1902 2007. for 406 silviculture writing a report for 406 silviculture writing a report

19022007

FOR 406Silviculture

Writing aReport

FOR 406Silviculture

Writing aReport

Dickmann’s Expectations:

Becoming a professional silviculturist begins now!


• 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)


• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct


• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked


• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked• Correct, technically sound data


• Properly formatted• Legibly printed• Well written, grammatically correct• Spell-checked• Correct, technically sound data• Professionally presented



– Succinct, serious (a report is no joking matter!)



– Succinct, serious– Proper technical language



– Succinct, serious– Proper technical language– Clearly constructed graphs, maps, &

tables

What makes a good graph, map, or table?


• Relevant data—don’t show everything


• 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


• 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



Upper hedgerow at 0 cm 0.63 232 0.35 250



Table 1: Root-weight densities at different distances from alley croppingcontour hedgerows of Gliricidia sepium.



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



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.



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

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).



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



0

100

200

300

400

500

600


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)


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)


Bar or line?



0

100

200

300

400

500

600


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?



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

)


• 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


Your Expectations:

Your Expectations:

• Procedures, goals, requirements and due date for each report clearly stated

Your Expectations:


• Help available during preparation

Your Expectations:


• Help available during preparation• Graded fairly and objectively

Your Expectations:


• Help available during preparation• Graded fairly and objectively• Constructive comments given

Your Expectations:


• 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

1902 2007. for 406 silviculture writing a report for 406 silviculture writing a report

Documents

formattedlegibly printedwell

correctdickmanns expectations

good graph

relevant datadont

lab handoutiii

joking matter

professional silviculturist

area of forest types