Table 10.— Regression equations for flame-spread rate and weight-loss rate for ponderosa pine needles 



Treatment N Equation F' Significance' 



Variance ratio Percent 



Rate of spread 



DAP 



31 



Y 





1.9420 - 



0.30426X + 0.01313X' 



0.93 











M-MAP 



23 



Y 



= 



1.9419 - 



0.31906X + 0.01543X' 



.81 











S-MAP 



24 



Y 



= 



2.0152 - 



0.29478X + 0.01255X' 



.91 











Pooled 























nAP/M-MAP 



54 



Y 





1.9523 - 



0.31616X + 0.01471X^ 



.88 



0.138 



(3 



481 



NS 



VS All-pooled 















.76 



(3, 



48) 



NS 



DAP/S-MAP 



55 



Y 



= 



1.97073 - 



- 0.29478X -1- 0.01213X' 



.91 



2.36 



(3, 



49) 



NS 



VS/AII-pooled 















2.64 



(3, 



49) 



NS 



M-MAP/S-MAP 



47 



Y 



- 



1.99750 - 



- 0.31072X + 0.01410X' 



.86 



1.33 



(3, 



41) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 















1.55 



(3, 



41) 



NS 



DAP/M-MAP/S-MAP 



78 



Y 



- 



1.97724 - 



- 0.30872X -1- 0.01 377X' 



.88 











Rate of weight loss 























DAP 



30 



Y 



_ 



234.18 - 



18.002X 



.87 











M-MAP 



22 



Y 



= 



214.02 - 



15.693X 



.63 











S-MAP 



24 



Y 





217.77 - 



16.471X 



.80 











Pooled 























DAP/M-MAP 



52 



Y 





227.53 - 



17.280X 



.77 



.97 



(2, 



48) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 















1.17 



(2, 



48) 



NS 



DAP/S-MAP 



54 



Y 





226.56 - 



17.261X 



.83 



1.94 



(2, 



50) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 















2.09 



(2, 



50) 



NS 



M-MAP/S-MAP 



46 



Y 





215.99 - 



16.053X 



.72 



.11 



(2, 



42) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 















.57 



(2, 



42) 



NS 



DAP/M-MAP/S-MAP 



76 



Y 





223.83 - 



16.915X 



.78 











'Test for the reduction in variance between pooled and unpooled models. 

 'All differences in regressions are not significant below the 99 percent level. 



Table 11.— Regression equations for flame-spread rate and weight-loss rate for aspen excelsior 



Treatment N Equation R' F' Significance^ 



Variance ratio Percent 



Rate of spread 



DAP 



19 



Y 





- 0.33231 + 3.5877 (X"') 



0.97 











M-MAP 



12 



Y 





- 0.27498 -1- 3.4232 (X " ') 



.92 











S-MAP 



14 



Y 





- 0.05014 + 2.7322 (X " ') 



.87 











Pooled 





















DAP/M-MAP 



31 



Y 





- 0.31400 + 3.5369 (X'^) 



.95 



0.14 



(2, 



27) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 













1.12 



(2, 



27) 





DAP/S-MAP 



33 



Y 





- 0.24474 + 3.3264 (X " ') 



.93 



4.19 



(2, 



29) 



95 



VS/AII-pooled 













4.21 



(2, 



29) 



95 



M-MAP/S-MAP 



26 



Y 





- 0.16302 + 3.0786 ()(-') 



.89 



1.40 



(2, 



22) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 













2.23 



(2, 



22) 



NS 



DAP/M-MAP/S-MAP 



45 



Y 





- 0.25226 + 3.3512 (X"^) 



.93 











Rate of weigfit loss 





















DAP 



19 



Y 





264.86 - 121.24 (Ln X) 



.81 











M-MAP 



12 



Y 





306.48 - 147.31 (Ln X) 



.89 











S-MAP 



12 



Y 





196.25 - 52.689 (Ln X) 



.37 











Pooled 





















DAP/M-MAP 



31 



Y 





278.43 - 129.26 (Ln X) 



.83 



1.36 



(2, 



27) 



NS 



VS All-pooled 













3.20 



(2, 



27) 



NS 



DAP/S-MAP 



31 



Y 





241.43 - 96.375 (Ln X) 



.65 



3.74 



(2, 



27) 



95 



VS All-pooled 













4.38 



(2, 



27) 



95 



M-MAP/S-MAP 



24 



Y 





249.46 - 97.87 (Ln X) 



.61 



6.13 



(2, 



20) 



99 



VS All-pooled 













6.57 



(2, 



20) 



99 



DAP/M-MAP/S-MAP 



43 



Y 





257.21 - 108.64 (Ln X) 



.70 











'Test tor the reduction in variance between pooled and unpooled models. 

 'All differences in regressions are not significant below the 99 percent level. 



9 



