richness of woody taxa in a shelterwood understory at Kellogg Forest (year 11 after harvest).
What makes a good graph, map, or table?
• Relevant data—don’t show everything• Numbered and appropriately titled• Axes, series, columns & rows clearly
labeled• Unitsgiven (abbreviations ok)• Numbers & letters readable & properly
proportioned• Not too complex or busy--simple is best• Avoid distracting backgrounds, excessive
use of color, 3-D & other flashy effects
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)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Control Disk Burn Herbicide
Nu
mb
er o
f st
ems
per
ha
>0.5 m tall
>2.5 m tall
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)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Control Disk Burn Herbicide
Nu
mb
er
of
ste
ms
pe
r h
a
>0.5 m tall
>2.5 m tall
012
345
67
89
Heig
ht in
cre
ment
(inches)
-1 0 1 2 3 4
Year after release
Fig. 8 -- Yearly height increment of white pine seedlings before and after release (from Grafton & Carvell 1970).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-1 0 1 2 3 4Year after release
Heig
ht in
cre
ment (inches)
Fig. 8 -- Yearly height increment of white pine seedlings before and after release (from Grafton & Carvell 1970).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-1 0 1 2 3 4
Year after release
Heig
ht in
cre
ment (inches)
Fig. 8 -- Yearly height increment of white pine seedlings before and after release (from Grafton & Carvell 1970).
Bar or line?
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)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Control Disk Burn Herbicide
Nu
mb
er
of
ste
ms
pe
r h
a
>0.5 m tall
>2.5 m tall
Fig. 2. Relationship of acorn production to tree sizeFig. 2. Relationship of acorn production to tree size
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
DBH (in)
# o
f ac
orn
s p
er
tree
N red oakBlack oakWhite oak
(From Downs & McQuilkin 1944)
Gridlines?Gridlines?
Fig. 2. Relationship of acorn production to tree sizeFig. 2. Relationship of acorn production to tree size
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
DBH (in)
# o
f a
co
rns
pe
r tr
ee
N red oakBlack oakWhite oak
(From Downs & McQuilkin 1944)
Pie charts?
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
0
500
1000
1500
2000
SI 35 SI 30 SI 25
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stand age
cu m
/ha/
year 5-year PAI
MAI
0
500
1000
1500
2000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stand age
Vo
lum
e (m
3 p
er h
a)
SI 35
SI 30
SI 25
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.
0
50
100
150
200
Mea
n s
tem
len
gth
(cm
)
Dickmann’s Expectations:
• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked• Correct, technically sound data• Professionally presented• Handed in on time
• 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:
Your Expectations:
Your Expectations:
• Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated
Your Expectations:
• Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated
• Help available during preparation
Your Expectations:
• Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated
• Help available during preparation• Graded fairly and objectively
Your Expectations:
• Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated
• Help available during preparation• Graded fairly and objectively• Constructive comments given
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)
FOR 406 Silviculture
Laboratory Report
Thinning northern hardwoods
Submitted by your nameStudent #10987654321
Feb. 18, 2007
Thereward
Great report—well done!
20/20 DID