Table 4 .- -Photo- and map-stratification schemes ranked by ability to segregate 

 high risk sawtimber and young stands needing management treatment 



Mo 



: Stratification method : 

 : : Number : 

 : Description : of : 

 : : strata : 



High risk sawtimber : 

 Category 1 : 



"Winner c^t'^nHc; riF'^Hi'ncr 



L VJ Li lit: OLClllUo ilCC^VJ-Illfci 



t"TPPI t"TTl PTlt" 

 II l - '--1 Mill. I)' 



\_^aLCtui y tj 









----- - ______ RqtiV - 





1 



JL 



Stand size and 











crown rover 



Q 



y 



u 



7 



9 



__< 



.Stand si7P 



ULU11U O X V_, 



3 



9 



10 



3 



Crown cover 



3 



10 



4 



4 



Cubic volume -- 











SDD-nibir - foot 











class 



13 



4 





5 



Cubic volume — 











1 ,000 -cubic -foot 











class and topo- 











graphic site 



28 



3 



6 





Cubic volume - - 











1,000- cubic -foot 











class 



7 



1 



1 



7 



Topographic site 



4 



7 



11 



8 



Species group 



6 



2 



3 



9 



Stand size and 











density (map) 



9 



5 



8 



10 



Stand size (map) 



4 



8 



2 



11 



Density (map) 



3 



11 



9 



NOTE: Ranks are not on consistent numerical scale 



RELATIVE VALUE FOR COMBINED MANAGEMENT AND VOLUME INVENTORY 



The photo-classification method rated best for volume estimating is not necessarily the 

 best for estimating management prescription. In order to visualize how these methods affect 

 both jobs, we prepared a summary, table 5, which ranks each photo or map method according 

 to its ability to segregate stands classed as field category 1 (high risk sawtimber) and stands 

 classed as field category 5 (young stands in need of treatment). The relative efficiency in 

 volume inventory (probable percentage reduction of field plots) is shown directly below the 

 method number. Although the index of relative volume efficiency is numerically reliable, the 

 ranks used in this table should not be interpreted as having consistent numerical meaning. 

 Lack of data precludes not only rating the efficiency for management purposes but in most cases 

 even the testing of significance among ranks. However, this table does indicate that stratifica- 

 tion by 1 ,000- cubic -foot photo volume classes obtained from measured plots and aerial volume 

 tables is superior to any other photo method in combined management and volume inventories. 

 Other schemes combining cubic volume and other strata rate above average for combined sur- 

 veys, but may be less valuable than stand size or density or species in segregating young stands 

 needing management treatment . 



11 



