B. 



C. 



Measure of Damage 



Percentage of damaged leave trees: (low- 

 est = 1 , highest = 8) 

 Percentage of serious damage (Group II 

 and III): (lowest = 1, highest = 8) 

 Percentage with no damage: (highest = 1 , 

 lowest = 8) 



The rankings of the eight subtreatment units are 

 shown in table 3. Out of the 1 2 pairings tested (4 

 conditions x 3 damage measures), we found sev- 

 eral that were moderately well correlated, as 

 follows (1.0 = perfect correlation): 



Pair tested 



Correlation 

 coefficient 



Significant 

 at: 



Percent 



[Percentage with serious damage] x [Expected damage ] 

 [Percentage with serious damage] x [Fewest leave trees] 

 [Percentage with serious damage] x [Fewest total trees] 

 [Percentage with no damage ] x [Fewest leave trees] 

 [Percentage killed ] x [Lowest cut volume 



0.641 

 .570 

 .548 

 .559 

 .405 



95 

 90 

 90 

 90 

 80 



Table 3.— Ranking of stand conditions and logging damage ("1" is most favorable 



and "8" is least favorable) 



Stand condition 



Measure of damage 



Expected Cut 

 damage volume 



Unit (Col. 1) (Col. 2) 



Total 



7-l-inch 

 trees 



(Col. 3) 



Fewest 

 marked 

 leave 

 trees 



(Col. 4) 



Killed 

 (Col. 5) 



Seriously 

 damaged 



(Col. 6) 



Not 

 damaged 



(Col. 7) 



11-2 

 11-3 



1 1 

 21 

 21 

 21 

 21 



Rank correlation coefficients: 



col. 4 x col. 7 = 0.559, significant at 90 percent 

 col. 3 x col. 6 = 0.548, significant at 90 percent 

 col. 2 x col. 5 = 0.405, significant at 80 percent 

 col. 4 x col. 6 = 0.570, significant at 90 percent 

 col. 1 x col. 6 = 0.641, significant at 95 percent. 



6 



