Variation in Twig Diameter-Weight Relationships in Northern Minnesota

Estimates of twig weight based on diameter at the start of the current year's growth for eight different species collected at seven sites in northern Minnesota were compared to determine differences among sites. Twig weights derived from an equation developed for the specific site, compared wit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of wildlife management 1971-07, Vol.35 (3), p.501-507
Main Authors: Peek, James M., Krefting, Laurits W., Tappeiner, John C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Browsing
Coefficients
Deer
Forest communities
Hardwood trees
Overstory
Plants
Regression coefficients
Research papers
Species
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Estimates of twig weight based on diameter at the start of the current year's growth for eight different species collected at seven sites in northern Minnesota were compared to determine differences among sites. Twig weights derived from an equation developed for the specific site, compared with weights derived from a common equation developed for all sites, both using diameter at point of browsing, differed by more than 20 percent in 25 of 44 cases. Beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta), mountain-ash (Sorbus americana), and pussy willow (Salix discolor) showed the greatest variation among sites; mountain maple (Acer spicatum), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) showed the least. Overstory canopy closure, browsing severity, and possibly soil moisture were factors that influenced these relationships. Diameter at the point of browsing varied significantly among sites for most browse species, and the moose (Alces alces) generally browsed twigs to a greater diameter than white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The data suggest that in northern Minnesota, twig diameter-weight relationships may vary enough among sites of different characteristics to preclude use of a common prediction equation.
ISSN:0022-541X
1937-2817
DOI:10.2307/3799704