I 



Destructive 



-U-_ 



1 5 6 7 8 9 10 



LOG DRC lIND SQUARED TIMES HEIGHT (FT) 



Figure 3.— Juniper destructive segmentation 

 data in log units witti regression line (solid 

 line) and 95 percent confidence bands (for 

 individual predicted values) fit to data. Three 

 dashed lines representing regression equa- 

 tions for visual estimates are overlaid. 



Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the equation predictions con- 

 verted back to cubic feet. Now, a tendency toward a 

 negative bias is evident for the pinyon equations. The 

 graph of the juniper equations indicates less bias than 

 observed for pinyon. 



The volume equations based on the visual data are 

 surprisingly close to the equation based on the destruc- 

 tive data. However, a small negative bias is evident in 

 figures 2 to 5. This corresponds to the previous findings 

 in table 2. 



I ■ " " " ■ ' I ' ■ ■" " "I ■ " " ' ■ " I • " " " " I " " "" ' I " "" "' I " ' " " ■ ■ I " " " " ■! 



1000 2000 3000 UOOO 5000 6000 7000 8000 

 ORC (INI SQUARED TIMES HEIGHT (FT) 



Figure 4.— Pinyon destructive segmentation 

 data in cubic feet with a regression curve 

 (solid line) 3nd three curves for visual esti- 

 mates overlaid. 



FS2. R! = 0.73 



I ' ■ " ■ " " i " " ■ " " r " ■ " " ' r " ' ■ ' ■ ' I ' ' ' " ' I " " ■ " ' I i I i " 1 1 1 1 1 



1000 2000 3000 UOOO 5000 6000 7000 8000 

 DRC (IN) SQUflREO TIMES HEIGHT (FT) 



Figure 5.— Juniper destructive segmentation 

 data in cubic feet with a regression curve 

 (solid line) and three curves for visual esti- 

 mates overlaid. 



6 



I 



