Document Type
Data
Publication Date
11-3-2026
Abstract
In 1984, red pine (Pinus resinosa) plantations were established at three sites in northern Michigan. From 1985 through 1992, 3083 individual trees from these stands were destructively sampled to determine aboveground biomass. The root systems were excavated for a subset of these trees (975 individuals). There were no significant differences in the relationship between either above- or below-ground biomass and groundline diameter or tree height across the range of biomass (3 - 6720 g for above-ground biomass and 1-319 g for below-ground biomass, basal diameter (0.3 - 10.1 cm), or height (10-417 cm) of the sampled trees. There were also no significant differences in these relationships among the three sites. Relative height growth (the ratio of total height increment in a year to the total height at the beginning of the growing season) was found to have a very well defined maximum that was a function of total tree height at the beginning of the growing season. This maximum relative growth rate was used to develop a new height growth index that can be used to identify precompetitive red pine that are approaching their potential height growth in field situations.
Recommended Citation
Reed, D. D.,
Mroz, G.,
Liechty, H.,
Jones, E.,
Cattelino, P.,
Balster, N.,
&
Zhang, Y.
(2026).
Above- and below-ground biomass of precompetitive red pine.
Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/all-datasets/83
ReadMe File
Comments
Publications that Cite or Use the Data:
Reed, David D., Glenn D. Mroz, Hal O. Liechty, Elizabeth A. Jones, Peter J. Cattelino, Nicholas J. Balster, and Yunfeng Zhang. 1995. Above- and below-ground biomass of precompetitive red pine in northern Michigan. Can. J. For. Res. 25:(1064-1069) https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x95-117
Reed, David D., Hal O. Liechty, Elizabeth A. Jones, and Y. Zhang. 1996. Above- and below-ground dry matter accumulation pattern derived from dimensional biomass relationships. For. Sci. 42(2):236-241. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1093/forestscience/42.2.236