Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean tree-level differences in standing dead biomass (oven-dry kg) between estimation methods (1 = CRM vs. CRM+DRF and 2 = CRM vs. CRM + DRF+SLA) by tree component and decay class for quaking aspen in the Lake States (2005-2009) and Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest (2001-2009).

From: Accounting for density reduction and structural loss in standing dead trees: Implications for forest biomass and carbon stock estimates in the United States

    Decay class  
   Quaking aspen   Douglas-fir
Component Comparison 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Top and branches 1 0.8 6.7 11.8 8.7 8.4 9.7 16.7 37.7 4.0 33.8
  2 1.2 17.2 23.2 21.4 21.8 10.6 59.9 82.2 9.7 59.6
Bole 1 2.6 21.5 39.2 30.0 29.4 60.1 104.7 237.9 13.6 215.7
  2 3.8 25.2 44.0 36.5 37.3 65.8 130.0 268.2 16.5 239.6
Stump 1 0.1 1.1 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.2 3.6 7.6 0.7 6.4
  2 0.2 1.3 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.4 4.5 8.6 0.8 7.1
Belowground 1 0.7 5.7 10.3 7.8 7.6 16.2 28.0 63.4 3.5 57.1
  2 1.0 7.5 13.7 13.2 14.7 17.7 41.4 88.1 6.0 82.1
  1. All means were significantly different at α = 0.05.
\