little correlation between the number of scars on a tree and dbh (p > 0.05). During operation, over 62% of tree damage was less than 1.5 m from ground, and 72% occurred within 4 m from centerline of track (Table 7). Also, a scar width less than 10 cm was composed of 65%, and 82% of scar length was less than 40 cm. Based on Table 8, the majority of scars occurred at #1, and, there were the least scars on #3. While trees in clumps followed this tendency, there was no significant difference among the location by quadrant in individual tree. When compared scar size according to tree composition in which there was a slight difference of scar width between clump and individual tree (Table 9), however, they were not statistically different (p > 0.05). However there was a significant difference of scar length between clump and individual trees (p < 0.05). Table 5. Summary of residual stand damage resulting from a cut-to-length thinning operation. # of Percentage of dbh of damaged # of scars per damaged Number of damaged treesb damaged trees per tree treea (%) trees (cm) ha Total RW DF AR 16.2 24.8 107.7 1.7 96 81 5 10 a Calculated based on all scar sizes. Value represents the ratio from total number of trees Note: we sampled. b RW: redwood, DF: Douglas-fir, AR: red alder. Table 6. Summary of scar characteristics from thinning operation, and correlation between dbh and number of scars. Average Correlation between dbh and # of Dist from centerline Height from ground Scar size (m) (m) Width Length r* p-value (cm) (cm) 4.8 1.3 9.0 27.3 -0.1963 0.0552 Note: *r is a correlation coefficient. Table 7. Scar distribution according to distance from centerline, height from ground, and scar size (width and length). Height Dist from Percentage from Percentage Width Percentage Length Percentage centerline (%) ground (%) (cm) (%) (cm) (%) (m) (m) 0-2 61 0-1 35 0-5 27 0-20 45 2-4 11 1-1.5 27 5-10 38 20-40 37
little correlation between the number of scars on a tree and dbh (p > 0.05). During operation, over 62% of tree damage was less than 1.5 m from ground, and 72% occurred within 4 m from centerline of track (Table 7). Also, a scar width less than 10 cm was composed of 65%, and 82% of scar length was less than 40 cm. Based on Table 8, the majority of scars occurred at #1, and, there were the least scars on #3. While trees in clumps followed this tendency, there was no significant difference among the location by quadrant in individual tree. When compared scar size according to tree composition in which there was a slight difference of scar width between clump and individual tree (Table 9), however, they were not statistically different (p > 0.05). However there was a significant difference of scar length between clump and individual trees (p < 0.05). Table 5. Summary of residual stand damage resulting from a cut-to-length thinning operation. Percentage of damaged treea (%) Number of damaged treesb dbh of damaged trees (cm) # of damaged trees per ha # of scars per tree 16.2 Total RW DF AR 24.8 107.7 1.7 96 81 5 10 Note: a Calculated based on all scar sizes. Value represents the ratio from total number of trees we sampled. b RW: redwood, DF: Douglas-fir, AR: red alder. Table 6. Summary of scar characteristics from thinning operation, and correlation between dbh and number of scars. Average Correlation between dbh and # of Scar size Dist from centerline (m) Height from ground (m) Width (cm) Length (cm) 4.8 1.3 r* p-value 9.0 27.3 -0.1963 0.0552 Note: *r is a correlation coefficient. Table 7. Scar distribution according to distance from centerline, height from ground, and scar size (width and length). Dist from centerline (m) Percentage (%) Height from ground (m) Percentage (%) Width (cm) Percentage (%) Length (cm) Percentage (%) 0-2 61 0-1 35 0-5 27 0-20 45 2-4 11 1-1.5 27 5-10 38 20-40 37